‘Crime 101’ is A ‘Heat’ Ripoff — and That’s OK

This weekend, you could do a lot worse than catching Bart Layton’s “Crime 101,” which wears its inspirations on its sleeve—particularly “Heat” and other similarly‑styled cat‑and‑mouse stories.

The review embargo has lifted on Layton’s film, and I more or less agree with the assessment — 67 on Metacritic is fair. However, look at that: the film is at 96% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Based on Don Winslow’s book, the film follows high-level jewel thefts taking place up and down the Pacific Coast, which police have linked to Colombian cartels. Detective Lou Lubesnick has other ideas, and he zeroes in on one perp — a thief looking for a final score.

Sure, we’ve seen this story before, but quite honestly, movies like these don’t get greenlit that much anymore, and the ambition — R-rated, 140 minutes — should be commended.

In terms of quality, it’s more or less on par with “Triple 9” — remember that one? — John Hillcoat’s crime thriller about corrupt cops coerced by the Russian mob to stage a “Triple 9” officer‑down diversion for a heist. The cast was stronger in that film — in Layton’s film there’s no Casey Affleck, Chiwetel Ejiofor, or Kate Winslet.

Chris Hemsworth’s turn as the meticulous jewel thief anchors the story, and he’s watchable in the role, but nothing exceptional. Mark Ruffalo’s dogged detective — when does this guy not play such a role — and Halle Berry’s nuanced insurance agent bring decent chops to the whole thing. Barry Keoghan’s unpredictable character is the standout, as the volatile young criminal whose ruthless, trigger‑happy methods wreak chaos on the heist.

Oh, and a shout out to Nick Nolte, chewing up the scenery, playing Money (Nick Nolte), a tough guy who once mentored Mike out of foster care and into crime. It’s great to see him still doing his unpredictable thing — which always tends to defy description.

The action sequences work splendidly well, but there are attempts at some layered character work here, lots of added moral complexity, and a misguided ambition to be the next “Heat,” which does create tonal unevenness — the first act in particular is a slow build. The film sometimes feels familiar or too derivative of better films in the genre, but that said, this is an overall good reminder of a type of film that seems very rare these days.