Heist movies have long been a staple of cinema. Classics like The Killing and The Sting to more recent successes such as Ocean’s Eleven & Inside Man implement a reliable backlog of tropes from Caper Crews to the “One Last Job” approach. Typically, the standouts in the genre find clever, memorable twists on the familiar. They distinguish themselves with distinctive characters, and charming performances. Kidnapping Mr. Heineken‘s Caper Crew features nicknames like “Brakes” and “Cat”, two lead actors last considered movie stars at the turn of the decade, and Sir Anthony Hopkins slumming it in an irritatingly underwritten role.

This new film from Swedish director Daniel Alfredson (who directed both sequels to the Swedish The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) recreates the true story behind what was at the time the largest ransom ever paid for an individual. In 1983, five Dutch criminals kidnapped the CEO of the Heineken Company Freddy Heineken, one of the richest men in the Netherlands, as well as his driver, holding them both for 21 days before collecting a 16 million Euro ransom. Perhaps recognizing that Sir Anthony Hopkins is the movie’s strongest asset, the film opens on him as Freddy Heineken, berating one of his kidnappers. His character disappears then until well into the film’s second act, as the plot jumps back to over a year before the kidnapping.

The ragtag group of friends who pulled off one of the most lucrative kidnappings ever is lead by their man with a plan Cor (Jim Sturgess) and a not-very-loose-cannon in Willem (Sam Worthington). At the onset, Cor, Willem, and their buddies run low-level schemes together with uneven success, only aware of Freddy Heineken through reputation and Willem’s father’s past employment at Heineken. Eventually Cor pitches the idea of the kidnapping as one big, last job in order to set the friends up with a substantial cash haul. The ethics of graduating to kidnappers meets no resistance, they are criminals after all, and with barely any deliberation the gang makes plans to abduct Freddy Heineken for ransom. Before Kidnapping Mr. Heineken bothers to slow down and personify its main characters, the heist is well into its recon phase.

Allowing the caper crew time to plan their abduction is the closest Kidnapping Mr. Heineken comes to building tension. As quickly as it becomes clear to us that these petty criminals are in over their heads, the characters realize they can utilize their relative inexperience to throw off authorities through clever planning. This methodical section only covers the first few scenes, after which Kidnapping relies (unsuccessfully) on the interpersonal group dynamics to hold your attention. By this point, the film has barely even bothered to identify its central characters by name. I found myself making up names for the roles based on actors’ physical traits. “Cool Guy” consistently sported a leather jacket and “The Hair” wore copious amounts of styling gel. “The Hair” might have actually been “Brakes” but my nickname was easier to remember.

Eventually Kidnapping Mr. Heineken stumbles onto an intriguing subplot when abductee Freddy Heineken reacts to his dilemma without concern. Fundamentally a businessman, Heineken understands his situation to be a business transaction and largely complies with his captors while making occasional requests for Chinese food delivery. The kidnappers are caught off guard that their mission has left Freddy unshaken, and they waver on whether or not to trust Heineken, who repeatedly insists the kidnappers will get paid. This thread isn’t explored fully and the Heineken character doesn’t pay off as Hopkins, the most engaging actor of this project, leaves the film with a whimper, not a bang.

Part of the issue with Kidnapping Mr. Heineken is how the movie overlooks its characters’ immorality. The whole story is structured to suggest the kidnappers are the film’s heroes, but never provides a reason to get invested aside from their continued presence on-screen. It seems to want you to think these poor, young men discovered a way to cash-in without consequence, disregarding their treatment of the completely innocent Heineken and his largely unseen family. Only when the plot requires these friends to consider murdering one of the men does Kidnapping Mr. Heineken seem to comprehend the questionable ethics of its story, but like most of the film’s plot developments, the moment skirts past and the characters feel no immediate ramifications.

