I thought this was a pretty good movie, but it bothered me that I couldn't figure out in what time period it was supposed to be set. The cars are usually a dead giveaway, but here we have one of the characters driving a mid '70's Ford sedan, one driving an late '80's GM station wagon, and the main character in what looks like a 2005 Chrysler. Not to mention the gang uses a late '90's Lincoln to drive to their heists. I figured that since there were no cell phones or computers it must be the mid-to-late '70's, but then seeing a modern electronic PBX telephone console at the hotel brings you back to the '90's! The acting and writing were quite good, and the movie moved along at a good pace. Enjoyable.
19 Reviews
This movie explains everything about the crime except why he deserves to get away with it.
nathan-yeo9 September 2009
Bobby comfort does is a well good movie and all. Drops a little sympathy with him being a good father and a loving husband. it tells the organic nature of the crime, and little tricks of the trade. But it never answers why he needs the money why he has to do this than work a 9 to 5. he doesn't gamble doesn't do drugs, he's not on some TAHITIANS paradise resort. No sick daughter no sick grand-mother. Why can't he be a stock-boy some-where. Where I live we have these pimps, and they always describe themselves as a man of leisure. Menaing lazy ass N-word. Bobby doesn't do describe himself as this. But then we don't see him take his kids to the soccer game. they did say he was in debt , but so am I and I work. I'm sorry i don't mean to be moral oral here, I just want to know what he did with the money he got for winning the law-suit.
Two Tuxedos and a fake nose Gang!!!
elo-equipamentos1 July 2020
Cool Money is based in true facts about a former convict Bobby Confort (James Marsters) that went to the jail for small robberies, after escape and arrested afterwards he claims at courthouse that already fulfilled his sentence, he was release at once , soon is back on business, now with a Italian crook descendant Sammy Nalo (John Cassini) with bad manners and wears kitsch clothes, they planning something big, the targets are the high class Manhattan hotels and their pulpy safe Boxes, he was double-cross by his jealous Policeman cousin Phil Parris (Schombing), the robberies are quite well and profitable, Bobby found enough, somehow Sammy has unexpected troubles with his former friends from Chicago's Mob, they must make the final job on first target hotel, wich they were outrageous expelled, a bit slow pace, but far away to be bad, has a fine veteran actor Wayne Robson as Doc a skilled thief, including the famous actress Margot Kidder as fiery Bobby's mom, let it see easily!!
Resume:
First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6
Resume:
First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6
Only for the true James fans
ssc726 March 2005
I've noticed that almost everyone that commented was a James Marsters fan. I like others only tuned in especially to watch him as an avid fan. How truly disappointed I was. It was very slow paced and several of the actors were so flat in their lines I felt zero emotion for 90 percent of them. I realize this was based on a true story and plots are limited but I think James should have passed on this one for his first breakout after Angel. He is far more talented than this boring, passionless script. It was refreshing to listen to James without his "accent" and also a fan to his books on tape, I was so looking forward to seeing this as most were. I feel most adult fans will unfortunately look over the fact that James Marsters is in this and concentrate on the story and not the star. Hey I'd watch James shovel snow for five hours with no complaints from me, but movie makers need to find a script that is worthy of him. He has range people use him!
I wasted my time. Don't make that mistake.
Westwindnotnorth12 May 2005
I thought this was so bad I had to watch it in pieces because it was so cringeworthy. I taped it and had high hopes because I very much like Marsters' work on Buffy. But in this movie he was wooden and seemed uncharacteristically and woefully unprepared. The plot could have been a slick little heist movie but the scriptwriters managed to take something intrinsically exciting and make it yawnable. The pacing was terrible and that may be the worst flaw-farce has to stay on its toes to stay alive. However, it took Margot Kidder to supply the cringe. Not the very talented Margot of old. Marsters needed a job and a success but he only got one of those with this drek.
