Michael Mann's HEAT - Page 2

Bud Cort.

Best cameo is Tone Loc, though.

I always felt that Pacino over-acts in this movie. But then I saw an interview with him where he said that Vincent Hanna was a cocaine addict in the script ... Which kinda explains his behavior.

Glad to see so much love for Heat. It really is a love it or hate it movie.
I also love the Dennis Haysbert plot, especially the scene where he breaks down and wonders why his girlfriend is hanging with him, wonders what she has to be proud of him for.
The scene with Waingro and his 'date' is also pretty good, though for all the worng reasons.
Mann's use of music is superb. Like his (equally good) 'The Insider', the music is intense and immersive.
Didn't Pacino was supposed to be on Coke, maybe they took it out so that he didn't look too similar to his wife, who was definitely on lots of stuff.
Shame about RHD, we didn't get it here in the UK. Why did they cancel it ? Did they put it on the wrong night? Shees, American TV is seriously cuthroat...

RHD never really took off in the ratings; it might've overcome it, but apparently Sizemore was up to all kinds of psycho shit with his girlfriend, Heidi Fleiss, which he was indicted for. IIRC, CBS pulled the plug the day the news broke.

Count me in as one of the underwhelmed by this film, as all of Mann's films. I don't hate his films, they're OK, but I've never seen the genius in them. I guess I prefer more visually striking directors, but his style I've always found... not bland, because he does have his own personal style, but just boring. All those "cold" lighting scenes... supposedly realistic settings which always remind more of TV shows than reality... actually the whole film has a kind of TV cop show feel to it, like a very bloated episode of NYPD Blue or something... you know, fakely "gritty".

It's strange, but sometimes when directors go for total realism it feels more fake to me than when they go for total fantasy; I can't really explain it, but Tim Burton or The Coens' films feel somewhat more "realistic" to me than Michael Man's... maybe it's an emotional connection thing, but I find Scorsese's stylish Goodfellas way more realistic than Heat, because it's not pretending to be documentary-like, so I accept that world a lot easier. Same happened to me with American History X, which made me laugh all the way through with its feeble attempt at portraying reality (nevermind the stupidity of its script, but that's a whole other story).

Lots of good actors in this film, but having Pacino AND De Niro in it, just to basically rehash the old "you know, cops and robbers really are two sides of the same person" storyline? And their two scenes together are so flat and lifeless it's a total waste. I always feel that Mann and all the actors are shouting at me "look! This work is full of MEANING!" But what meaning I have no idea. Again, this feels like a TV episode that has been artificially bloated to 3 hours with a classy cast - but empty inside. If Mann was trying to do for the Cop genre what Leone did for the Western in Once Upon A Time In The West, I feel he's failed because you have to do more than just adding up all the classic scenes from the genre together, but bring something of your own (at least a compelling story). That I've always failed to see in Mann's films.

I will give it another chance, as I always do with films I find overpraised. The Insider was more interesting because of its subject matter, but still very plodding and heavy.

I've tried to give whatever constructive criticism I could, so don't bash me if my tastes are different.

Although I disagree with you on the De Niro/Pacino thing, I must say the film will probably look dated in a couple of years. I remember really enjoying Manhunter but that film has dated terribly, its VERY 80's.

I wouldn't say he "rehashes" that cop/robber dynamic, I think he sets the standard. The coffee shop scene is unbeatable IMO, low key naturally, but rightfully so. They speak like regular people. They are hardly acting, it is real in the way real life can sometimes be a thousand times more dramatic than cinema. And their dialogue sets it all up so perfectly. Pacino is haunted by the victims he couldn't save, Deniro has nothing in his life but his "work", which just happens to be illegal. And each seems to realize that the only other person who can understand their life is each other, their enemy.

Still, I respect you trying to articulate your opinion in this "love" thread. Sometimes its hard to explain why you don't like a certain film. Sometimes, as here, there is just something off about the film in your opinion. I love and find meaning in the film, you don't. Some films hit us, others don't. From someone who was completely cold to Tarantino before "Kill Bill", I can sympathize.