Ultimately the progressing plotline forces the kidnappers to separate leading to the film’s suggestion that the best thing they shared was friendship. If the logic of that transition seems clumsy that’s because it’s handled clumsily in the film. While Kidnapping Mr. Heineken’s heist film construct provides a unique angle to approach a recognizable genre, the inherent issues in treating its felonious characters with reverence makes their objective difficult to root for (most of the real life figures depicted in the movie returned to other crime after their involvement in this kidnapping). The slickness with which the film has been assembled makes Kidnapping Mr. Heineken easy to watch and mildly entertaining, but the lack of narrative cohesion ultimately leads to the the film’s unraveling.

The crew behind Freddy Heineken’s abduction in 1983 would ultimately be caught and have their earnings stripped away. As depicted in Kidnapping Mr. Heineken, these events feel uninteresting, and inconsequential.

From the highly praised director Fernando Meirelles (City of God) comes 360, a film that shows how decisions in life connect a group of strangers to each other. The film is about forks in the road and how your decision changes not only your path but others as well. In the end the film comes full circle, which is how the film gets its title 360.

360 is set in just about as many places as the amount of characters it contains. The common theme amongst the characters is romantic dilemmas that through one way or another connect the characters together. The first example of this is when a young Slovakian woman begins her work as a prostitute meets her first client Michael (Jude Law) who is cheating on his wife Rose (Rachel Weisz).

However, the best showing of the intersecting storyline is at the Denver airport. We see Laura (Maria Flor) who just broke up with her boyfriend who was cheating on her with Rose sit next to John (Anthony Hopkins) on the airplane. The two get to know each other and plan to meet for some drinks at restaurant in the airport once they find out that all flights have been cancelled due to weather. Waiting for John to get the hotel vouchers, Laura ends up meeting a man named Tyler (Ben Foster).

Tyler is a sex offender who recently had been released from six years in prison. He does not feel he is fit to be on the outside but his counselor believes he has rehabilitated enough to make it. Tyler legitimately wants to do the right thing. He makes a call to his counselor once he gets off the plane saying that he is still worried that his urges may be triggered. But that was before he met Laura, who ends up getting him to drink.

After Tyler’s counselor makes a call to the airport security to inform them of the public danger he imposes, an announcement is made over the airport speakers asking Tyler to report to the front desk. This announcement is heard right as John makes it back to the restaurant where he planned to meet Laura. But because he ended up taking too long Laura already met someone. Laura just wants attention after getting cheated on by her boyfriend but little does she know, the man she decides to flirt with is a sex offender.

I say the airport is the best example of the patchwork storyline because it shows these characters intersect in a small quarters of the airport. Not only that but it also has the most interesting set of characters. The reason why they may be the most interesting set is because we are given backgrounds on each of the three characters, which is something the film did not seem to always do.

From a technical stand point, the film is wonderfully done. The camera work is undeniably great. Shots that can fail if not done properly such as split screen shots or reflections of characters in mirrors were done wonderfully here. Sometimes Fernando Meirelles even combined split screen and mirror shots together.

In fact, there were many scenes where we see the character only from a mirror. Perhaps the meaning behind showing so many mirror shots was to show the duality of the character. The reflections physically show that there are two sides of each character. Much like a fork in the road, there are two separate choices.

In addition to the great composition of camera shots was superb film editing and acting. The editing work was often evident from the liberal use of blending transitions from scene to scene. And the ensemble cast was in top form thanks in part to; Jude Law, Ben Foster, Rachel Weisz, and Anthony Hopkins.

Even though the structure of the story has been done before (and done better such as in Magnolia), slowly revealing how strangers connect to one another, 360 was still enjoyable. The biggest problem with the film is that it goes into too much detail about the characters we do not care about and not enough in the characters we do. Which means at times you may find yourself looking at your watch and other times wishing the film showed more. 360 could not find the right balance between too much detail and not enough detail.