Interesting for the time line of events but not much else.
studmufn19 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I was eager to watch Cool Money as the idea for the heist was conceived in my home town of Rochester. The robbery of the Pierre Hotel in New York City actually took place in 1972 but the film is made to look like it could have taken place in the present. It seems to me that if you are going to make a film about a historic event (the largest robbery in New York City history), then you should make the effort to create it for the correct time period. The only hint of the period was Sammy's wardrobe. I know all about creative license but even most of the scenes that supposedly took place around Rochester were wrong. There is no "Rochester Downs" race track, the Rochester Police Department is not broken down by precincts and there has never been a Rochester Examiner newspaper. Perhaps the production company would have been better off coming to Rochester to film rather than go across Lake Ontario to Toronto. In my opinion, things like this only cheapen a film. The acting was pretty good (loved Margot Kidder's portrayal of Bobby's mother) though some of the characters were rather transparent. If you're looking for a film that gives some idea of the events that lead up to the heist, then this film is fine, otherwise, don't waste your time.
oh dear...
cubanba9 February 2006
well...that was an afternoon of my life that could have been much better occupied by almost anything. Root canal work springs to mind. At first I half expected to see Leslie Nielsen appear, then it gradually dawned on me that this was supposed to be taken seriously. Half an hour in my eyes began to wander towards our bookshelves and books that hitherto had little appeal suddenly looked tempting (fly fishing for beginners, advanced motor mechanics and so on). The writing on this film is incredibly poor. The key character (Bobby? I had to stop and think about it) has the topography of a millpond. The actors are visibly bemused and are clearly struggling to make anything worthy at all - didn't they READ this script? I can usually pretty much work out what is going to happen in a film and get a kind of perverse thrill out of that - knowing I can't be shocked or surprised (ennui is my middle name) - but with this offering the plot was so easy to read that there wasn't even a thrill to be gained in this sense. The part where the 'cops' (shock surprise) are FOLLOWING THE WRONG CAR made me groan. There are also obvious lifts from other films. The post heist scene is ripped and mangled from (the very good) Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels which unfortunately stimulated a momentary direct comparison of the two films - oh dear. Much other plagiarism is evident which is OK if well done - and after all this is a film in a retro style so should be expected - but this is the sub pass rate night before deadline desperately downloading student of film plagiarism - it grates so much that there was blood running out of the DVD player. James Marsters who plays the central character seems very uncomfortable and out of place. He has 'this is cr*p' written all over his face and it shows. Strangely for someone who had quite a good English accent in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, his native accent is all over the place. In Buffy, his English accent was convincing, although it veered between Olivier's Henry V and Eastender's Peggy Mitchell at times, it was still very good, in this film he paradoxically sounds like an Englishman doing an incredibly bad US accent. JM is a good actor, if a little overdone, but in this movie he gives a poor performance. He doesn't seem convinced by the character and therefore doesn't engage the audience. The plot and actors creak and groan along like a 1970's charabanc to Morecambe (but not as jolly) and come to a shuddering close which is all too predictable. At the end (praise the lord) I felt the need to go and watch something good to get the taste of bad film out of my mouth. Luckily for me almost anything in my collection would suffice in this regard. I would imagine, given the other reviews, that the main actor's substantial fan base will enjoy this film, and fair enough - but try not to overdo the hyperbole, chucks.
Cheap AND boring!
ceylonic20 March 2008
I'm so sorry to write a totally negative critique on this film, but I have to be honest about it: the whoooooole story is foreseeable, there is not the tiniest surprise or change of plan. the acting is more or less 2nd class; you wouldn't believe one of the "criminals" are more than "want-to-be-good" actors in cheap clothing (I know: the cheap clothing is part of their characters.. you know what I mean!).
At least occasionally it was a liiiittle bit funny, but most of the jokes were just too flat.
Do you know the feeling, when you'd like to turn the clock back to the moment you came home from work and decide what to do with your "rare" sparetime?
Sorry, again. I tried.
love & peace
At least occasionally it was a liiiittle bit funny, but most of the jokes were just too flat.