I really don't think "Heat" will suffer much at all. All of the film's music is ambient and more like a score, as opposed to "Manhunter" and its full on 80s power ballad. I think what dated "Manhunter" is just the 80s in general. Unlike classic 70s films and before, the 80s was just too out there to blend in. You change the musical track ever so slightly on "Manhunter" and you have a different film.

I agree with Stew there. Heat will age like a fine wine. Its a film bursting with strong performances and talent. Glad i've held out on getting it on dvd and I hope the SE delivers.

It's been done a million times before, and he brings nothing new to it. How is that setting the standard? Because you think he does it slightly better technically? Does that mean that every Sci-fi movie these days is better than 2001 because they've got much better special effects?

I think to set a standard you have to be among the first to do it, with everyone playing catch-up after, like Leone and the Spaghetti Western genre. I can imagine he was trying to put the final nail in the coffin of the genre, that makes more sense.


I also agree it will age badly, I feel Michael Mann has never been able to shake off his 80's Miami Vice mannerisms.

Yowza!

You've got a stronger will than me, Johnny. That's for damn sure.

MANHUNTER has aged badly? When did this happen?

I'm still reeling from the fact that some people think Heat will age badly. I mean, I don't think Manhunter feels dated with the possible exception of some of the synthesized score but even then, that's part of the film's appeal. That scene with the tiger... GREAT use of music.

Exactly. MANHUNTER is just an awesome, awesome movie. I was talking about it yesterday with a friend about how different it is to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and in my opinion, a better flick.

Definitely. I really like what Anthony Hopkins did with the Lecter character but Brian Cox's rendition is somehow more chilling to me. Maybe it's because he plays it in a more straightforward manner. I'm not sure. Hopkins' is entertaining but Cox's feels like a better performance to me. I just know that I like it more.

Mann's a better director (and a GREAT writer... something I think that gets overlooked at times) than Demme in my opinion.

Definitely... Demme has never been a great director for me - he just lucked out with a great cast and crew on LAMBS.

You nailed it for me though... Hopkins' performance for me is so theatrical, it's almost like pantomime, or the 1931 DRACULA. I keep feeling I should be booing him, and when Clarice comes up everyone should shout 'LOOK BEHIND YOU!' It's all dead OTT, and less scary for it. It's also consistent with how people feel about murderers and serial killers, where to portray him as this evil monster who isn't human is a much more comfortable representation for people, whereas Brian Cox just seems normal, like you and me, and the fact that anyone could commit crimes that horrific without being overtly evil, it just makes it a lot more creepier and uncomfortable.

I was thinking this as well and that is what really makes Cox's performance scary. What's weird though, is that no matter how freaky they went and made Hopkins' Lecter or Ted Levine's "Buffalo Bill," Tom Noonan's Dollarhyde is INFINITELY more disturbing than either one of them to me. It's his look. The subtleties of his actions. The details. All the little things about him (plus the fact that he just has such a great mug) are what make for a really great villian that isn't over the top, but someone truly engaging to watch.

It's good stuff that's sadly overlooked.

All comments re: Cox's performance: Agreed.

"Do you want to leave me your home phone number?"

Such a ballsy line, it kills me every time. Ticked me off when Ratner lifted it for Red Dragon.

You can count me as a fan, it's a very well made film in a genre that's very hard to pull off without looking generic. I agree that there's nothing in heat that hasn't been done before but for me it's the execution, watching Hanna and McCauley play their little cat and mouse games and the final robbery which goes horribly wrong.

McCauley beating the holy fuck out of Waingrow in the cafe is fucking classic, I love the look Sizemore gives to the other patrons, almost like 'it's our business, if you decide to make something out of it, I will fuck you up'.

My favorite moment! "The Look". Perfection. I get chills every time he does it.

