Unprofessional - Heat (1995) Discussion

[–] McQueen1980 8 years ago

I they wanted waingro to think he was going to get a payoff from the gang by meeting in a cafe

neil shoving waingro's head on the table was a bit of improv

reply

[–] zerowing-1 7 years ago

^This.

reply

[–] SnoozeAlarm 8 years ago

OP, I agree 100%.

Scariest words in English: We’re from the federal government and we’re here to help. R. Reagan

reply

[–] dominicd 8 years ago

Even the best (sic) professionals lose their emotions at times? As far as any of the other diners reporting the assault of a repeated rapist, felon & Pelican Bay SHU graduate I don't think that anyone would've given a shuck. Albeit the we're planning to wack him from the get-go .. even had a nice plastic sleeping bag in the trunk of Neil's car?

reply

[–] smokescreensemerge-538-372043 8 years ago

That was Treo's car I believe. Or possibly the crew's business car.

reply

[–] blackswan-545-352343 7 years ago

i don't think it was a spur of the moment killing, but...

marc

reply

[–] Man-In-Black08 7 years ago

These so called pros were inept clowns. They 're meant to be precise, organised and calculating, yet can't act like nothing's wrong around the guy they are 3 minutes away from assassinating.

And instead of paying him off and not letting on that there's an issue so they can kill him later, in private without witnesses and take care of the body, the evidence and all the forensics at their leisure, they try to execute him in broad daylight in a public carpark and stuff him into a car...

Knowing these guys, had they succeeded in killing him and getting him in the trunk, they'd then start drag racing then first cop car they saw or park the car in a tow zone and just leave it at the Police impound with the one of the gang's members being the registered owner, along with a map to their hide-outs.

reply

[–] Silent_Bob01 7 years ago

Maybe they figured their only chance of whacking him was in a semi-public place. Waingro clearly didn't want to meet anyplace remote because he knew they were all pissed at him...otherwise why meet up in a diner?

reply

[–] Man-In-Black08 7 years ago

Here's an idea:

pay him off without letting on anything's wrong and then follow him. As soon as he's in a non-public place, take him out.

Clean, sane and professional. It's absolutely disgusting how praised this bullsh!t is. Anyone can write this schlock, it's cliche 101.

reply

[–] Silent_Bob01 7 years ago

I love the film, but it's definitely got some glaring plotholes and leaps in logic that don't pass muster the more you think about them.

reply

[–] lolmyspacewhooers 7 years ago

Hey, jagoff. The entire basis of your argument is centered on how you think they were going to dispose of Waingro. You're assuming they were going to shoot him in the parking lot then throw him in the trunk. Far more likely they force him into Trejo's trunk, drive to another location, kill him, and then dump the body.

And clearly they were aware of the possibility that a bystander could witness what was going on in the parking lot. THAT IS WHY CHERITTO AND CHRIS ARE SCANNING THE SURROUNDINGS LOOKING FOR EXACTLY THAT. In fact, that is precisely why the cop car cruised past them. If the cop saw Waingro and McCauley struggling in the parking lot, it would have drawn attention. Hence the "HOLD IT!"

It's called plot, chief. Had the cruiser not appeared at that moment, they probably get Waingro in the trunk and that would be the end of him. Except then you don't have a movie. Much more compelling that he narrowly escapes, thus leaving a loose end and creating a level of intrigue in the story.

We get it. You don't like the film. You think it's flawed. You're real beef is that you can't stand the fact that other people enjoy the movie, and so you reveal your pathetic insecurities in the form of threads trying to bring the film down. Incredible. You spend ample amount of time on a board of a movie YOU DON'T EVEN LIKE. Maybe, just maybe you feel slighted that you can't get the amount of enjoyment out of the film that others are able to.

Let me let you in on a little secret - getting a handful of people to agree with your nit-picky criticisms will never change the reputation of this film being a classic. Now go pound sand.

reply

[–] Man-In-Black08 7 years ago

You guys are so fun to wind up. You can't stand someone picking apart all the stupid aspects of your favourite wank material ;-)

Your perfectly written super genius criminals slammed a guy's face on a table in front of 50 witnesses and man-handled him out the front door and tried to stuff him in the trunk of a car in broad daylight...

So at best, they committed assault and an attempted abduction in front of dozens of witnesses... Yup, sure sounds like good writing to me and not just some stupid sh!t to clumsily try and create a plot by having the stereotypical bad guy pull a hoodini and disappear into thin air...

reply

[–] lolmyspacewhooers 7 years ago

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the details.

man-handled him out the front door

Nope, try again. They're well past the front door before Neil turns around and attacks Waingro.

tried to stuff him in the trunk of a car

Wrong again. Neil knocks him to the ground, removes his gun, and then is told to stop by Cherrito. Happens in the span of about 7 seconds. At no point do they ever attempt to get him in the trunk. The police cruiser appeared before they could.

in broad daylight...

