|
|
Post by Moonshield on May 27, 2021 18:36:17 GMT
 Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on May 28, 2021 22:28:47 GMT
I'm a huge fan of Michael Mann, and Heat (along with The Insider and Collateral) is among my favourite movies of all time.
I even got the soundtrack.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Jun 30, 2021 6:38:32 GMT
Sorry for the late response but...
Yes. Heat.
Mann's one of those filmmakers—discussing any one of this films is in effect, and by default, discussing all of them. With a comparatively paltry eleven theatrical features spanning 40 years, his is a closely knit oeuvre. Mann has his handful of themes and with every film he drives them home with deep resonance. He's among my top 10 favorite directors but whenever ranking his work I always bounce back and fourth for the No. 1 spot between Heat and its prototype-predecessor Thief.
But, yes, Heat is an epic... the cops 'n' robbers epic to this day. Mann is of course a stylist and a tonalist; brooding and intense, a visceral long-lenser, a night watcher and a synth-rock Wagnerian with a soft spot for characters who walk between two worlds. All of which Heat pretty much encapsulates. It is among other things the quintessential 1990s-era Los Angeles movie, though not one that feels necessarily dated but rather classical of its time. I like it very much. I like the branching vignettes of its players, the fatalism, the tragic romances, the stark low-key humor and the wrath of its violence—violence that always matters in terms of storytelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moonshield on Jul 6, 2021 14:29:57 GMT
I'm a huge fan of Michael Mann I watched all his films. I wanted to be his fan, and I love his style, but I do not like all his films, unfortunately. whenever ranking his work I always bounce back and fourth for the No. 1 spot between Heat and its prototype-predecessor Thief.
+1)
Your comments are great)
I like "Heat" very much and I wanted to watch his movies, so what can I say.
Here is my rating.
From worst to best.
11. The Keep
A mess. The story is absolutely uninteresting, naive and stupid, when the evil spirit cannot decide if it is good (killing nazis) or evil, and what is it trying to do, and why its human face imprisones it. The acting is bad. The visuals are painful to watch.
10. Miami Vice
I wanted it to be a great police action film, which unfairly had become a box office bomb, but, unfortunately, it is nearly empty: the only gunfight scene in the end of the film is just ridiculous. Two cops help the drug dealer during the whole movie. Shortly, it is boring (not a single scene with tension) and stupid: the cop seduces the drug dealer's wife, though he can easily kill him and ruin their whole mission. Yes, later he realizes that she is not a wife, but he must do it before the affair. I realized that I do not want to rewatch this film. At all.
9. Manhunter
The story in this film can be interesting, but not too much. The acting is mediocre. The final of the film is boring and ridiculous.
8. The Last of the Mohicans
This film contains some good cinematography, but absolutely flat main character and not too interesting story. Though, some final moments, when Alice Munro falls from the rock and Heyward sacrifices himself, are great.
7. Blackhat
Not bad, but not too good. An average movie. The first part is interesting, the second part is not. Some weird or stupid plot points (for example, three bank accounts with enormous sums of money, which is suspicious even for those who isn't familiar with trading). Chen Lien is almost unnecessary. The final is uninspiring. The atmosphere in the first part is good anyway.
6. Ali
A quite interesting and solid story about Muhammad Ali, but, unfortunately, contains a lot of unnecessary (especially weird love scenes). Boxing scenes are very good.
Top 5
5. The Insider
An interesting story, but a bit weird, when the final occurs itself, and a bit boring. A good film, but, when the final text creates more impression then the film itself, is not a good sign. Also, when the insider has already testified in court and nobody wants to publish the full material, is quite weird.
4. Collateral
The exciting story. I love Tom Cruise's performance. The story, of course, is a bit simple, and the final a bit weird, when a taxi driver defeats a professional killer. But, the atmosphere and dynamics are great. A very good film.
Top 3
3. Public Enemies
The atmosphere of the 30s in the US is great. Marion Cotillard is gorgeous. The acting ensemble is great. Some flaws: a bit long, a bit weird, the love story is a bit forced, and some other moments (when Purvis kills Pretty Boy Floyd) are weird. But, the film is great. Christian Bale's face, when he kills Baby Face Nelson, avenging his people, is fierce. The final scene is very great.
