All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
James, you've never busted your Michael Mann cherry? Holy shitsnacks! No, Heat, The Insider, Last of the Mohicans, Thief, Manhunter or Collateral? I am amazed.
You call yourself a film buff and you've never seen a Michael Mann film? Shame on you.
Watch Collateral at some point - a cracking little two hander (Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx).
Cherry popped.
Well, I've had a few people recommend this one and a few more shocked that I'd never seen a Michael Mann film, on and off the boards. Might as well review it.
Seeing as the film is something of a classic, I'll leave out the plot details. I imagine a lot of people are familiar with them.
Well, I'm afraid to say Heat didn't do it for me. I think De Niro's role might've been his last legit one (depending on whether Heat or Casino came out first). His performance still had the air of that Scorsese/Coppola/Bertelucci/Lione flavor that he's famous for. I can't remember the last time I saw such a film. Pacino, on the other hand, felt like he'd just taken up becoming a caricature of himself. "Great ass!"
Nevertheless, both their characters were very well drawn out, despite Al Pacino screaming "motherfucker" all the time like he was doing a skit as himself on Saturday Night Live. While the crux of the film was essentially summed up in one scene alone, it did carry throughout its entirety. The character study aspect of the film really stood out and couldn't have been wrapped up better in the end. Seeing the film through those eyes, I was impressed. I was also impressed by the fact that Michael Mann wrote and directed the film. I always assumed he was a non-auteur for some reason.
The rest, unfortunately, didn't do it for me. The action scenes were surprisingly tense and realistic but they were sparing. The police procedural stuff always bores me, even if it's a genre standout like Se7en. I just don't dig it. The director could've been anybody (except Jonathan Demme, you win!).
The female characters felt pretty weak. How De Niro hit it off with this one girl, I'll never know. Their initial conversation was as dull as could be. They all felt like foils for the male characters and in that, they worked. But as their own entities... I think the director's last name might be ironic considering how the male and female characters contrasted in strength.
All the heist stuff didn't particularly interest me either. I had no idea who Jon Voigt's character was supposed to be or what role he played. I had a better idea as to William Fichtner's character but still a someone vague one. As fun (albeit pointless) as it was to see Henry Rollins as Fichtner's assistant, I didn't care about the plots involving either character. I think it was all just too cold, technical and complicated for me to latch onto anything.
I should note that as a writer and aspiring filmmaker, I want to know what makes filmmakers tick. Not just the ones I like either. I watch commentaries and interviews from everyone. How else am I supposed to find out why Zach Snyder is such an idiot? That said, I watched a spot of Mann's commentary and was impressed by how much detail and realism he sought out to insert into the way these characters operate. It showed. But maybe the film could've done without certain spots of filler.
So to sum up the film, I guess I'll say I appreciated Mann's painstaking efforts to show the entire web of relationships in Heat. You get to know the two leads, their wives, their children, their co-workers, the wives and children of their co-workers and all the problems that they have to deal with as well as how those problems spread out and intermingle over the web. I have a lot of respect for that and I think most of us would be hardpressed to do the same.
But...
It was a little too much for me. Some of these people, some of these plots, I flat out didn't care about. Maybe they tied into Pacino and De Niro's characters somehow but most of the time, I didn't feel like they bore pertinant significance.
And while I enjoyed Mann's directing style, it was a tad cold for my taste.
That said, I'm not done with the guy. I'll continue to check out his films until I've got some semblance of opinion. I'll shoot for Collateral next. Seems like much simpler film.
I'll give you this, it gets a bit tedious at 3 hours, but it's still a good film IMO and one I enjoy watching (though it's impossible to watch on TBS with the wife sleeping because the sound quality is horrible and Val Kilmer mumbles his whole performance...).
For me it was worth it for the (to that point) only on-screen appearance together by Pacino and DeNiro. I'm surprised James that you thought Pacino was lampooning himself because I viewed his performance as pretty spot-on as a strung out, overworked cop, but one that was a junkie for the job. For me, if either of them sleptwalked through the performance it was DeNiro - I don't think quiet and calculating suits him - and I often wonder if DeNiro could have played Pacino's role, but I'm certain that Pacino could have played DeNiro's role...
Tom Sizemore probably had the best turn of anyone in the flick. I also loved the irony in the plight of the Dennis Haysbert character. And of course Mann manages to give us a serial whackjob among the incredibly real heist sequences - no small feat.
To answer your question about Voigt, he actually functioned as DeNiro's agent, believe it or not. He found DeNiro work, except that work was criminal activity. And if I remember correctly, they rip off Fichtner somehow, and he's pissed about it, except Voight gets the idea to return his money to him for a fee, while Fichtner also gets to put in an insurance claim, thereby making a profit. Except Fichtner does the "nobody's going to steal my money and live" cliche, and dies for it...
I was also way underwhelmed by Heat. had so much giong for it, and yet it came off as so slow, dull, and downright boring for teh majority of the movie.
I don't dislike ro hate it, but it's one of those that should have been so much better, based on all the talent attached. I think I actually tried to watch it a 2nd time and decided there really wasn't any reason to see it again.
I quite enjoyed this film. I own it. I did think it ran a bit long. I thought the diner scene between Pacino and Deniro was awesome. I also thought the action of the bank robbery was intense and realistic as I've ever seen.
