bkoganbing
How well I remember the kidnapping of Frank Sinatra, Jr. which followed closely on the wake of JFK's assassination. At the time I kept thinking why of all celebrities would someone choose Frank Sinatra's family to victimize with all of that man's legal and extralegal resources? Yet three rejects from the gang that couldn't shoot straight actually did that incredible deed which fortunately for them, no harm, no foul and they all got incredibly early paroles. But the story of their trials and jail sentences is not told in this film.One factual error that was made was that the strategy of claiming that the whole thing was a publicity hoax that young Sinatra was in on was one used by their defense attorney later on at trial. The three perpetrators didn't claim that right away.Other than that, William H. Macy, David Arquette, and Ryan Browning are the three kidnappers in a story that sticks pretty factually close to the events as they happen. James Russo does a fine job playing the senior Sinatra, it's like seeing Old Blue Eyes himself. Fortunately the role did not call for singing like Sinatra.Showtime produced this film for their network and the plot centered around David Arquette playing Barry Keenan the organizer of the plot. His rather amoral character is gone into somewhat, the other two roles of John Irwin (William H. Macy) and Joe Amsler (Ryan Browning) are left kind of up in the air by the script.Stealing Sinatra is a factual retelling of one of the strangest events of the Sixties. A bit above average for a made for TV film.
FlickersRULE
Just saw this and it's not as bad as others make it out to be.Yes, Arquette is a minor weak link but otherwise this film has a lot of good things going for it - and frankly I think how the kidnappers is portrayed adds to the realism of the film - I mean you have to be either dumb or crazy to try something like this - or both.Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs up and I can see why - it was refreshing to see a story like this told from a lighter angle rather than the melodramatic stance it usually is.Undoubtedly those who didn't "get" the Arquette character missed the flaws in personality which Arquette did portray well... the guy has a screw loose and is as Macy says, "in waaaaay over his head".As far as the directing being a little clunky, I do have to agree, although perhaps its suits this somewhat unconventional storyline. All in all, It was enjoyable until the end, nevertheless it gets 7 stars because it was a little rough around the edges.
PersianPlaya408
Underwoods goofy story about a young man(Arquette) who convinces his friends that they should kidnap Frank Sinatra Jr. (Nicholas). The film is written ridiculously, direction is odd, dialogues are out of place and scrambled, the actors didn't do it much justice either, Arquette is annoying throughout, Ian Nicholas was nonexistent, Macy was decent, but only because hes a pretty good actor and probably just tried his best not to come out of this project with a totally embarrassing performance, he was at least tolerable. This is a stupid film in my eyes, boring at times, not entertaining, just a film that i wouldn't recommend to anybody. IMDb Rating: 5.5, my rating: 4/10
Nozz
Forty years ago when Frank Sinatra Jr. was kidnapped, those who read the story weren't sure how seriously to take it. Intentionally or unintentionally, this movie captures the uneasiness. Sinatra Jr. is portrayed as a hapless dweeb, his kidnappers as quixotic eccentrics. An excellent soundtrack featuring period music serves to distance us from the whole 1960s setting. But other touches, particularly James Russo's brief appearances as Sinatra Sr., give a powerful believability to the family's victimization.
AD