2. Heat
Great film. The atmosphere of Los Angeles is great (moreover, in the day and in the night), the story is great, very interesting. The drama of Vincent Hanna is very good (and reminds the drama from the Soviet film «Air Crew»). Memorable main characters — Hanna and Neil McCauley, who follows his principles and helps his friends. Unfortunately, the film suffers from the weird gunfight, when an enormous bunch of cops cannot defeat three gangsters in one car, and the final is very stupid (what is wrong with almost all finals in Mann's movies?), when Hanna stands in an open space and Neil McCauley cannot shot him around the corner. Also, the ending of the famous coffee shop scene «I will kill you» — «Me too» is quite weird and primitive. I give it 4++ and I wish I could give it 5.
1. Thief
My favourite Michael Mann's film. Great atmosphere (night lights and the daily routine) and music. The story of the honest thief is realistic, interesting and sublime. The acting of James Caan and Tuesday Weld is gorgeous. Frank and Jessie are adorable. The moment, when Frank forces Jessie to leave him and doesn't say anything, because otherwise she won't listen, is unforgettable. I never thought I would say this, but this film will always have a special place in my heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Jul 7, 2021 10:01:15 GMT
I wanted to be his fan, and I love his style, but I do not like all his films, unfortunately. I don't like all his films either, and only haven't watched The Keep. But I appreciate his signature style and when he's good, he's good. This is how I'd rank his filmography: 5* The Insider Heat Collateral 4* Thief The Last of the Mohicans Miami Vice The Jericho Mile 3.5* Public Enemies Blackhat (I've yet to see his director's cut) 3* Ali Manhunter He's among my top 10 favorite directors but whenever ranking his work I always bounce back and fourth for the No. 1 spot between Heat and its prototype-predecessor Thief. Funnily enough, Heat does have an actual prototype-predecessor: L.A. Takedown Have any of you ever seen it? |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Jul 7, 2021 20:37:51 GMT
I saw "Collateral" at the cinema. I enjoyed it. Unique cinematographic approach/texture. A lot of it was done on HD video, with one of the cameras used being the Sony CineAlta HDW-F900: the same camera system used on AOTC. Lucas' grand vision of digital cinema coming true. The film has a very good atmosphere and Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx are excellent together. It really pulls you in and feels very "present tense". I need to see it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Jun 6, 2023 21:03:29 GMT
I'm beginning to watch this film, going in not knowing anything about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Jun 9, 2023 20:42:35 GMT
Unfortunately, the film suffers from the weird gunfight Ok, I was loving the hell out of this movie until the shootout scene. Why would they rush these heavily armed criminals in downtown during the middle of the day with hundreds of innocent bystanders everywhere? At least a half dozen cops and a good agent died. How many citizens were shot? Not to mention the millions of dollars in damage they incurred with the cop cars, the citizen's cars and the buildings. Probably more in collateral damage than was stolen. All these cops, Vincent, and his men, all with families, are risking their lives running around through this crossfire to catch shoot some bank robbers? And none of them were very good shots either. They couldn't even shoot McCualey while he was carrying Batman and 300 pounds of cash. But then he goes for the shot while that guy is holding a girl. No way, man. Was it really worth that? Is this something that cops do in real life?! If I'm missing something, "please, tell me..." |
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Jun 9, 2023 20:58:50 GMT
I noticed on repeat viewings that the gunfight is probably not realistic policing (at least, I hope not.) That being said, it is a hell of an entertaining ride. Action movies featuring cops tend to depart from reality in this way often. I was watching Michelle Yeoh's The Royal Warriors a month or two ago and it too features some pretty irresponsible policing for the sake of entertainment value.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Jun 9, 2023 21:04:35 GMT
Yeah, I understand that. What I'm trying to say is, Mann set up this great movie that had me expecting something more than stooping to a fairly unrealistic premise of an action scene. I felt like Michael Bay jarringly took over for this part of the story. I was just surprised that we were sailing along with this top notch crime film (I normally don't like and rarely watch them), then we're served this wtf moment. Oh well, I still have the rest of the film to see, maybe it'll be easy to brush aside.  And I get that Vincent is hellbent on stopping McCauley and is reckless, but still, we see that he cares about citizens and has a good head on his shoulders. And I get that they were trying to sneak up and just shoot them all in the car Bonnie & Clyde style but Batman saw one of them which changed the plan, but wow... Are cops supposed to just go up and kill armed criminals amidst a crowd of people like that? They blocked the roads, seems like there were safer alternatives. When they were spotted, let them go. Then handle things when they get to the roadblock? Or call a helicopter and follow them? |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Jun 10, 2023 9:50:24 GMT
Yeah, I understand that. What I'm trying to say is, Mann set up this great movie that had me expecting something more than stooping to a fairly unrealistic premise of an action scene. I felt like Michael Bay jarringly took over for this part of the story. I was just surprised that we were sailing along with this top notch crime film (I normally don't like and rarely watch them), then we're served this wtf moment. Oh well, I still have the rest of the film to see, maybe it'll be easy to brush aside. And I get that Vincent is hellbent on stopping McCauley and is reckless, but still, we see that he cares about citizens and has a good head on his shoulders. And I get that they were trying to sneak up and just shoot them all in the car Bonnie & Clyde style but Batman saw one of them which changed the plan, but wow... Are cops supposed to just go up and kill armed criminals amidst a crowd of people like that? They blocked the roads, seems like there were safer alternatives. When they were spotted, let them go. Then handle things when they get to the roadblock? Or call a helicopter and follow them?