One thing i found interesting was that it was Deniro's own character flaws that was his undoing. He said you have to be disciplined enough to walk away from anything when you see the heat around the corner. He could leave his woman, but, he couldn't let that bastard Wayne Gro go unpunished. If he would've walked away from that, he would've made it.
I'm surprised James that you thought Pacino was lampooning himself because I viewed his performance as pretty spot-on as a strung out, overworked cop, but one that was a junkie for the job. For me, if either of them sleptwalked through the performance it was DeNiro - I don't think quiet and calculating suits him - and I often wonder if DeNiro could have played Pacino's role, but I'm certain that Pacino could have played DeNiro's role...
I wouldn't say Pacino was intentionally lampooning himself. But his gravelly voice and exaggerated enunciation just make him into a cartoon, whether he likes it or not. I mean if you compare his performances in The Godfather and Dog Day Afternoon to his "Hoowah!" persona nowadays, it's like night and day. I think his character's dialogue was good enough but when coupled with his trademark Pacino outbursts, it just sounds silly.
Maybe it's not fair to criticize. I mean Pacino can only sound like Pacino the same way Sam Jackson can only sound like Sam Jackson (another real life cartoon). But when I hear lines like "great ass!," it just sounds like soundboard fodder.
I do, however, agree that Pacino could've played De Niro's part. Who knows? Maybe it should've been that way.
To answer your question about Voigt, he actually functioned as DeNiro's agent, believe it or not. He found DeNiro work, except that work was criminal activity. And if I remember correctly, they rip off Fichtner somehow, and he's pissed about it, except Voight gets the idea to return his money to him for a fee, while Fichtner also gets to put in an insurance claim, thereby making a profit. Except Fichtner does the "nobody's going to steal my money and live" cliche, and dies for it...
See? I could've done without that, that is to say Voigt. Entirely. They basically just brought him in to look intimidating and beady-eyed. His role was straight filler. Fichtner sounds a little more essential in hindsight but meh. Just muddied the waters. I think the main target was the snitch.
See? I could've done without that, that is to say Voigt. Entirely. They basically just brought him in to look intimidating and beady-eyed. His role was straight filler. Fichtner sounds a little more essential in hindsight but meh. Just muddied the waters. I think the main target was the snitch.
Ah, maybe, I don't totally disagree. But what I think Voight represented was the professionalism of DeNiro's character, which set him apart from a two-bit thief. I've known some shady characters in my day, but the extent of their intelligence is bragging about what they've done over a few pints in a bar. Who knows? Maybe to knock over an armored car, it requires that level of sophistication - agent included...
Also, I think that Voight represented "normalcy" to him. Remember, we don't come into a character's life while their regular routine is happening to them - we come in at a watershed moment. First, DeNiro makes the mistake of crewing up with Waingro, then he lets emotion get the best of him when Fichtner tries to kill him, and then of course he lets a woman get under his skin. Progression - bad decision leads to bad decision - and Voight was there as sort of a Bizarro-universe angel on his shoulder, trying to keep him straight.
Just had the privilege of watching this on Blu Ray on the massive 42' TV my parents have at home (I'm cat-sitting). Hadn't seen it for a while so thought I'd devote the evening to it; phone off, lights down, speakers up loud.
I'd forgotten just how much I adore this film. 'Adore's not the right word. Respect. Am in awe of.
Yes, it's long. But I love it for that. It's not standard popcorn fare that's built off an intriguing idea you can express in a logline and then stretched out to a 90 minute picture. It comes from the other way, from character, from drama and tragedy. It's an epic saga that takes its time to play out onscreen.
Pacino is Pacino, so he sounds like Pacino, and he's great. I'd almost forgotten how good de Niro was; it's a crying shame if there are teenagers now who've only seen him in Meet the Parents and Stardust and don't realise just what a towering talent he has always been.
It's a true saga, a film with the depth of a novel and the verbal sparring of a play, but it's completely at home onscreen. The HD transfer gives the shootouts even more 'oomph' and those shots of the helicopter flying over LA look so good on Blu Ray that you just want to hold your hands up and say 'enough'. When the plane flew overhead I thought the TV was going to shake itself off its stand.
I'm biased - I love heist movies, and I love Michael Mann (Collateral is a great flick although positively lightweight by Heat's standards, and I seem to remember gushing about Public Enemies on the thread too - I still feel it's a better picture than people gave it credit for). So maybe I'm overstating it, but I think this film is a masterpiece, and if you get the chance to watch the Blu Ray, you'll be doing yourself a service.
I'd almost forgotten how good de Niro was; it's a crying shame if there are teenagers now who've only seen him in Meet the Parents and Stardust and don't realise just what a towering talent he has always been.
.
When this younger generation gets hooked on Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas, there is hope for society in the near future.
This sums up my feelings as well. It's truly a masterpiece. And, yes, watching it again in High-Def is fantastic, almost like watching it again for the first time. The story is as solid as they come. The cast is unbelievable. Al "she's got a GREEAAT ass" Pacino is fantastic. Robert "Cause there's a dead man on the end of this fucking line" DeNiro is equally awesome. Kilmer, Sizemore, the über-milf Judd, Brennerman, Voight, Levine, Studi, Haysbert, Portman, Noonan and Fichtner - the list just goes on and on.
Fuck. I need to see this movie, like, right now!
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Pages: 1, 
Author
Heat
Logged
Locked Board