And for El Topo, what is your idea of a better cops and robbers movie? Not "Goodfellas", not "crime movies", but a movie about police and their prey. Mann adds depth and a look into every aspect of their family life, their emotional life, their professional life, and makes you feel for both sides. I don't know what you expected him to do that was brand new in a genre that has been around more than 50 years. He simply made it richer and did it better than anyone else. The Wachoskis didn't create hardly anything new in "The Matrix", nor did QT in his films. They just did what they did better than those that came before and made it feel fresh.

And btw while I don't agree anyway, I'd challenge you to find any of these in "Last of the Mohicans".

I'd have to say Mann has continued to explore, from the first film The Jericho Mile right through Collateral, a certain breed of criminal which is doomed from birth. All his criminal protagonists/antagonists - Jimmy Rain, Frank, Ray Luca, Neil McCauley, Vincent - state-raised kids, with huge potential. I mean, if Neil McCauley or Vincent were adopted by a decent family, I could see them eventually becoming a captain of industry, head of a cut-throat fortune 500 company. That's the type of precision and intelligence they live their lives with. But because mostly of circumstances they're born into, they wind up "doing what they do." Even Magua is not a totally evil guy, but is pushed into a life as a mercenary by the murder of his family.

Another brilliant post Subo. Magua wasn't a saint but circumstances obviously shaped him into a demon. That went on alot then and it goes on alot now.

Haven't seen that.


OK, from my first post I made it clear that I don't hate this movie, I just think it isn't genius and that Mann has basically made an overbloated version of US TV shows about cops, like NYPD Blue. So, watch episodes of shows like that and you will have a more concise version of the exact same story, not as well acted but with roughly the same production values. Just because the gunfight lasts longer doesn't make it better, that's my feeling for the rest of this film. So that's my main answer.

Here are some films with cops and robbers that I think are better; the relationship between the two may not always be the primal focus of the film, because it is a theme that was already overdone years and years ago, but it is always in there. But overall these films are I feel more original and better made:

Seven
LA Confidential
Mystic River
Fargo
Donnie Brasco
Touch of Evil



This review is harsher than I would be with this film, but these two passages I well agree with:

"I have no problem with long movies. As long as a movie is good, it can go on forever as far as I'm concerned. But Heat is unnecessarily long. Countless subplots are completely unnecessary, and scenes run on forever. For example, Pacino and his girlfriend have a discussion, and Pacino gets mad and storms out of the room. The scene should end. But no, he goes to the kitchen, looks around, stands there and thinks, and then exits. A minute and a half to two minutes that we don't need to see. And many scenes are like that. Characters looking at things, reacting to things forever, stuff we just don't need to see."

"Heat is by no means anywhere close to being original. There's not one scene in the film that hasn't been done a million times before. For example, De Niro and crew are planning the final heist and they know that Pacino and the other cops are on their trail. So they all discuss if they should participate or not. When they get to Tom Sizemore, they tell him, "Look, you've got a wife, a kid, and you have more money than you could ever spend in a lifetime... don't do this. Walk away now." Sizemore refuses, and they keep pressuring him, remind him of what he has. So obviously Sizemore is going to die. It's a ridiculous cliche. And he does. Also, there's a scene in the film towards the end that if it had stopped there and the credits would have rolled, I would have been satisfied. It's when De Niro is driving away with his new girlfriend, smiling because he's finally happy, and when Pacino and his girlfriend are in the hospital waiting for the daughter to recover. Pacino tells her that he'll be there for her when she needs him. This would had been slightly more original because THEN the film would have been about how people can change. But no, De Niro turns the car around to take care of some more crime business, and Pacino runs off to catch him. Oh, so the cop keeps being a cop and the criminal keeps being a criminal. Gee, I've never seen that before in my life. Groundbreaking."

Not for nothing, but the reviewer you cited didn't even get the movie. DeNiro is smiling in the car not because he's finally happy with his girlfriend, but because he's decided in his mind to go after Waingro, and fuck everything else!