Well, this is definitely a new take on the film. It's probably one of, if not the, most celebrated shootouts in a major Hollywood production, and one that has long since been referenced not merely for its technical staging but also as a relatively grounded tutorial of sorts for police and SWAT training. Perhaps coming into it new, post Bayhem-era of blockbuster, has a retro-tainting effect but the sequence pretty much wrote the book and set a gold standard on how these kinds of situations are to be translated to the big screen.
But to answer your question: yes, this is mostly definitely a (well, let's just say for now) likely operating procedure in law enforcement; but therein it might also mark a cultural difference between the US and European nations. Here stateside, it sorta falls into a category most comparable to force majeure, at least as it specifically applies to any active duty officer of the law. Practically speaking, no police action can simply choose inaction as some default rule for avoiding potential collateral damage. Once any threat to the public is determined, that's it. All bets are off. You just gotta go into it and neutralize said threat however you can, as quickly as you can.
Taking the above sequence as an example, if Hanna and those under his command, backup officers etc. had paused long enough to let the robbers flee, legally speaking, they would have been far more liable if those robbers had, say, ran over or through bystanders, shot bystanders anyways in attempt to keep cops at a distance, taken hostages, executed those hostages, so-on and so-forth. Once a certain quantity is known -- a threat to the public deemed real and immediate -- you can't deal in "what ifs". You can't hold accountable the officers with conjecture or hypotheticals as to what collateral might've been prevented had they NOT taken pursuit. The liability is now at its core on the robbers, with any harm against innocent people, direct or indirect, held against them first and foremost in a court of law.
That being said, every time there's an 'officer-involved shooting' in this country there follows mandatory leave for those officers in question along with an internal investigation/review by the higher-ups. And therein certain actions can in theory be deemed in some way unnecessary or negligent. But those actions would have to be discernibly ill-proportioned to the circumstances surrounding the threat or among other reasons in violation of due process. A crew unloading high-powered assault rifles in downtown during business hours? Yeah, no. There's no soft approach with that. Generally, cops are expected ...obligated, even... to (over)match any such threat indefinitely, with equal or greater firepower, superior numbers... with indefinite pursuit. Love it or hate it.
They can't just be like, "Oh, those guys are shooting now. We're cops, but, let's just bow outta this one because someone somewhere might get hurt or some city property might get damaged." That's...that's not a thing. Yet, again, I'm only speaking on behalf of general practices here in the US. Interesting if it might be different elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Jun 10, 2023 19:31:00 GMT
Yes, cultural differences may be a factor here.
I actually forget WHY the shooting starts in Heat. I remember that McCauley and friends ditch Hanna's surveillance before the robbery, and Hanna only just manages to find out in the nick of time to arrive and interfere with their getaway.
One of the robbers does take a hostage, but again, I forget if this happens before the shooting starts or not.
In my mind, it doesn't really count as force majeure if the presence of the cops is what causes the robbers to open fire. Personally, I would hope an intelligent police force would take the psychology of criminals into account, and realize that if you try and thwart them, they will take that as a threat and retaliate, resulting in the possible deaths of innocent bystanders. Of course, whether or not the police take this cautionary route probably depends on if they can track the criminals after the fact or not. If it is their only shot at catching them, they would feel forced to act.
