I love this movie so much

hyped garbage

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

. . . with two legendary actors? Anyone who's under 40 who can't judge the film based on its own merit, has no sense of film.

A bank executive Thomas Crown (Steve McQueen) pulls off a multi-million dollar heist and craftily shifts his ill-gotten gains to a safe-haven in Geneva. However, insurance investigator Vicki Anderson (Faye Dunaway)and her partner Eddy Malone (Paul Burke) are hot on his heels and are determined to capture Crown, but complications ensue when the criminal and investigator seemingly fall for one another.I can imagine back in the late 60's that a film like The Thomas Crown Affair would sell itself; Steve McQueen (the epitome of cool) and a plot involving a heist job (essentially an Oceans 11 or Italian Job type film). Whilst it may have won audiences over back in the day, viewing it from a modern perspective the whole thing looks incredibly dated and badly put together...OK I'm prepared to accept that the first 10-15 minutes of this film are good and lay out the foundations for a fairly promising heist film, but pretty much as quickly as it starts this film stops dead and slowly ambles towards dullsville.So OK the heist happens and then what?? Nothing, expect scene after scene of dull chatter and next to no plot development. Faye Dunaway and Paul Burke arrive as private investigators and despite an early lively and spirited performance from Dunaway the film never really lifts off the ground. There is just no excitement, intensity or fun in this film - anyone expecting an Italian Job or Oceans 11 type film is going to be mightily disappointed.The film is also filled with lots of elongated and pointless sequences; Dunaway and McQueen spending 10 minutes cruising round the beach in a beach-buggy and them both having a game of chess which seemed to span for about 5 minutes or so. You may think I'm being cynical, but to me that is 15 minutes of screen time that I felt could have been better utilised on character or plot development.Having witnessed such mind-numbing boredom and being in the face of such dull characters I did hope that there may be light at the end of the tunnel, but no the film offers no real surprises and happily coasts its way towards Dullsville.Be warned folks, just because a film stars Steve McQueen and is a heist film it doesn't automatically make it a good film. This is crap and I think that the only reason that it has a reasonable rating is because it is a Steve McQueen film. Yes he is the King Of Cool and yes he is quite a good screen presence which may have gone along way back in the late 60's, but let's not pretend that this rubbish is any good simply because Steve McQueen stars in it. The truth is that it is dull and rather forgettable.

Faye Dunaway is beautiful and well cast in this film where she plays a seductive, intelligent high-end insurance claim investigator out to find a bank robber, played by Steve McQueen. The chemistry between them seemed sizzling and genuine, and I liked how their relationship develops. I liked the film, had seen the modern version first, and am glad the original could stand up still to the latter one. This one's story was less sophisticated, and as such slightly less likely, and the main flaw for me was the HUGE initial leaps of assumption that Vicky (Dunaway) makes in her investigation given absolutely NO clues as to who the perpetrator of the robbery was. However, from that point, her investigation of Thomas Crown was exciting. The chess scene was excellently done, and must classier than the comparable black and white ball dance scene in the modern version which was a bit cheesy. Sexier too.The trouble with the 1968 version is that it's not aged well, and looks very dated. It is well filmed but has amateurish sound/soundtrack and the split screen boxes don't really add a whole lot for the most part but perhaps they were cutting edge at the time. In a few scenes they do add to the action but only a few. I like that the ending leaves the viewer hanging, whereas in the 1999 version the end is more finished and played through and that does add something, I think. The film is a little improbable but enjoyable to watch and worth the time especially given the lead characters, although they weren't so well developed or rounded but given I'd seen the modern one, I could make comparisons and fill in some of the story. Whereas I prefer the actors in the early film, the latter one is a better film for the most part, and one I've seen a number of times. My advice with this film is to see both of them and enjoy the similarities and differences and this film has a lot to offer in the comparison.

The first time I tried to watch "The Thomas Crown Affair", I soon gave up. This is because the director, Norman Jewison, was being innovative and featured many of the scenes in multi-pane. In other words, two, three, four or even more things (sometimes MANY more) are going on at the same time on the screen in small screen shots. It's VERY tough to watch using an old standard television. Fortunately, I got to see this tonight on a very large HD TV--one large enough to take away a lot of my frustration. This is a film best seen this way or in a theater--and I would not see it on anything smaller than 42".When the film begins, you are assaulted with a song that was very popular back in the 1960s ("Windmills of Your Mind" by Noel Harrison). It even won an Oscar--but which is severely dated today. My advice--turn off the sound as the credits roll and play whatever song you like or sing to yourself or take a bathroom break. Just do NOT listen to "Windmills of Your Mind"! When the film begins, you see that Thomas Crown (Steve McQueen) is a hugely successful and very rich man. Yet, inexplicably, he's also a man planning an enormous bank heist. And, as far as the robbery goes, it works like clockwork---and nets 2.6 million dollars! But, with no leads, the police and insurance folks are stumped. So, they call in an expert, Vicki Anderson (Faye Dunaway). She is supposed to be an incredibly brilliant investigator--a match for any crook. Can she manage to nab Thomas Crown? "The Thomas Crown Affair" is unique in a VERY crowded genre. While there have been tons of great caper films, this movie focuses very little on the robbery itself and much more on the plan to capture the crooks. And, this plan includes Vicki vamping Thomas Crown very, very, very slowly (sometimes too slowly). Oddly, she announces that she is going to catch him--something that is quite stylish as well as completely illogical.So how does this film stack up with such great films as "Rififi", "Grand Slam", "Bob Le Flambeur", "Le Deuxieme Soufflé", "The Asphalt Jungle", "The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three" (the original), "The League of Gentlemen", "Kansas City Confidential", "Oceans Eleven" (also the original) and "Odds Against Tomorrow"?! The bottom line is that ALL these films I just mentioned are great films--and by comparison, while "The Thomas Crown Affair" is good, it just doesn't stack up as well. This film is very, very stylish (with lots of costume changes and jet-set locales) but occasionally makes logical jumps. How does Vicki KNOW Thomas Crown committed the crime?! She just KNOWS. The same could go for her finding the driver for the caper--she just KNOWS. Also, while the heist is very well executed, ALL five guys are wearing sunglasses INSIDE a bank and this doesn't draw suspicion?! Fortunately, the film does end well and there is plenty to keep your interest. Not great but well done and very watchable.