You mean night, right? It's clearly not broad daylight. I guess you took a nap when you watched the movie.

they committed assault and an attempted abduction in front of dozens of witnesses

Dozens? How did you come up with that figure? What exactly did "they" witness assuming at least one person saw the entire thing? They saw a bunch of guys walk out of the diner. They may have seen Neil knock Waingro to the ground and remove his gun. So let's say that's enough reason for someone to call the cops. The cops asks the witness to describe what they saw. The witness gives a description of guy wearing a gray suit. WOW! Look at all the evidence they have to work with! Neil and his crew are certainty going to get caught! Never mind the fact that they would have no way to corroborate what the witness saw because, you know, Waingro is gone too. There literally is no case to be had.

Pound sand, dude.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MisterHex 7 years ago

Indeed, there were plenty of witnesses. Everyone marvels at the look Tom Sizemore gives the other diner patron when De Niro slams Waingro's head on the counter, like they were trying to intimidate the hell out of everyone in the restaurant. It was obvious that there was a commotion brewing, and the way they quickly shuffled the crew outside, everyone must have noticed. And posters here want to admit that nobody cared. They must never go to diners much, where you'll know if the guys in the booth next to yours are getting ready to kill someone.

Michael Mann is his own worst enemy. He knows the landscape and lifestyles of cops and robbers well, since he spent so much time hanging out with them over the years in Chicago. But he always underestimates innocent background characters, especially in Heat. He plays out the Waingro diner scene like none of the patrons would notice.

But then, to his credit, these scenes need to exist to move the plot along, or else we'd have a boring film if everything was 100% procedural. I don't like the way the De Niro romance subplot played out. They were mismatched and he should have made her know better than to shack up with a gangster type like Neil. Come to think of it, that whole relationship started in a diner, too. It's like the most implausible Michael Mann scenes happen in diners, lol.

reply

[–] lolmyspacewhooers 7 years ago

put your cock and the lube away and actually watch rather than try desperately to cum in your sock without getting any on your clothes

Yeah, you're not worth my time.

Go pound sand.

reply

[–] Man-In-Black08 7 years ago

Aye mate, you can only defend this crappy film for so long before reality starts to sink in ;-)

Sorry if Ive spoilt it for you, try using your other hand from now on :-D

Don't forget to get this post deleted by an admin cry baby!

reply

[–] Man-In-Black08 7 years ago

Nuance isn't your strong-suit is it genius? Never heard of hyberbole either I take it. Poor soul...

But I guess that's what happens when you spend so much time watching this crap, all sense of taste you migh have had goes out the window.

You do realise you are literally pointing out all the flaws in this film by defending them right?

What you 're doing is pretty much on par to responding to someone pointing out an anachonism in a period piece where someone is wearing sports shoes they think are Nikes by proudly exclaiming "HA! they 're not Nikes, they 're Adidas! Ergo not a mistake!I WIN!"

I see you conveniently don't address how DeNiro slams his face on the table in front of witnesses simply because you can't twist it into some asinine statement like "He didn't slam his face, if you watch closely you will see he merely applied a forward forceful momentum to the back of his head and then introduced it to the table-top in front of them!".

As for the trunk scene, watch it again. Trejo opens up the trunk to reveal it's been drapped in tarp, obviously signifying their intent to murder Waingro and stuff his body in to contain all the forensics and blood from spilling out and forming and obvious crime scene.

This of course is rendered utterly pointless when you 're genius mastermind super-criminal takes out his unsilenced gun in a public parking lot and tries to shoot him with no regard for the noise and blood spatter which would draw yet even more attention to what they 're doing...

Yup, you 're absolutely right, this isn't some crappy superficial slick looking well polished turd, it's a cinematic masterpiece where nothing is done simply for aesthetics and without regard for realism.

Now that I've cleaned up all the profanity, let's see you try and get this post deleted by an admin again you pathetic little cry baby :-D

reply

[–] chilone (17251) 6 years ago

So your movie is coming out when?

reply

[–] Weber4278 7 years ago

Remember its a movie, and filmmakers usually go with what is more cinematic then realistic, movies have to be entertaining after all.

For the sake of the plot they needed Wangro to escape and they needed the audience to know Neil and Crew wanted him dead. Paying him off and then silently following him to eliminate him as was mentioned above, doesn't make for a entertaining scene, a showdown at the diner does...it adds to the tension of 'will they kill him?, will the police catch them? will wangro get away?, etc'

I think the scene works fine for what it is, yes it was a screwup on Neils part but then it was meant to be...Wangro had to escape or else the ending of the film never would have happened.

reply

[–] Man-In-Black08 7 years ago

Which is all fine and well, but is also very contrived and lazily written.

This films get so much credit for being well written and engaging, when the truth is it's pretty much an unimaginative paint by numbers effort, similar to any 90's action film.