Do you know the feeling, when you'd like to turn the clock back to the moment you came home from work and decide what to do with your "rare" sparetime?
Sorry, again. I tried.
love & peace
It worked for me !
KarenEames21 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
At first I was a bit put off by the intro art and the music until it hit me that this is a period piece. Coming of age during that time period myself I tend to shrink away from some of the fashion of the day etc. Then came the story which was at once more interesting than the usual movie-of-the-week kind of stuff you get on television and the acting which was excellent especially that of James Marsters who has the panache to carry off the lovable con-man/jewelry thief while allowing us to peek into more of the man behind the crimes. Did I mention that Marsters is also pretty easy on the eyes..how shallow of me. I would love to see more of this actor. The other cast members were fine. Wayne Robson as Doc was a familiar face and was perfectly cast as Doc. Margot Kidder was so good at slipping into the blowzy mom role that I hardly recognized her. John Cassini made me laugh as he was supposed to as Sam Nolo. The only weak spot was that of Robin Brule as Stephanie, Bobby Comfort's wife. Not her fault really as the role was written in a generic wifely movie-of-the-week kind of way so I can't know from this role what she might be capable of. If she played it any other way she would have been hammy so... So overall, not a bad way to spend a couple of hours :)
Not Rochester
webhead-9755312 December 2022
I live in Rochester. So when I read the description 'based on a true story, ... in Rochester NY' I had to watch.
But I was thinking 'How come I never heard of this film or these crimes'.
And, there is no 'Rochester Downs' race track. There is no 'Rochester Examiner', Perhaps they were thinking of 'Batavia Downs' near Buffalo.
These robberys probably never even made it into the Rochester papers.
And it was filmed in Toronto. So I was disappointed.
Otherwise it was a watchable time waster. But I will not recommend it to my friends as a 'Rochester' film, as I had planed. All the action happens in New York City.
But I was thinking 'How come I never heard of this film or these crimes'.
And, there is no 'Rochester Downs' race track. There is no 'Rochester Examiner', Perhaps they were thinking of 'Batavia Downs' near Buffalo.
These robberys probably never even made it into the Rochester papers.
And it was filmed in Toronto. So I was disappointed.
Otherwise it was a watchable time waster. But I will not recommend it to my friends as a 'Rochester' film, as I had planed. All the action happens in New York City.
... and James does it again!
radishbabe1924 March 2005
This movie brings not only originality in its plot, but also the way the story is portrayed...from the point of view of Bobby Comfort, accenting on his life, his way of thinking, the different number of events that led to the Pierre Heist. The story seemed to start off slow and had i not been a James fan, i probably would have changed channels. It could have used a better script...but then again we are used to Joss, Marti, and David...so who could blame a Buffy fan for saying that? However the movie seemed to catch my interest as i kept watching. And then I began not only watching the movie for James but for the story. James brought so much depth to his character. Although well supported by other actors, James definitely stood out among them all as more talented, more capable, and more good-looking than the rest! I would definitely recommend this movie to all viewers!
if you're looking for a slick, cool, well-planned plot and a charismatic cast..this is the movie for you!
if you're looking for a slick, cool, well-planned plot and a charismatic cast..this is the movie for you!
Could have been much more. Rather entertaining for a late night TV movie. Picture Ocean's 11 poor neighbour with an eviction notice under the door, and there you'll have it :P
msblackhole21 February 2015
Briefly: Rather entertaining for a late night TV movie with good food and wine and not much else to do, however, don't expect to toss your nickers off for it either. Picture Ocean's 11 poor neighbour with an eviction notice under the door, and there you'll have it :P
The good:
Actors were good. General plot was fine. Atmosphere was there. Music the right style for this type of movie.
The bad/unfortunate:
Direction: there was such a mush up of directional styles superficially coming and going... did not really stick to a signature style. Had a little or rather tried to have a little bit of a Tarantino vibe to it (without the violence bit but the narrative dialogue there) but...uh..NO. It could have been so much more. Still, all in all it keeps moving at an appropriate pace so it doesn't bore you to death like other low budget films I have witnessed.
