892. HEAT (1995)

Running Time: 171 minutes
Directed By: Michael Mann
Written By: Michael Mann
Main Cast: Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Val Kilmer, Jon Voight, Tom Sizemore
Click here to view the trailer

PACINO, DE NIRO, AWESOME!

So this was coming up real soon anyway and since I just got through watching six straight Robert De Niro flicks, I figured I'd might as well make it a lucky seven and watch "Heat" too.

So if you're not familiar with "Heat", it's probably the best straight crime movie (and I'm talking cops and robbers, shoot 'em up style stuff here) to come down the pike in the last, oh, say twenty - thirty years. Actually, that's a bold statement and I'm surely forgetting something, but let's just go with it for now. You've got Vincent Hanna (Pacino), the good guy cop, who is working on failed marriage number three - a detective who sacrifices sleep and family to catch the bad guys and lock them away. Then there's the other side of the spectrum and Neil McCauley (De Niro), a brutal criminal and an ace professional who lives by the philosophy of "never having anything in your life that you're not prepared to walk out on in thirty seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner". The film starts with an armored truck heist, but McCauley and crew, including Chris (Kilmer) and Cherrito (Sizemore). That gets the cops' attention and the cat & mouse game is on. The film is paced quite nicely for a three hour affair, so that we're given equal portions of important scenes, so that we're not forced to sludge through chunks of boring and meaningless material. Neil ends up meeting a girl, one whom he eventually develops strong feelings for and one that he may not be willing to walk out on in thirty seconds. Meanwhile, Vincent's marriage is crumbling, but his admiration for Neil keeps him on the streets.

It's a crime flick, ladies & gentlemen - need I say more. There's cops, there's bad guys and they play like cowboys and Indians in the street and that's really all you need know. Plus it's got Pacino and De Niro; that should be more than enough to skyrocket this classic to the top of your Netflix queue, especially if you haven't seen it. Let's talk about Pacino and De Niro for a second and who comes off as the better actor. Well it may be the recent intake of "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull" and other fantastic De Niro films, but I tended to lean more toward the De Niro performance here. Granted, I used to be Camp Pacino all the way, but, like I've said a thousand times before, THE BOOK will do wacky things to your cinematic taste buds and sometimes flip you to the exact opposite opinion. De Niro's Neil is a lot more reserved, cool, held back than Pacino's sometimes over the top Det. Hanna. De Niro knows when to turn up the volume and when to get a little more rambunctious and I liked that self control on his part.

As far as the story, like I said in the plot synopsis, the film never leaves you waiting for the next piece of the puzzle. It paces itself like a marathon runner, so that the viewer always gets a little something to tide them over until the next big rush of excitement. You've got the opening armored car heist then we get some story, then at about the halfway mark you get the bank robbery and the death of some key characters up to that point and then you get the rest of the story. It's beautifully paced and as someone who as seen a lot of long movies that haven't been well paced, I appreciated that.

Look it's just a great movie. It's a mainstream hit that actually delivers quality results. I still remember the first time I saw it. It never gets too complicated, like some police/detective/criminal movies do. We're given simple facts to deal with and left with only the responsibility of having a good time at the movies. Also, if you're any sort of movie fan, then the pairing of De Niro and Pacino will be a fascinating one. I think I'm correct in thinking that this is the first film they did together and to watch them go, within the confines of the same film, is like watching Picasso and Rembrandt do a painting together.

RATING: 8/10  Very good, but De Niro impressed more with his earlier Scorsese offerings. Still though, if you've never seen this go and see it like right now.

MOVIES WATCHED: 734
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 267

September 25, 2013  1:10pm

Read More

737. Manhunter (1986)

Running Time: 121 minutes
Directed By: Michael Mann
Written By: Michael Mann, from the novel Red Dragon by Thomas Harris
Main Cast: William Petersen, Dennis Farina, Tom Noonan, Brian Cox, Kim Greist
Click here to view the trailer

A DOUBLE SHOT OF LECTER: 1 of 2

Actually, in "Manhunter" Hannibal's name is spelled "Lecktor", not "Lecter", but it's spelled Lecter in the more popular film, so we'll go with that one. For reasons that I can't even explain, this was the first time I'd seen "Manhunter" and being a big fan of "The Silence of the Lambs", I was excited to check this out.

