FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

bajizs0911 If you want to waste your time, let's watch this awful movie. There is not a big story with terrible casts. The director want to make some funny moments, but I think these moments become awkward. In the end of the movie they want to show us a knack in the story line. Simple looks like a wrong scenario. At all I can say if I need to pay to watch this movie in the cinema I would was very nervous because it is a worthless something whatever I saw. I felt like to see this in the television a weekdays. The TV set in the midnight and I do not want to go to bad so this is the only reason to watched this. Never again. I have got only one question. The producers why not watch what they sponsored, or they spent little amount of money and they did not care about box office?

Matt Kracht The plot: When two very different groups of bank robbers target the same bank, a quirky hostage tries to mediate the conflict, as he finds clues suggesting a greater conspiracy.Flypaper certainly has its faults, but I think it makes up for them with its flashes of humor. The easiest way to describe it is Clue in a bank. Multiple heists go down at the same time, alongside a seemingly unrelated hit. Wacky hijinks follow, with all sorts of quirky characters acting quirky, in a quirky plot, probably written by a quirky author. The characters are all basically stereotypes, but since this is essentially a farce, one could easily argue that they're actually parodies of those stereotypes. The plot itself seems to flirt with constant homage to Clue alongside parody of heist movies. There are also a few references to other movies, such as This Is Spinal Tap.If you're looking for a deep or original movie, this really isn't it. But if you want something that's equal parts Die Hard, The Usual Suspects, and Clue... you're in luck! It was savaged by the critics, but I actually found it to be rather amusing, even if it was predictable and a re-hash of Clue.

Andreas Zeller ...at least so far it's underrated. 6.3 at the moment. I don't want to give anything away, so I'll try and keep it short.It's fast-paced, it's twisted and it's very funny, not to mention unusual. I was actually just checking it out because of the great cast. Didn't really give a damn about the 6.3 - thought 'Eh... It's a comedy, just give it a shot." It's the best action comedy I've seen in a few years, and I watch A LOT of movies. It's totally underrated and I don't really see, why.I didn't know what to expect, didn't read any plot summary or tagline and neither should you. So forget this review (and any other you might have read) and just watch the movie :)

Argemaluco It sounds like a strange combination, but we have seen various excellent "heist comedies", in which the "big hit" suspense is combined with appropriate doses of humor in order to complement the narrative and exalt the nature of characters who are usually benevolent despite their illegal activities. The film Flypaper tried to join to the group of the best films from this sub-genus (which, in my humble opinion, is leaded by Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and A Fish Called Wanda), but it ended up fatally failing, mainly because of an irritating tone and a screenplay with a lot of elements which attempt to be funny, even though they aren't.I really disliked the general tone from Flypaper, because of its forced combination of weak comedy and absolutely improbable "heist film", which would only work if we accepted the incredible stupidity from some characters, and the over the top intelligence from other ones. On some way, Flypaper attempted to be one of those farces which were starred by Peter Sellers (1925-1980) in the '60s, and by Robert Redford in the '70s; however, co-screenwriters Jon Lucas and Scott Moore couldn't find the necessary discipline and subtleness in order to find that unusual balance, and they preferred to take the easy route of coarse humor and artificial melodrama.I have honestly never swallowed actor Patrick Dempsey, and in Flypaper, I found him as antipathetic as I use to. Ashley Judd made an effort with her poorly written character, but she couldn't do too much. The supporting cast isn't given too much to do; Tim Blake Nelson and Pruitt Taylor Vince are particularly wasted, something which is a pity, because they have both shown genuine talent in other films (such as O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Heavy -respectively-). In conclusion, Flypaper is a horrible comedy, and I recommend you to avoid it by any means. If you want to see brilliant "heist comedies", I can recommend you, besides of the ones I mentioned in the first paragraph, The Ladykillers (1955 -please, don't mix it up with the bad remake which was made in 2004-) or Welcome to Collinwood, which were all made with style, narrative elegance and authentic intelligence.