All of the movies you cited, though, are strong movies, and I nor anyone else could have a beef with you preferring any of them over Heat. Especially LA Confidential, which should've knocked off Titanic at the '98 Oscars. But Mann's films are original, as original as films can be. We agree to disagree on this one.

Again, it all comes down to the execution, the reviewer can point out it's all been done before but that's a lazy argument seeing as movies which are truly original are exceedingly rare. The subject matter of Heat may have been done before but Mann's style and approach is what makes the film so exciting.

I wouldn't put any of these over Heat or equaling it.

I've always felt Seven was overrated but that's just me.

I second that.

yeah, again, it's all opinions so there's an undercurrent of pointlessness to this whole argument, but I always enjoy these kind of discussions.

Truth be told, I haven't seen it since it came out and that's why in my first post I said I'd give it another chance, see if I find it less boring this time.

I think I've made my point so I won't bug you about Heat no more.

but this...

Top of my head, some truly original films only since the 90s:

Adaptation
Being John Malkovich
Institute Benjamenta
Fight Club
Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas (this one's more debatable)
Santa Sangre
Avalon
Donnie Darko
O Brother Where Art Thou
Barton Fink
Lost Highway
Mulholland Dr.
Ravenous
La Vita e Bella (I hate this film, but as a comedy about the holocaust I guess it's unique)


You'll never have a film totally devoid of ANY influence these days, but I think those films stand on their own as being practically genres in themselves. I'm sure there are a lot more I'm not thinking of now, or that I haven't seen yet (apparently Guy Maddin does truly unique stuff).

Right, I'll stop nitpicking now...

I think SE7EN is the best thriller of the 90s.

I'll concede your point about no original films being made anymore but I still feel it's Mann's execution of the material that makes Heat such a terrific film. In the hands of a lesser director Heat would've come across as generic but Mann is no lesser director.

Can't say fairer than that.

I'd agree, but in the contexts of El Topo's argument, I'd say its exactly like "Heat". At its core and for most of the film its just an extremely well done high concept thriller. Its in the execution, the addition of Spacey, the downbeat twist ending that it becomes something special. Much like "Heat", the greatness isn't in the originality, its in the far superior execution, intelligence, and reinvigoration of the genre.

Good point. People seem to forget the whole serial killer genre was already way overdone even before it came out.

The conclusion to this is simple Topo you need to watch Heat again.

I will, I promise.

I also have to say - not directed at Topo or anyone in particular - originality is overrated in my book. There is nothing new under the sun, and efforts to come up with something often irritate me in some way. Even the acknowledged classics of cinema by masters such as Hitchcock, Ford, and Kurosawa were often based on earlier works, by themeselves or others. Kurosawa's great "High and Low" was based on an 87th Precinct police procedural by Ed McBain. So what? As Ma said, it's what the director brings to the game that counts.

Like The Insider. "Man of the people" dramas are nothing new. Could you imagine that film made by someone less talented? I'd probably have shot myself before it was halfway through. Instead, it's a hugely entertaining and suspenseful film.

I love discussions like these.

The quality of a film is always based on what the director brings to the table. Hence, when Leone made yet another Western after 60 years of the genre, it was great because it was so well-made, hand-crafted with care to the last detail. Same with Kubrick and Barry Lyndon, "just" another costume drama, but made so well that it transcended the genre. Same with The Godfather and the gangster genre, etc

But isn't a big part of what made these films so good was that, precisely, they were original in some way? The director brought his talent to the table.... that is, his fresh ideas. Leone's striking use of alternating wide shots and close-ups. Kubrick capturing the candle lights realistically thanks to a never-before used lens. On a more modest level, one can also think of Lucas introducing a vaguely eastern feel ("the force") to a sci-fi epic, I'm not sure it had been done before. And I love the Coens and David Lynch's films mainly because they are original, you never know how they are going to end mid-way through.

So, can there be talent without originality? I'm not sure...

