SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

blanche-2 Robert De Niro, Edward Norton, Angela Bassett, and Marlon Brando star in "The Score" from 2001.De Niro is Nick Wells, a successful Montreal club owner who actually is a master crook. However, he's ready to retire and settle down with his girlfriend, flight attendant Diane (Angela Bassett). An associate, Max (Marlon Brando) prevails upon him to do one last deal - steal a valuable scepter from the Montreal Customs House. He refuses, but finally agrees for larger than his usual take.The inside man is Jack (Norton), an assistant janitor who on the job pretends to be mentally challenged. He manages to get Nick everything he needs to do the theft -- codes, kind of safe, everything. They carefully plan it.But you know how things are.Though the script is derivative in parts, Frank Oz directs with a briskness that keeps it moving. And he has a first-rate cast. The last part of the film is white-knuckle suspenseful. De Niro is very good, but he really has the least flashy role. That belongs to Norton, who does an excellent job as Danny. Marlon Brando looks like Rod Steiger in this and has trouble breathing with the slightest exertion - I really don't think that was the character, it was Brando. He created an interesting character, but it's sad to see him in a small role and in such bad condition. I interviewed Rod Steiger and asked him about the big scene in "Waterfront" when Brando didn't show up and Steiger had to do his scene without him. Steiger told me that it didn't matter anymore, that Brando had suffered so much, he could only feel sorry for him. Well, you can see this film and feel sorry for him too.

sundaresh-venugopal I saw a show I think on Discovery channel, supposedly for debunking scientific Hoax's and Myths in movies, where this experiment was tried on an actual safe, and failed miserably, and hence judged as scientifically unsound as per their evaluation, but not from what I can tell.Water was always designed by God as a coolant. It was intended to douche, to calm and to put out fires, not intended to fuel, to enrage, to exacerbate and to assist fires. Water is creative. Water nourishes and gives life. Water is not destructive. Water has a high boiling point. It is not even flammable.Having said that, there is nothing wrong with that idea which is sound in theory. Steam boilers and Pressure cookers have been known to blow a pressure valve all the time. Hydraulic pressure systems and pumps are used all the time, but the compressibility of liquids and the expansion of gases is different for different liquids and and for different gases, thus the pressure they can exert is also different. But water again is not intended to be destructive. Water vapor and steam will not generate enough pressure to blow up anything. But all flammable liquids which are the creation and the work of the Devil will. If you pour even a decent amount of gasoline or petrol in the safe and just ignite it with a spark, forget dynamiting it, that will certainly blow up the safe, no matter how thick walled or how thin walled, no matter how sealed or how unsealed it is.

nukfan I can't help but feel that this movie would be far less interesting if not for the intriguing trio of Robert De Niro, Edward Norton and Marlon Brando. It doesn't even have a lot to do with their acting, which is solid from each. De Niro is a more cautious version of his cool, professional persona, Brando is enjoying himself as an easygoing late-career mobster, and Norton handles a character whose quirk involves acting as a mentally challenged individual skillfully, managing to be completely inoffensive and uncannily convincing when the plot calls for it.The conclusion of the film unfolds swiftly, especially when compared to the film's two hour length (I felt that, with respect to the small number of characters and the focused nature of the plot, this could have been reduced to 100, maybe even 90 minutes). Norton's character, impressive due to his skills despite being "inexperienced", is perhaps slighted by the screenplay at the end, but I'll leave that up to you.The main characters are fairly well written. This, combined with the faces that we see speaking these lines, make the film interesting, despite being a little long and lacklustre in the suspense department.

carbuff Slick but formulaic heist movie with obligatory twist thrown in at end. This is De Niro, Norton, and Brando simply cashing paychecks. Nothing really wrong here, but nothing compelling either--basically a throwaway film that doesn't hurt badly to watch. I needed a film to satisfy a wide spectrum of tastes, and this innocuous production was perfect, although I might never have watched it if I were alone. If you have nothing better to do, this is pretty much like a really well-made made-for-TV movie--it won't bother you, but it's a long, long way from great art.