Script: Gosh, it was weak at times. I thought some scenes were not required, some others not expanded as much, some characters truly interesting not really developed. Had few humorous bits in there but not as much. It lacked originality at times and especially at the robberies!!! I mean come on!This movie should have had at least a bit smart and complex robbery scenes or at least the LAST one that was supposedly a big fish. Again, had the potential to be so much more.
Unfortunate title: I mean ''cool money'' really? so not cool...
The good:
Actors were good. General plot was fine. Atmosphere was there. Music the right style for this type of movie.
The bad/unfortunate:
Direction: there was such a mush up of directional styles superficially coming and going... did not really stick to a signature style. Had a little or rather tried to have a little bit of a Tarantino vibe to it (without the violence bit but the narrative dialogue there) but...uh..NO. It could have been so much more. Still, all in all it keeps moving at an appropriate pace so it doesn't bore you to death like other low budget films I have witnessed.
Script: Gosh, it was weak at times. I thought some scenes were not required, some others not expanded as much, some characters truly interesting not really developed. Had few humorous bits in there but not as much. It lacked originality at times and especially at the robberies!!! I mean come on!This movie should have had at least a bit smart and complex robbery scenes or at least the LAST one that was supposedly a big fish. Again, had the potential to be so much more.
Unfortunate title: I mean ''cool money'' really? so not cool...
This is a TV movie on USA, where does it get off being GOOD?
Quicksand25 March 2005
I found out about this movie 24 hours ago, and in that time the summary on the main page has changed three times. Each of them made reference to James Marsters' most famous previous job, on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," which may or may not be a good thing.
I'm not an obsessive fan (as far as you know), but he's a solid actor, and so is everyone in this movie who isn't playing a cop. This is a TV movie on USA, for crying out loud, where does it get off being GOOD? The last TV movie on USA I watched was "Hard Cash" with Christian Slater and Val Kilmer, and there is a prime example of two hours of my life I will never get back. While that was a movie made by a director and actors who are all on their way down, "Cool Money" (despite the lame title) is made with relative unknowns both behind and in front of the camera, and I hope to see them working again soon on newer and bigger things.
Director Gary Burns keeps the action moving along quickly, despite the obvious handicaps that are commercial interruptions, and having the budget of a USA TV-movie. The script, by Shelley Evans, doesn't exactly pop, but it's above average for what it is, and gives us some really great characters, even if the memorable lines are few and far between.
Even if you know nothing about Marsters, he's an actor with presence and the face of a man up to no good; he'd look right at home in any Guy Ritchie movie. High marks for this one, and extra bonus points for a shockingly good Margot Kidder as Comfort's New York mother.
I'm not an obsessive fan (as far as you know), but he's a solid actor, and so is everyone in this movie who isn't playing a cop. This is a TV movie on USA, for crying out loud, where does it get off being GOOD? The last TV movie on USA I watched was "Hard Cash" with Christian Slater and Val Kilmer, and there is a prime example of two hours of my life I will never get back. While that was a movie made by a director and actors who are all on their way down, "Cool Money" (despite the lame title) is made with relative unknowns both behind and in front of the camera, and I hope to see them working again soon on newer and bigger things.
Director Gary Burns keeps the action moving along quickly, despite the obvious handicaps that are commercial interruptions, and having the budget of a USA TV-movie. The script, by Shelley Evans, doesn't exactly pop, but it's above average for what it is, and gives us some really great characters, even if the memorable lines are few and far between.
Even if you know nothing about Marsters, he's an actor with presence and the face of a man up to no good; he'd look right at home in any Guy Ritchie movie. High marks for this one, and extra bonus points for a shockingly good Margot Kidder as Comfort's New York mother.