So I guess I do see things differently if this situation is seen as force majeure in America. Now, if the robbers opened fire with zero provocation, then yeah, the cops should go in and shut that shit down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Jun 11, 2023 3:12:52 GMT
Hanna and his team show up (late) to the heist to arrest McCauley's crew. It's all about making arrests for police. I believe it's Val Kilmer's character, Chris, who first drops the hammer. In my mind, it doesn't really count as force majeure if the presence of the cops is what causes the robbers to open fire. Again, that would be viewed here legally as a kind of impossible standard. A crime has already been initiated, with the threat of violence no less. The presence, alone, of police thereafter is immaterial as to whether or not the perpetrators decide to open fire. Imagine if someone in the bank managed to hit the silent alarm or a witness dialed 911 only for the cops to show up—but not show up; if an innocent was hurt or killed in their chosen absence, only then could the police be held accountable. It's simply not an applicable means of emergency police response. Something like this sorta went down in real life last year at the Uvalde, Texas school shooting where the first-responders and the department that backed their orders came under extreme controversy, chiefly from other law enforcement agencies nationwide expressing harsh criticism to downright befuddlement, for holding back outside and away from the school whilst the massacre continued within. I won't pry the matter as to such being the right or wrong method of police action, only that as a median by and large the sequence in Heat depicts police behavior not altogether wildly off the mark, though it is certainly staged at length for dramatic effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Jun 11, 2023 8:38:07 GMT
Hanna's department receives a tip-off while the robbery is in progress. They rush to the bank and arrive while the robbers are getting into their car. Hanna decides they should park a bit away and sneak up on foot to the car and execute them like Bonnie & Clyde. Chris (Kilmer) sees one of them and opens fire with his assault rifle. This incites the shootout. The robbers speed off shooting in every direction as they head toward the police roadblock. Their driver and car are incompacitated, so McCauley and Chris begin making their way to a side street while killing several cops, and Cheritto goes another direction. It is Cheritto who grabs a little girl to protect himself, but Hanna shoots him anyway. It is made clear to us that the robbers don't want to hurt anyone, but the way things unfold is what I suppose creates the yin/yang dilemmic dynamic of the movie. It is the cops' actions that instigate the shootout. The other thing to consider is how much Waingro factors in to all of this. It is him who shot the guard during the truck heist in the opening of the movie, which tagged McCauley's crew as murderous. And it was him who tipped off the police about the bank (poor Trejos). Seeking revenge on him is also how McCauley (no spoilers). Fwiw, I did hear that Pacino said the Hanna character was supposed to actually be a bit of a cokehead, so that might explain some things |
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Jun 11, 2023 19:25:09 GMT
Ah yes. A pebble that starts a landslide as it were. I guess this is why Hanna tells McCauley during their face-to-face conversation that if it comes down to McCauley or some poor schmuck, McCauley is going down.
So yeah, I guess it is understandable that the cops think they're doing the right thing by taking them down during the getaway, but, you know, we might factor in some Lucasian ethics here and say that by expecting to have a fight, that's exactly the situation the cops created for themselves.
Over all, I think I am fine with this movie on a realistic level now. What we are dealing with here is the age-old problem of human imperfection.
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Jun 11, 2023 19:29:22 GMT
That being said, I hardly think the bank robbers are innocent. It is obvious they are greedy and willing to kill whoever they have to in order to get what they want. If you get in their way, watch the fuck out man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Jun 18, 2023 10:13:56 GMT
All in all I like Heat a lot. I normally don't care for crime movies but this one is a cut above. I like how it focuses on the psychological profiles of the main characters, and how their careers impede their relationships. And speaking of Lucasian and Kurosawa-ian, and film noir in general, this film really hits on the discarding and repression of the feminine as being the root of the problems. And I had no idea Natalie Portman was in it, of all people. I swear she plays the same archetype in every film!
But yeah, the dilemmas, and the good guys doing bad and the bad guys trying to be noble thing. I like to see that done well in movies. Mann crafted Hanna and McCauley as a perfect yin/yang with each other, and explored that intruigingly.
I understand the gun fight better now, it's brutal, but I get it. I really like how the film is very '90s and modern, and then the last scene is very '40-50's, and even a little '70s. Or maybe that's just my imagination.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Jun 23, 2023 11:25:13 GMT
The other thing to consider is how much Waingro factors in to all of this. There's a Stevie Wonder song called They Won't Go When I Go, and ever since watching Heat I've had it stuck in my head but with the lyrics as, "they won't Gro Wain I Gro." (On a SW related note, this song is about following one's destiny). |
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Jul 30, 2023 21:37:09 GMT
Heat was and will always be for me the first pure action adrenaline movie "with brain". It was almost unseen phenomenon before it, so this is the remarkable thing in Heat for me, not the technical realism, if I can say so. For me Heat was realistic for the realistic characters, otherwise I'm not interested in gangsters' movies at all.
P.S. I like the Last Mochican. Maybe because I was surprised that the adaptation is capable, maybe for Daniel Day Luis, or maybe because Michael Mann is a craftsman director, but the movie is good (not a great wow, but a very good movie).
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Aug 10, 2023 20:23:48 GMT
Now I want to see The Keep!  |
|
