zardoz-13 Make no mistake, Burt Reynolds can act. When he wants, he can be a very thoughtful thespian. In "Gregory's Girl" director Bill Forsyth's charismatic but low-key crime caper "Breaking In," Reynolds plays 61-year old career burglar Ernie Mullins who sports spectacles and a limp. Not only does he prefer to work alone, but also he doesn't want a boss. He serves as his own boss and shows no desire to take orders from the mafia. When the action unfolds, our conscientious burglar is laying out his tools of the trade when he hears another intruder in the house that he has come to burglarize. By day a grease jockey who changes flat tires, Mike Lafebb (Casey Siemaszko of "Back to the Future") likes to break into residences, raid the refrigerators, and short-sheet the beds. Ernie sees potential in Mike and takes him on as his partner. Despite the disparity in their respective ages, the two men get along well with each other. Ernie teaches Mike the tricks of the trade. You don't flaunt your cash and you don't call attention to yourself. Ernie lives in a small house out by the airport. He is anything but conspicuous and maintains a low profile. Although he did a stretch behind bars, Ernie is smart and doesn't like to take chances. The worst thing that you can say about "Breaking In" is that a prospective criminal might copy Ernie's lifestyle. On the other hand, Mike refuses to abide by Ernie's strategy and he winds up getting busting. The ending is something else.Nevertheless, this crime movie doesn't indulge in brainless antics and histrionics. The modest budget doesn't hurt this thriller and often enhances it. The screenplay by John Sayles of "Eight Men Out" is literate, witty, and filled with irony. "Breaking In" is not a tent-pole movie, but it is a very good movie about a collection of oddball characters told with warmth, humor, and class. This was Albert Salmi's last film before he committed suicide. He appears in one scene with Harry Carey as poker players at Ernie's house. As a director, the Scottish born Forsyth likes to craft small but meaningful films that people who appreciate the finer things in life. One of the best scenes is a supermarket burglary where the Doberman guard dog follows our heroes around during the caper and watches while Ernie blows the safe. Understated but effective crime yarn is pleasant all the way without getting too violent, profane, or sexy. "Breaking In" couldn't have been made back in Hollywood's Golden Age because the lessons that Ernie teaches Mike would never have been allowed by the Production Code Administration.

rongoodger The movie is a definite watchable and I agree with folks who say this was one of Burt Reynold's better movies. It may also be my one and only claim to fame in the movie world. I was working for General Electric when it was made (if this is the right movie) and provided technical assistance over the phone for a piece of equipment being used on the amusement park set. I saw the movie on TV a year later by chance and saw my name on the credits as it went up the screen (October 11th, 1990). Due to circumstances in my life at that time, I forgot the incident until 3 weeks later and could not remember the movie title. I've been looking for the movie for 20 years now that has my name in the credits, and I think this is it, but I rented it and there is no "technical assistance" category on the rental version. If anyone has knowledge of that category being in the original credits with three names in it, please, please contact me.

Pepper Anne I'm as puzzled as another viewer who disagreed with the hype that this was going to be Burt Reynolds' big comeback or that this was his greatest ever return to film. Why? Though taken out of context, this movie doesn't seem like it had much pull when it was released in 1989 and is terribly forgotten today. I would also agree with this viewer that the movie was only half good, but slightly more than just a few minutes worth of entertainment.Burt Reynolds plays safe cracker, Ernie Mullins. Casey Seimaszko plays Mike, his somewhat cocky young apprentice. The two happen to meet while breaking in to the same house--Mike just to lounge in an empty house and freeload on food and booze, and Ernie for the treasures of the house safe. Ernie takes Mike in, shows him the ropes, and the two are basically in business together. And they're good at what they do. About the time that Mike screws up and gets in way over his head, pissing off Ernie with his overconfidence and wrecking things with his prostitute girlfriend, this is the point where the movie takes a dive because it never manages to recapture the smart-mouthed quick wit of the first half of the movie which at least made some of it funny. Soon, it just topples for either lack of a better resolution, having too much of a moralistic ending, or the filmmakers just seemed unsure of what direction to finally take it in the end (perhaps one of those films that the studios rushed to release, I can't be sure). I haven't yet decided after only one viewing which one I'm leaning toward. But there was something odd there that entirely disrupted the jib of the traditional three acts of the film. Almost as though we are watching two different movies by the way the pace and genre suddenly shifts. Too bad. It looked like with Mike's cocky youth attitude and Ernie as a sort of cynic, it could've been a much funnier production.This one isn't something that I'd recommend or not recommend, but would simply say that if you didn't see it, you're not missing anything.

tarpollen What makes this buddy crime comedy work rests essentially on it's sympathetic characters. Delivered here in traditional veteran/rookie fashion,the story paces along steadily as young and endearingly misguided Mike (Siemaszko) is given life lessons in the art of safe cracking by world-weary professional Earl (Reynolds). The chemistry between the two leads allows for cleverly-conceived comedic scenes to shine forth beautifully. From the moment of their initial accidental meet-up, you are instantly hooked. The film's best quality though is it's ironic approach to burglary, for Earl talks of "The Job" as though it were a viable career option! This is Sayles' savvy screenplay technique undoubtedly shining through. Guided by Forsyth's refined direction, this comedy never veers into slapstick, distinguishing it from the later inferior 'Safe Men'. It never strives to be what it isn't, and so it rarely disappoints. A similarly-styled, yet darker film worthy of viewing is Saul Rubinek's 'Jerry and Tom'.Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5 stars