sddavis63 Generally speaking, I like Morgan Freeman, and in all honesty I guess he was OK in this. There's nothing in his performance as Keith Ripley that I could really criticize. Ripley is a professional jewel thief, who's planning to pull off the heist of the century; maybe of all time: stealing two Faberge eggs worth $20 million each from a New York City jewel dealer. In order to help him with that, he recruits a partner - Gabriel Martin (Antonio Banderas.) Banderas isn't really my favourite actor, but like Freeman, he does well enough in the role. The problem here wasn't the performances of the two leads. It was the material. It was, in short, dreadful.In the first few scenes of the movie you get a sense that this movie either wants to be a comedic sort of "heist" story or an action thriller. There are elements of both involved in those first few scenes. Or, maybe it's going to try to combine the two. I was actually intrigued after about 10 minutes to see which of those three options was going to be taken. And then - it took none of the three. After teasing us for those few minutes with what might have made a good movie, it just became a pretty standard, every day heist movie, with the Russian mafia thrown in for good measure, and a beautiful girl (Alex, played by Radha Mitchell) being considered necessary apparently.From about that 10 minute point on, I was honestly lost. I mean, not in terms of the story - that was clear enough; these guys want to steal the Faberge eggs, and Gabriel has the hots for Alex, who happens to be Ripley's god-daughter, and the daughter of one of the Russian mobster- types, while all the while the NYPD are trying to nail Ripley, even though they've been told by the FBI not to nail Ripley ... Did I say that was clear? OK. I exaggerated a bit. Truthfully, though, I wasn't really lost. I was bored. Stupefied. For most of the movie I was wondering why an accomplished actor like Morgan Freeman would take on a role in a movie like this?Then, as the end approaches, it's almost as if everybody who had anything to do with this (especially, I guess, the writers who produced the script) suddenly realized that they had quite a turkey on their hands - and so all of a sudden we're thrown twist after twist after twist, except that by this time I wasn't that interested in trying to keep track of all the twists, because I had just simply stopped caring. (2/10)

Siamois There's been an increase of "light crime" movies lately. The Ocean trilogy, Duplicity and so on. These films usually mix a dose of humor and flirtation along with some kind of heist and some thrills. Thick as Thieves is the latest, and probably the worse in that sub genre of cinema because it tries to follow the formula without fully understanding it. It all starts with an uninspired screenplay from Ted Humphrey, who throws at us cardboard characters that we have seen a thousand times. The clever and mysterious old thief. His new recruit who doesn't trust him, a sexy and detached love interest and of course, the old cop who's been looking to lock up the master thief for a while but never gets to it. Yawn. Writer Humphrey and director Leder attempt to inject a light-hearted tone which clashes with the actual story almost scene after scene. Whenever a character is threatened, we never believe they are in any actual danger because of the light tone, so every attempt to thrill us falls flat. Worse, the humor and light-hearted material is never funny or clever. So it fails both to make us laugh or to create tension. Another aspect of the formula is usually the "voyeuristic" aspects of those flicks. Good looking people, exotic locations, eye candy of all kind (flesh, tech, etc...) and again, the movie attempts to push these different buttons in a cheap way. It never actually works. As all movies in this genre, a lot relies also on misdirection of the audience but none of the so-called twists here will really surprise and if some do, you will not be invested enough to care and go "wow". What you're left with is a tired plot where witty, (sometimes) good- looking characters go around pretending to be clever and being in danger that you never buy. A sort of Dysney heist flick for grown up. It pains me to see two fantastic actors such as Morgan Freeman and Radha Mitchell wasted in such trash.

njalalgheewala Three stars is the best I could muster for this movie. The acting was OK, the directing was crap and the plot was the worst. I saw this in Hughes Theater as a screener and they stopped us for Q&A. Right of the bat the movies had goofs and there were a lot of spoilers from the start. The name was undecided hence the 2 name title, and the climax was very very disappointing. What makes the movie so horrible is that it does not have a follow path and the sexual scene is not needed at all. In the end the entire heist were for some Fabergé eggs that were older than the actual Fabergé eggs. Actual meaning that the eggs were made of wood and wood carvings. One scene in particular I was disappointed in is when they have to enter the vault to get the heist...well I will let you go through it yourself.

ntsci "Code" is a mediocre film which substitutes plot twists to hide the missing story.Double, double, double crossing... that about the story.Oh, of course there is a vault which has a remarkable weakness -- the tumblers turn if you enter one number correctly, and of course there are the laser motion detectors (which don't exist in real life), that can be switched off by some mysterious electronic device. A vault with no internal alarms. Really stupid security guards. secured building with easy access to the subway. A bad guy who is a cop. An organized crime boss who is really a murder victim. A very sexy lawyer who somehow manages to associate with criminals without being disbarred. and lots of other non-sense. Hollywood seems to be under the impression that plot twists can hide the fact that the story makes no sense.