You know, I really agree with this. Cinema has been around for over 100 years. With extremely rare exceptions, a truly original film is almost non-existent these days. And as I watch, I find my favorite recent films being ones that reinvigorated or improved upon an existing genre. I mean, there's a reason why "cops and robbers" films have been around forever, and its the same with many genres, and its because the concept is really compelling when done right. We're in a time when these genres are usually done wrong, so when talented directors put a fresh and intelligent take on an established genre and cliches, its really satisfying. Scorsese and "Goodfellas", Mann and "Heat", Eastwood and "Unforgiven". Hell, even Doug Liman and "The Bourne Identity".

And I agree, a lot of times the attempt at doing something really new can be more annoying then anything. Some of these directors waste resources trying to draw attention to their genius while Michael Mann, Eastwood, Steven Soderbergh, and the like keep making great films by showing why these genres got started in the first place.

When I said originality, I was referring more to the story. Should've been more specific.

That's the main reason I (and I know many others) hold the 'MTV class' of directors - Bay, West, etc. - in such distain. Their films are built around grandstanding visuals, with no underlying depth in any other area of film whatsoever. Not to derail the thread.

Well, if we're talking about originality then El Topo posted names of a couple of movies that were fairly original, some of them I'd forgotten so I don't think originality is dead, someone will always make a film that's different, but if you're working within the contexts of a standard genre, it's quite hard to make it look fresh and invigorating.

Soderbergh is great to me not because of commercial tripe like Ocean's11, but because of another film I should have posted in my list up there: Schizopolis This is a great and truly original film; there has never, ever been anything remotely quite like it, and it's fairly recent.

There is a lot of originality out there, but not in Studio films most of the time.

Again, I think you can't have talent without originality.

See I don't think "Ocean's 11" is commercial tripe at all. It's commercial in the sense that it has big stars and appeals to lots of people, but that doesn't mean its not an exceptionally well made film. However, that's not what I'm talking about when I mention his name. I mention him because of "Traffic", in which he spices up and reinvigorates what could have been a very straightforward police story. "Out of Sight" focuses on the romance where many Leonard adaptations sucked by making the caper the key. "The Limey" is one of the most impressive and artistic revenge film I've ever seen. Even "Erin Brockovich" has lots of fresh ideas and a unique execution of the standard "crusading lawyer" genre.

He also proves my point on the sometime pointlessness of originality with "Full Frontal", one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Oh, it shits over Michael Bay that's for sure, but at heart the script and performances are just show-offy and without any depth whatsoever.

True, true. Originality without content is pointless.

I haven't watched HEAT since 1995 or so, and I only watched it once. I remember being pretty bored with it at the time, and disliking all of the characters. Watched it all the way through yesterday afternoon and....

 

Wow. What a great film. I don't think it's aged badly at all; in fact, despite the lack of current technology, it holds up very, very well. I remember people referencing it (and not just for the Fichtner crossover) when reviewing THE DARK KNIGHT, and I can definitely see its influence on Nolan's sprawling film. HEAT is long, but I honestly don't know what you could cut without making it a very different film. It's not paced quickly, but it also isn't what I would call "slow"; everything is in the film for a reason, and everything contributes to the film's tone and themes.

 

The bank heist going wrong and subsequent shootout were bad ASS. I loved how loud the automatic weapons were, and there was a defniite feeling of danger to everyone involved - cops, robbers, bystanders. I was really blown away by it, and I don't think many gun battles before or since have come even close to how harrowing this was.

 

The acting was great; I did feel that Pacino walked the line on hamminess at times, but it was the character, and there were solid reasons for the theatricality. It also was a deliberate contrast with McCauley's deadly calm and control.

 

I don't know how often I'd rewatch this one, but it's definitely aged well, and apparently my movie tastes have improved over the years, too.

It's the reason I want to be a director.

It is a classic. Not dated at all. Apparently the blu-ray picture is mediocre, despite being supervised by Mann. Anyone got it? The DVD was ok, but not great.

The bluray is alright nothing jumps out about it but its not shoddy it does the job but Warner's did another lackluster nothing special presentation again.