So I've watched Heat, the 1995 crime drama classic from Michael Mann. After watching just nearly 3hrs of it, despite the fact that a film like this can be more condensed, I found this to be a superb classic of the true crime era of films. Albeit a few, uh, flaws I would like to point out. Maybe some nitpicks, but I hope you're following this well. Also, there will little to no spoilers here, so no worries.
Heat was released in December 15, 1995. Which was basically around Christmas eve. The film was a personal project of Michael Mann, both written, produced and directed by him. Mann is mostly called a perfectionist. He likes to hone his craft, by being emmaculate about takes and every shots. His experience with crime dramas comes from the early 80's, especially around the time when he was running as show creator for Miami Vice, before he made the jump to feature film with Manhunter.
The film starts Robert Deniro, Val Kilmer, Al Pacino, Jon Voight, Natalie Portman, Ashley Judd, Tom Sizemore, and Danny Trejo. It had a large ensemble cast, the movie's budget at the time was considered very expensive, compared to today's 100 million dollar budget. Which is, sort of plenty out there these days.
Despite the fictional setting, the film was based on an actual bank robber, named Neil McCauley, where he was being tracked by a detective named Chuck Adamson. While the info breaker, played by Jon Voight was based on actor Edward Bunker. Both Bunker and Adamson provided consultancy on the film with Mann. 80% of the film is based on true events. With the location and timeline being different.
Heat, was a complete joyride for a filgoer like me. It's a simple film with a simple premise. Cops vs Robbers, quite literally. With a lengthy runtime, the film was hyper focused and pretty concise of its story. There was quite a lot to digest. So many integrated subplots to different character backs
First off, Robert De Niro plays a smooth, subdued character. He just got out of prison and he's doing whatever he can to get the cash and get out of his current life. Along with his merry band of bank robbers, whom he trust more than anybody else for the job. Except that one guy who'll bite him in the ass later in the film. His performance here was much more notable.
Then you have Al Pacino, the rough archetype of a cop who'll stop at nothing to get his perpetrators. He's smart, resilient, sharp, very observant, and has temper issues. Yet, him and De Niro's character have something in common. The film highlights that in the later half. While showcasing what's going on around them to poignantly showcase their dilemma.
Around the 3hr runtime, I was fixated on almost every detail and I remember almost every bit of it. Because the storytelling was done beautifully. The action sequences are intense, tightly shot, and full of moments where you clench your buttcheeks real tight. This is a noir film, as much as it a crime drama. Mann has specifically stated that this isn't a genre film, it's a drama. Quite a lot of Shakespearean stuff going on too to make that statement true.
This film feels realistic, since it was Mann's goal to imbue a sense of realism, much like he's done for other films like The Insider and Collateral. When it comes to being a director, Mann knows his visual well enough to make it fully realized. That's quite something considering the man made this film in his early 50's. He is now 78 years old.
But I have nitpicks, two big ones. Now this is the part where I tell you it's spoiler grounds. You've been warned.
.
.
.
How is it that one guy who didn't follow your instructions, attracted more heat to you, soon as you almost about to ice him, he rans off and the film ignored him about 2/3 of the acts. Before he comes back to betray pretty much everyone. No one even acknowledged he was really upto something, that there should a lead on where he is. It kind of ruins the well written integrity of the script, as you have some potential gaps in the story that maybe could have been filled otherwise. Plotholes as they say.
The other is the bank heist shootout. Ok, this is something sort of all movies have, especially at the time it came out. This is a personal grievance I have, but I honestly think the police would have been chastised for the fact that the criminals they've been following on, shot up a lot of police officers and people. The superiors don't like dealing with paperwork and bad publicity. They got the intel late, but they had ample time to corner them right without causing a scene. The real life story waited for them in a much less populated area. This is LA, there were lots of people bustling. Then again, I guess it was the best place to shoot out a crazy, intense gun fight between the authorities and the robbers.
I really see why this has cult status, I enjoyed the heck out of it. I can easily let myself be loose on its flaws. Because despite the fact that one of them is glaringly bad, you can still work with so much depth with the story, the acting finesse, and intense set pieces. Great movie, go check it out.
