Another Psych movie! Now, I need to come clean about something. I watched this movie to write a review

on it and then waited, oh I don't know, maybe a whole month to write it? Which I think is the appropriate amount of time to wait to make public comments about a movie. Having said that, I remember what I wanted to say about it, mostly, and pretty much remember what happened without having to watch it again.
Not that it wouldn't be worth watching again. That's not where this review is going.
Anyway, we're diving into an unhelpful review of The Thomas Crown Affair, the 1999 remake, with a new layer of unhelpfulness! So strap in!
Briefly, and Without Spoilers
Catherine Banning (Rene Russo) is called in to investigate the theft of a priceless Monet painting and all signs begin to point to billionaire entrepreneur, Thomas Crown (Pierce Brosnan). But no matter how hard they dig, they can't figure out how he did it.
As Banning digs deeper, her connection to Crown grows and she finds herself falling for her prime suspect. Eventually, she's forced to reconcile her job with her heart and must choose where her loyalties lie.
Fantasy: Ooh La La (Spoilers Ahead!!!)
Really, the one thing that stood out to me was the fantasy of the movie. Not like Lord of the Rings, like male vs. female fantasy. And I think this stood out even more because I'd just watched Ocean's 11.
Ocean's 11 very much felt like a male fantasy movie. George Clooney and Brad Pitt were the coolest guys in the room at all times, they were mostly immune to consequence, and Clooney got the girl in the end. Their coolness was the driving force of the movie's success.
The Thomas Crown Affair very much feels like it's appealing to the female fantasy. Thomas Crown exudes the same level of swagger and confidence that Clooney's character did, but he's not the protagonist. This is all about Russo's character. She's the protagonist. And she's swept off her feet by this dangerous, seductive, and mysterious man (who's also conveniently very wealthy). She knows she should remain professional, but she just can't help herself.
It's completely out of a romance novel. And I did check and I guess it's based off a book? I don't know, there was a book that came out the same year as the original movie in 1968, which seems virtually impossible, but there's also no way it would have been just a coincidence. Sound off if you know the story behind that.
But my point stands; it's a romance novel brought to the silver screen. You have a strong woman who falls in love with a man she shouldn't who also happens to be wealthy and very good at sex. What's not to want?
Now, you all know that I'm not much of a romantic. Dating someone like Thomas Crown feels overstimulating, and not in a good way, but I personally know plenty of women who would consider Thomas Crown the ultimate fantasy. And it's interesting to compare some of the differences between The Thomas Crown Affair and something like Ocean's 11.

Because I know it's male fantasy vs. female fantasy. And I know that other people know that, too. But why? Why do we watch one movie and think, "This is for the boys," and then watch another movie and think, "This is for the girls"?
You could probably write a dissertation dissecting this idea, but I don't have the time or patience for that. But I've got a few ideas.
What is Love? (Baby Don't Hurt Me)
Love and relationships seem to be depicted very differently in these male vs. female fantasy movies. Female fantasy movies come with a lot of romance, grand gestures, and devotion. Male fantasy movies seem to more often treat relationships as status symbols. The man has to get the girl in the end because that's what's expected.
And yes, this is a classic gender argument, but it's true. Think about the depiction of each relationship. With Banning and Crown, we watch their relationship form. We watch Banning fall in love with Crown in real time. We know what makes him so attractive to her specifically. With Danny Ocean and Tessa, we really just infer things about their relationship based on what we know about Danny and the couple of conversations they have. The relationship is established, but we don't know their story in the same way we know the Thomas Crown Affair story.
Which leads to a key difference between the male fantasy and the female fantasy. To attract a stereotypical female audience, you have to include the seduction and the details of the love story in order for that particular audience to care. The typical male fantasy movie doesn't focus so much on that. The relationship is part of the story, but only peripherally. A successful relationship is part of the end goal. It's a prize.

And this isn't necessarily a reflection on what all men and women want. Every individual is unique and adheres, or doesn't adhere, to stereotypes in different ways. But when it comes to entertainment, it seems like there are some specific assumptions about what certain audiences want. So the idea of the male fantasy vs. the female fantasy plays out in these ways on screen.
But Was it a Good Movie?
I realize I've gone off on a tangent without answering the most crucial question for any movie review blog. And yeah, it was fine. I'm obviously going to be a little biased, but it had a lot going for it. Good casting, decent story, good chemistry. Sure, there was the occasional wtf moment, but when won't you get that with a story like this?
Overall, I think it was entertaining and it certainly wasn't a bad movie. If you like romance movies, I think you'll really like this one. It feels like a classic and I did genuinely enjoy the scene toward the end where Crown returns the painting. Even if you're not a huge romance fan, like me, it's not the least entertaining hour and a half of your life. It's definitely a good time, and if you haven't seen it, it's worth the watch.
Comments