It has been nearly 50 years since Thor was originally created as a comic book hero by Marvel Comics. In what seems as a last effort to milk the comic book turn movie trend, Hollywood gives us Thor. Speaking of trends in Hollywood, Thor does not seem to skimp in the product placement department (Acura being the main offender). Having never read the comic books, I can only base my review off this film. It seems fair to assume that a film would give you the proper background for those in that position. Spoiler alert, it does not.

The film takes place in Asgard, a fantasy realm where Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is about to become King in. Thor is a chiseled god whose muscles are as large as his arrogance. Odin (Anthony Hopkins) who is Thor’s father and current King, is interrupted moments before he announces the news of a new King by an attack on Asgard by the Frost Giants.

Thor is more of the act first think later type of character, which leads him to strike an attack on the Frost Giants against his father’s wishes. Thor is not the smartest god of Asgard, but I suppose you do not have to be when your special weapon is a large hammer. Odin decides to punish Thor by banishing him from Asgard to teach him to wise up. This benefits Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who is the outspoken but mischievous brother of Thor as he is now in position to become the ruler.

Thor’s banishment sends him to a small town in New Mexico. The film does not explain as to why that location but I can only presume it is because that is where the comic books sent him. Upon being transported to New Mexico he is hit by Jane Foster’s (Natalie Portman) van. Inside the van are Foster’s crew who are essentially weather chasers that have been noticing strange patterns in the sky.

Thor’s hammer also is transported to earth by Odin who renders it unless until it is in possession of a worthy persons hands. Luckily, the hammer happens to be transported close by just a little after Thor was. However, the hammer was lodged into the earth so firmly that nobody can pull it out. In an admittedly amusing scene, many of the locals make it an event to try pulling this large mysterious hammer out of the ground. But they all fail obviously because they are not worthy enough.

Jane is enthralled with Thor but does not start out on a good note. Literally moments after he is out of the hospital where Jane caused him to be after hitting him with her vehicle, take a guess at what happens again? Yep, she hits him again with her vehicle. The film is riddled with these types of cheesy, over-the-top events perhaps aimed to unsuccessfully entertain young children.

Still somehow Jane and Thor predictably fall for one another even after Thor makes a fool of himself trying to fit in on earth. Even before Thor suddenly decides to wise up and actually start helping others out, Jane seems to be in love with him. This proves that looks are clearly the most important feature. Thanks Hollywood.

Thor eventually realizes that he can use his special powers not only for his own advantage but also to help others in need. It was hard to care too much for the main character, because of how arrogant he was for most of the film. I know the idea was to ultimately show how he has grown from boyish acts to adulthood, but viewers must first have vested interest in the character before they can root for them. I suppose this a nice twist among most other comic book characters. It seems like most often the superhero is using his powers to help others before being tempted to use for their own good.

Almost always Natalie Portman’s roles in films are done fantastically, like her Oscar winning role in Black Swan. However, Thor managed to make Natalie Portman look dull and uninspired mostly with terrible dialog. I hate to say it but even her sidekick Darcy (Kat Dennings) had a much more memorable character even though her character was completely pointless other than some random comedic relief lines now and then.

Something that stood out to me was they did not go into as much detail as they could have. We see Odin without an eye but are never told how exactly that happened. Also, how did Loki just appear in the room in New Mexico then all of a sudden leave without being questioned by anyone? Why was Thor’s recently wounded face immediately heeled when he was transported back to his realm? Why did it take his hammer to transport to earth longer than it did for Thor?

At the very least, you will get a few laughs as were thrown in to perhaps keep the film watchable. But good luck trying to decipher what was meant to be funny and what was just an awful and cliché dialog that makes you laugh.

As much as I did not enjoy Thor, I cannot help but assume that if you are very into the comic book series of it that you may like this film much more. Although, my favorite film critic Roger Ebert once said that just because you like a film it does not mean that it is a good film. So perhaps hardcore fans may only better understand what is going on than actually consider it a good film.