Had this film not starred DeNiro and Pacino during the height of their popularity and critical acclaim, it would have never have goten any real praise.

I think it would be a very interesing experiment to show this film to people who aren't movie buffs and don't know who Pacino and DeNiro are. In 30-40 years time when they have long died and their fame faded, I'm willing to bet insane amounts of money on movie-goers born after 2020 finding this to be a predictable and cliched bore.

reply

[–] MisterHex 7 years ago

Probably. The movie's already 20 years old, in another 20 to 30 years the pacing will seem boring and tiresome, like watching a movie from the mid 1960s today.

The best comparison is to watch L.A. Takedown, the 1989 TV movie Mann filmed before he officially made Heat. By all accounts, including my own, the acting is some of the worst you'll ever see, wooden, hammy scene chewing, cheap sets and a gaudy, late 80s look. When that movie came out, nobody was thinking, "De Niro and Pacino would be great in those two roles," they were just watching it as a TV movie from the guy who did Thief and Miami Vice. And nobody but diehard Heat fans remember L.A. Takedown.

De Niro and Pacino are no strangers to this sort of thing, either. De Niro did Falling in Love with Meryl Streep, which would've been relegated to the Lifetime Channel if two common actors had starred as the leads. And Pacino? The only reason anyone would remember something like Gigli is his cameo.

reply

[–] Weber4278 7 years ago

Probably. The movie's already 20 years old, in another 20 to 30 years the pacing will seem boring and tiresome, like watching a movie from the mid 1960s today.

Heat is not perfect, I would never call it a masterpiece...but its a heck of a lot better action film then half of the crap Hollywood churns out today.

And honestly most of the time I'd rather watch a film from the 'mid 1960's', their are a ton of great films from the years when Hollywood still had a creative bone in its body.

Just my opinion

reply

[–] Man-In-Black08 7 years ago

And honestly most of the time I'd rather watch a film from the 'mid 1960's', their are a ton of great films from the years when Hollywood still had a creative bone in its body.

Agreed. There are certain films from the 60s and 70s that in my opinion haven't aged at all in terms of pacing and overall entertainment. A few Charlton Heston films from that era seem to have still retained their appeal to the generation of audiences that followed. What about Psycho? It's even in black and white yet young people still watch and enjoy it.

Look at more 'recent' films like Die Hard, The Terminator, Alien and Aliens etc. These have stood the test of time, quite possibly because they were never elevated to god-like status by audiences and critics.

When you over-hype films by such an extra-ordinary amount, or even people, it's all going to come crashing down at some point because the exaggerations are simply too much and create a negative backlash due to the flaws and inherent disappointment that follows.

reply

[–] Silent_Bob01 7 years ago

Die Hard, The Terminator, Alien and Aliens

Oh, I completely disagree. All four of those movies ARE held in god-like status by sophisticated audiences, and rightfully so.

Aside from a few dated FX shots (very few), those films are as relevant, as exciting, as entertaining, and as brilliant now as they were when they came out.

Alien is still one of the scariest movies I've ever seen (maybe THE scariest). I saw it when I was way too young and it's permanently embedded in my psyche.

Die Hard and Aliens are both Top 10 all-time action films for me, and The Terminator is a master-work.

I like Heat just fine, but it can't hold a candle to those four.

reply

[–] Man-In-Black08 7 years ago

They are NOW, but weren't when first released. I remember growing up they were all considered good action films but that's about it. It wasn't until much later, 10-15 years on that they started to really become classics and appreciated to the degree they are today.

reply

[–] MisterHex 7 years ago

Don't worry, I wasn't slamming 1960s films at all. Look at all the James Bond films from that point, especially On Her Majesty's Secret Service, whose rapid-fire action editing was unheard of at the time; and Kubrick's 2001, which set the standard for Ridley Scott's Alien.

reply

[–] Man-In-Black08 7 years ago

I still find Dr No to be among the top 3 Bonds films that I've watched, although mind you I haven't watched them all.

The Daniel Craig films are the epitome of overhyped plot-hole ridden drivel.

reply

[–] daniel_d85 7 years ago

The people in the diner don't actually see Waingro being assaulted. They look up after hearing a commotion and seen four men sitting in a booth together, having some sort of argument. Not exactly something most people would phone the police about.

When you're inside at night it's hard to see anything outside because of the interior lighting. They may have heard a bang if Waingro had been shot in the parking lot but wouldn't have seen anything, since he was on the ground, hidden behind parked cars.

reply

[–] thebricks (292) 7 years ago

Why not just kill him at the scene, if you ask me? It would have thrown less heat on the other guys. Cops could at least have said he was the murderer and cleared the cases.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

why kill him at all?

reply

[–] AP (5256) 6 years ago

There's a lot in this movie that doesn't add up. This includes the famous diner scene between Pacino and De Niro. I think if it wasn't for the hype around Pacino and De Niro having a scene together, more people would realize how dumb it is.

reply