The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

Hugely enjoyable remake of the 1968 film, with Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo in the Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway roles. 

The plot is fairly similar, although Crown’s playful crimes take place with valuable paintings instead of him orchestrating a bank robbery.  

Brosnan is perfect for the role: a sort of clinical charm. He’s better here than he was as James Bond, perhaps simply because the script is superior. Russo also gets it spot-on as the insurance investigator who slowly begins to fall for the man she should be incriminating. She’s stylish, sharp and sexy, always just one step behind him in their perpetual cat-and-mouse game. 

As a neat little reference to the original, Faye Dunaway returns – but as Thomas Crown’s shrink. The only problem is that the film gives no inkling as to why a man so supremely confident and perfectly accomplished might need a shrink in the first place. Denis Leary is also impressive as the Detective Michael McCann, and the progression of his relationship with Russo’s character is developed nicely. 

Whereas the original has a slightly impressionistic element, this version is crisp and precise – tightly plotted and excellently done all round. Probably the best remake I have seen.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)

Excellent crime drama with a refreshing visual flair.

Steve McQueen is a wealthy Boston playboy who masterminds elaborate bank robberies for his own amusement, rather than because he needs the money. I like the manic laughter he emits on a few occasions. Faye Dunaway plays the independent insurance investigator who knows that he did it but – while attempting to find proof – begins to fall for his charms. It’s a deliberately ambiguous romance. Can they trust each other? Is she just doing her job or is she in love with him? And does he love her in return? We don’t know and it’s unclear whether they do either.

There’s a brilliant scene in which the couple play chess. It works on both a literal and metaphorical level, with each trying to outwit the other. It’s also a sort of seduction, with hands and eyes sublimating sensual presence as the game unfolds.

There’s an unusual, stylish use of split-screen techniques. Sometimes these are used to convey multiple action scenes occurring simultaneously. At other times they are purely a visual effect, used for artistic reasons only.

The music was composed by Michel Legrand and the hit song “The Windmills of Your Mind” – somehow perfect for the film – was recorded by Noel Harrison.

In typical Steve McQueen style, he’s cast in such a way that he’s once again the elegant and effortlessly cool loner. You do wonder how he might have fared in a less flattering role.

A superb remake came out in 1999.

The Towering Inferno (1974)

A big Hollywood blockbuster disaster film about a fire breaking out in a state-of-the-art skyscraper. Paul Newman (the architect) and Steve McQueen (the chief fireman) lead an all-star cast that includes Fred Astaire, Richard Chamberlain, Faye Dunaway, William Holden, O.J. Simpson, Robert Vaughn and Robert Wagner.

At 165 minutes it’s long indeed, but surprisingly it doesn’t feel slow or laboured. I last saw it as a child and I enjoyed it then, which wouldn’t have been the case if it was a stodgy, ponderous epic.

In places it’s trashy, and there were a few unintentionally funny moments. But there was also real drama and tension. At times it was truly horrifying – such as when Jennifer Jones falls out of the exterior lift and then bounces off the sides on the building on her way down.

The cast is strong. Paul Newman makes for a very likeable hero and manages to rise above the material he’s given. Faye Dunaway does the same, with a cool, restrained intelligence. Richard Chamberlain is just right as the edgy, selfish electrical engineer and son-in-law of the builder. You know it’s not going to end well for him and sure enough he comes to a sticky end.

Only Fred Astaire – playing a doddery old conman who unexpectedly falls in love – seems wrong for his role.  He loses the woman but inherits her cat, which O.J. Simpson has kindly rescued.

I’m not sure this film could have been made now, post-9/11 and post-Grenfell Tower. Intriguingly, it’s adapted from two novels (with both plots and climaxes woven together), but although it’s a work of fiction there’s a dedication at the beginning to all the real-life firemen who died in the course of their duties.

Chinatown (1974)

Highly watchable Roman Polanski crime thriller starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway. The former plays Jake Gittes, a private investigator. The latter plays Evelyn Mulwray, who is suspected of killing her husband.

The plot unfolds slowly and luxuriously. The L.A. locations look stunning, and it’s one of those films that can be paused at any moment to reveal an image striking enough to work as a poster. There’s a spacious quality to the pace and style of the storytelling that’s missing from so much modern cinema. It’s a film you want to live in.

And Nicholson – one of the most charismatic people to ever walk the Earth – is transfixing.

Supergirl (1984)

A ludicrous mess. Kara Zor-El, the cousin of Superman, comes to Earth in pursuit of the Omegahedron – an orb with remarkable powers. This mystical ball falls into the hands of an evil witch called Selena who, for some reason, lives in a disused fairground with her annoying friend Bianca. It’s difficult to say whose acting is worse: Peter O’Toole, Peter Cook or Faye Dunaway all ham it up like mad, wrestling with a fundamentally flawed script. Unsure whether to play it for laughs or kitsch kicks, they flail around like pantomime actors who failed their am-dram audition. Helen Slater is actually quite appealing as Supergirl/Linda Lee. There’s a vulnerability and naivety that is endearing. And the sections in which she starts at school and befriends a girl called Lucy Lane – Lois Lane’s sister, amazingly enough – hint at another, more charming film with human-interest elements you can relate to. More of this would have been welcome. But it’s wildly uneven in tone and there are colossal holes in the plot logic. For example, when Selena first acquires her sinister powers she inexplicably puts aside the thoughts of world domination she has already shared with Peter Cook. Instead, she decides to kidnap a gardener, drug him with a love potion and then – when he wanders off – uses telekinesis to steer a construction vehicle through the streets to return him to her. Why? This is one of the few action sequences, but it’s still a small-scale affair involving a few cars, some burning tyres, a water tower and some hay blowing around the street. It certainly doesn’t have the epic scale of the first two Superman films, which seemed to use the whole Earth as their set. In fact, Supergirl seems relatively low-budget despite being made for $35 million by the same production team. Despite all the woeful elements, it was just about entertaining enough for me to make it through to the end. The flying sequences are a thrill, just as they always were with Christopher Reeve, and the rare moments in which Supergirl displays her powers are enjoyable. But the film could have been so much better.