Roofman feels like a film that doesn’t fully know what it wants to be, but somehow that confusion becomes part of its charm. It is silly, weird and completely unbelievable.
You can feel that Derek Cianfrance, who usually makes heavy and painful dramas (ex: Blue Valentine), wanted to try something different, lighter, almost like a fairy-tale for broken adults.
Channing Tatum is the main reason the film works. He plays a criminal on the run who hides inside a toy store and slowly starts acting like someone who actually belongs there. He looks funny, confused, and lost but in a way that makes you care about him instead of laughing at him. There is something very touching about watching a man who has spent his life running suddenly discover that maybe he wants to stay somewhere, be loved, be safe, be seen.
What makes it even more surprising is that it is based on a true story and honestly, it’s almost unbelievable that something this bizarre, chaotic and oddly romantic really happened in real life. If you heard it as a rumour, you’d think it was an urban-legend told for laughs.
The rest of the cast adds colour in different ways.
Kirsten Dunst gives the film emotional weight, and her scenes make the film feel more grounded and human. Her chemistry with Tatum is believable.
Peter Dinklage, as the toy store manager, adds eccentric energy. LaKeith Stanfield appears as someone connected to the main character’s past. He brings natural charisma but isn’t given enough space to shine, like the film had something interesting planned for him but didn’t follow through.
Juno Temple also appears with strong presence, but her role feels underwritten. She does fine, but the script doesn’t let her explore anything meaningful.
Ben Mendelsohn and Uzo Aduba play a religious couple whose characters lean heavily on Southern clichés. They’re entertaining but written more as symbols than people.
One thing I personally wanted more of is the robberies themselves. I was waiting for scenes that showed how he operated, what his methods were, how things escalated and how it actually went down. The robberies are such a key part of his identity, and they could’ve added tension, psychology and darker humor. Instead, the movie quickly jumps past that chapter and moves straight into life after jail. It’s not wrong, but it feels like a missed opportunity, especially in a film trying to blend comedy and crime. That part of the story could’ve given the film more edge and helped us understand who he was before he tried to change.
Where the film succeeds is mood, heart and originality. Where it struggles is tone. Some scenes are genuinely touching, others feel like skits.
It is flawed, yes, but strangely touching. And the fact that it really happened makes it even more interesting.