The movie plays out very similar to "The Silence of the Lambs", with Will Graham (Petersen) in the Clarice Starling role. When the film opens, Graham is a retired FBI criminal profiler, who was sent into retirement via the mind games of Dr. Hannibal Lecktor. Graham was the man responsible for catching Lecktor, but when he programmed his mind to think like the cannibalistic doctor, he couldn't shake the evil thoughts, sending him into a breakdown. Now, his special talents are needed once again, as his FBI superior, Jack Crawford (Farina), comes calling when a new serial killer is on the loose. The new killer is being dubbed the Tooth Fairy and has already murdered and maimed two families. Crawford needs Graham on the case, because, quite simply, Graham is the best at what he does. After some contemplation, Graham agrees to take the case, leaving his wife Molly (Greist) and his son at home, in Florida. Eventually and much like Clarice Starling, Graham must force himself to visit Lecktor (Cox), so that he can get some ideas and so that he can regain his old way of thinking. The character of Lecktor doesn't have as prominent a role here as the Hopkins portrayal in "The Silence of the Lambs", but Cox plays him well, nonetheless.

SPOILER ALERT!!

Obviously it was going to take A LOT for me to dub "Manhunter" as a superior film to "The Silence of the Lambs" and while it wasn't THAT good, it was still a perfectly fine production. The cast represented an underutilized portion of Hollywood, that rarely (especially these days) get a chance to really show what they can do. You've got William Petersen, who would go on to CSI fame and who does a marvelous job as Graham here. Sure, he's got his fair share of cheesy lines ("It's just you and me now sport!"), but you can hardly fault him for that. You've got Dennis Farina, who works perfectly as the FBI superior and perhaps an even better Jack Crawford than Scott Glenn. Brian Cox is a fine Hannibal Lecktor and I only wish he'd had more screen time, because I think he really could've stolen the show. As it is, he barely had the opportunity (keep your eyes peeled for the scene where Lecktor makes an unauthorized phone call to a layer's office to get Graham's home address - "Well zip that little pointer right on down to the letter G". You've also got Joan Allen and Tom Noonan, the latter of played his role to a tee and succeeded in creeping me the F--- out.

If I had to nitpick (and you know I do), I'd say that things got a little too dark near the middle and end. I mean, I'm all for dark but if you're going to be a dark picture, then spread your darkness evenly throughout. The film started out as your basic detective movie, very cookie cutter and then we went a little too far down the rabbit hole and things just started to get a little too out there. It wasn't necessarily a bad thing, it just caught me off guard more than anything. Also, the plot got just a little too intricate for me. I think if they'd been able to keep things simpler and more succinct, it would've only made things a lot smoother. We get piece after piece, something about mirrors (which I don't think is ever fully explained), then the Red Dragon jargon and the correspondence with Lecktor and then for some reason, we never even see Lecktor again. Trust me, I'm just nitpicking, this IS a good flick.

However, as I already mentioned, it simply isn't AS GOOD as "The Silence of the Lambs". This film is rougher and grittier than and "Lambs" is just more polished and professional. This is like a poor man's "Lambs" and I mean that in the most positive way possible. The climax is extremely effective, with a "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" blasting and Will Graham making a pretty bad ass leap through a picture window. I'll stop now, because my thoughts are getting random and muddled, but this film gets a very easy thumbs upski!

RATING: 7/10  It's like I'm taking shots at a dartboard and I'm hitting high numbers, but I'll be damned if I just can't hit the bullseye! Let's see if lucky #50 can change that...I think it has a good shot!

MOVIES WATCHED: 550
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 451

October 11, 2012  5:22pm

Read More