I enjoyed the movie
Anna-hubbard5 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I found Cool Money to be a good entertaining movie. Being a classic movie fan I like how they stylized the credits had the end of the movie. The casting of James Marsters as Bobby Comfort was a smart move. Bobby and Sammy where like able charterers. The cousin was down right annoying. USA network did a good job making a TV movie, I didn't feel like I had wisted my time after watching and it the film had several priceless moments in it like with the actress held Bobby's hand too her breast. The fake nose and the problem with the band showing up at the hotel were good comedy moments. After the biggest heist the showing of the guys the morning after drinking too much with some wearing the jewelry, with them finding out how much money they had was great.
What a fun movie! I loved it!
kclark-1822 March 2005
I don't know what I expected, but the acting was really great in this. I knew Marsters was going to be good, but was also impressed with the men who played Sammy, Doc, PEggy (Margot Kidder) and the guy who was afraid of the elevator,--City, (Conrad Dunn--who I enjoyed as "Nick the Pimp" on DAYS OF OUR LIVES years ago) and Doc's cousin (was it?) Country, who had the crown on his head.
James Marsters...sigh. He just blew me away when he played Spike on BUFFY. I don't think I'll ever get over that story or his incredible performance on that show. No British accent, a bit more subdued and not such a "character" (although smooth) James shows us once again just how versatile and talented he is. Somebody give this guy the lead in a series, I need to see him---weekly.
James Marsters...sigh. He just blew me away when he played Spike on BUFFY. I don't think I'll ever get over that story or his incredible performance on that show. No British accent, a bit more subdued and not such a "character" (although smooth) James shows us once again just how versatile and talented he is. Somebody give this guy the lead in a series, I need to see him---weekly.
Loved this film and James Marsters
kathylovesspike24 March 2005
I enjoyed this little film very much and without a doubt, James IS one beautiful man. It was obvious that they were accentuating this as well, plus all the charisma of the Marsters to boot. The story may have been a bit slow, but James has that ability to make even the mundane seem incredible, so overall I think he did an excellent job and I hope this is just the start of many more projects. How Joss and some of the other writers, think that James can't carry a show on his own is beyond me. I think this proves he is MORE than up to the challenge. I honestly don't think he could be intimidated by any role, and that he just naturally slides into the persona he wants to portray. Good job...and I pray it's not too long till the next one.
Best movie I have seen in a long time
simplyme9120 March 2005
I absolutely love this movie. James Marsters and all of the other actors were excellent! The movie blew my mind away I didn't expect it to be this good! I have seen it 4 times already , it is so amazing. And a plus, James is like the hottest and sexiest actor out there! The writing is amazing. I was hooked after the first 20 minutes! I can honestly say that this movie has lived up to it's hype, especially in the Buffy verse. Not many movies can do that!Especially TV movies. I can watch this movie over and over again. I am not a very big movie fan , I'm more of a TV show girl. So, if this movie can make me love it, then it's gotta be good!
Great
lil_sexy_lea8 August 2005
I really loved this film, i had herd lots of different views and i had to watch this film for myself, so i did, i thought it was a great film and i think James Marsters who played Bobby Comfort was great. I'm a HUGE Marsters fan and i cant wait to see him in more movies. Personally i liked this movie cos of James, but i think it had a great storyline, i liked the kind of Narration through the film, in case you lost the plot a bit, and i really liked the ending. I liked the Character Peggy Comfort, witch was Bobby's mom, i thought she was a good character to have in this film as she added some fun. I also like this film cos the the Character called Sam, who in Bobby;s eyes is a fashion victim. Personally if your a Marsters fan you should watch this film, Its another great film to my collection. It just seems very strange to see James without his blonde locks.
Very interesting.
BuffyGroupie20 March 2005
I thought the movie was pretty good. I agree that they did take some license with actual facts (Rochester Downs, should have been Batavia Downs). I believe that they did that in order to remain within a fairly small budget. Overall, I really liked the film. It was interesting and although it was not action packed, it didn't ever seem to move slowly. The characters were very believable and the dialogue was real. All the actors did a great job in making you want to root for the bad guys. It certainly made me interested in finding out more about the actual events on which it was based. Also, having James Marsters in the lead role didn't hurt at all.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
