Director: Sheldon Armstrong
Writers: Sheldon Armstrong
Cast: Isaac J. H. Barnes, Ava Azadeh, Justin Basiner, Max Hofmann
Running time: 46mins
American cinema was obsessed with heist films at the beginning of the 21st century. Remakes of The Italian Job and Ocean’s Eleven, abounded, while the decade also birthed the sprawling Fast and Furious franchise. It was a crucial era in the 2000s; one would argue it was the ‘trend’ of big American cinema (before gradually moving on to accurate historic drama Oscar-bait 2-hour films). In the turn of the century people and studios were looking for a change, for films that are entertaining and smart, but not require the audience’s undivided attention for the plot, plus there is a lot of freedom for impressive shots, stunning costumes and fabulous locations.
They all followed characters with troubled pasts, who were looking for a new adventure, or a new beginning, or a way out, but falling into the same tropes as they did before.
The 3rd is an American film, made in this tradition, but completed in 2023 – telling the story of a heist that goes wrong. But a heist film is deceptively hard to pull off; it needs extreme care in the details and enough suspense to keep the audience engaged but not tire them before the final act of the heist and the (mostly) positive outcome.
With the setting of the heist, The 3rd wants to explore the complicated relationships between the members of the team of the heist. I purposely say, ‘wants to’, because in many ways this is not succeeded.
The film starts with a mysterious conversation between two characters, a man and a woman. The man is dressed like a caricature, and their short dialogue mentions ‘family’ and ‘risks’. While this conversation could be intriguing, it is so ‘set-up’ and dramatic that is a bit repelling.
The film cuts to six days earlier, when we see three people (between two other people and the girl that we saw before) finalising their plan for a big heist. In this scene their relationships and dynamics are uncovered, their aspirations are revealed and their weaknesses highlighted. Needless to say, their differences overcome their similarities and goals, and not everything goes according to the original plan.
The viewer is set to uncover and explore the relationships between them while watching the details of the heist go wrong. Or so it would have been, if the writing were not bent on patronisingly spoon-feeding the audience. The premise itself could be working, but the way the dynamics of the people are introduced is annoying, in the sense that they overexplain about a past and a present that the audience is not aware of.
It does not help that the characters are one-dimensional, and the actors provide little to flesh them out beyond their expository dialogue. For example, the outside character that joins later on in the heist could have worked perfectly as the crazy, outsider, quirky element that elevates the film, but he still needs adjustments in becoming a strong element, rather than another unsuccessful one, dressing like a GTA character and not making any sense while talking. Ironically, the relationships of the other characters to him are tense enough, they have a difference between the past relationships that we see with the other characters, making the connections to the audience clearer. Unfortunately, this fact itself is not enough to ‘save’ the flaws of the over-explaining and oner-simplifying the relations, feelings and situations.
To help at least pretend to have some depth, it could be beneficial if the other characters were introduced in some separate occasion first and we got to observe them, rather than having them chew and spit out their past and motivations; and it’s not that the film did not have time for it. 45 minutes should be more than enough to give the depth and time necessary.
As far as the technical analysis goes, the visual aesthetics were clear from the start and suit the heist/gangster plotline and style. Sound-wise, the ADR was weak, but is perhaps more noticeable than it would have been due to the acting choices of the cast. The score meanwhile does not suit the film, which is a shame, because there are many interesting musical directions one can take in such a film, with the different atmospheres and the bigger duration. Overall, it was clear that one problem of the production was the budget; that itself would not be a problem or even an issue at this review, if it was not reflected in most aspects of the film.
Speaking of the budget, this may be why we never actually see the heist; we only hear it over a black screen. On this occasion, that actually worked very well – and shows there could have been more creative ways to work around the film’s other issues. With all the expectations created for the heist itself and the numerous ways the viewer has seen heists go, I found the audio-only delivery to be a clever move, that not only refreshed the film’s structure but also kept the viewer in suspense. It is a rare occasion where we are credited with having the ability to think for ourselves.
Even though heists should be an easy and accessible genre, they still require some depth in the script, while they need to have the awareness to let the viewer figure out the small things on their own. ‘Feeding’ the audience does not work unless it is a deliberate genre choice, alongside an over-the-top style and theme.
The film has some glimpses of interesting ideas. It could evolve in the future, remastered into something fresh and enjoyable. But with its current form, it provokes more negative than positive comments. I believe the director has potential with ideas, but should really work with a screenwriter for their next project, to sharpen and elevate it as much as they can – as complicated premises such as this need a delicate and detailed execution.