re: 1995 movie Heat, De Niro, Pacino, etc

quote:

---

The robberies/shootouts are great but most of the rest of the movie sucks. The scenes of Pacino with Diane Venora have made me stop the movie and watch something else. The De Niro scenes with Amy Brenneman aren't as over the top, but her interest in him has always seemed silly to me. The only relationship that I find interesting in Val Kilmer and Ashley Judd. It's the only one that makes sense too. She's hooker and he's a thief.

---

I saw it once in the theater in 1995 and then again last night for the first time since. This is kind of where I'm at. I don't think the movie has aged well at all.

For starters, it just seems utterly palpable now how much the OFFscreen excitement about Pacino and DeNiro finally sharing scenes was expected to carry the movie. But if you strip that bit of superstardom away, I just found the stakes to be WAY too low to generate any compelling emotions. I mean, it's LA cops chasing bank robbers. Important work, sure. But not exactly god's work.

It also seemed like they wrote the maxim about walking away in 30 seconds and then tried to shoehorn a movie to it. It was very ham-handed, IMO. Others have mentioned it, but the DeNiro/Brennaman love interest was NOT in any way believable or compelling in terms of setting up the supposed choice DeNiro had to ultimately make.

The direction seemed almost intentionally anti-Mamet-esque, in that many things were shown onscreen that did not move the plot or the characters forward. e.g. After Haysbert breaks bad again, they spend time showing his mom/GF/whatever in the bar reacting to seeing it on TV. This was truly neither here nor there for the characters nor the story. Ditto the ridiculous kicking the broken TV out of the car scene. (Also, why did they show Waingro coming out of the can and asking for a refill of coffee?)

I was highly entertained at some of the casting - Tone Loc? Henry Rollins? lol

The fire alarm scene at the hotel towards the end - that just seemed absurd also. One person pulling an alarm evidently results in the COMPLETE evacuation of (seemingly) the most populous hotel in the entire city? Might have made more sense if he had generated some actual smoke/fire, but the way they played it was just not believable.

Fichtner sub-plot seemed superfluous as well.


I understand why the movie was made and got so much hype, but it ultimately collapses under its own considerable weight. Yeah yeah, the shootout scene. It's fine, I guess, although it also is there ONLY for its own mastubatory, set piece benefit. It doesn't actually move anything forward.

ETA: I still give the movie 2.5 out of 4 stars. It's good, just not a masterpiece. It was VERY full of itself for having the 2 icons (and, as many people have mentioned, Pacino was just absurd).