MovieChat Forums > Heat (1995) Discussion > Best deconstruction of this crap I've ev...

Best deconstruction of this crap I've ever seen

posted 8 years ago by Man-In-Black08
46 replies | jump to latest

Came across this written review by a guy on the general discussion board of a fitness website.

This is an epic takedown in the same league as Mr Plinkett and the prequels.

Actually, from a character, story-telling and acting point of view, Heat is arguably one of the worst and most over-rated Hollywood film in the past 30 years so when compared to the rave reviews and praise it gets.

I know I'm going to catch a lot of flack but it's late and I'm bored so here it goes:

Michael Mann seems to be totally incapable of directing actors. All the films of his I've watched, including this one, seem to consist of people over or udner-acting and seemingly neverending panning of the camera in 360 degrees establishing shots. The guy's style would be far more suited for music videos.

He managed to get Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, arguaby two of the greatest actors of all time and what kind of perfromances does he get out of them?

Pacino seems to be chewing the scenery and screaming every chance he gets as if this is the only way to portray emotion and the character's frustration.

De Niro on the other hand, who's playing a brooding and composed career-criminal seems to be totally asleep in every scene he isn't waving a gun around.

The characters are hideously flat and uninteresting and the only reason we care about them is because they are Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. If you had TV actors from a show like Law and Order or Hawaii-Five 0, no one would give a toss.

The entire attempt to portray the film as having antagonists who are anti-heros rather than villains just doesn't work. The cops are written so stereotypically awful in the typical 90's fashion (walking around with dark sunglasses, barking orders at other cops and intimidating witnesses and petty criminals), that you don't care or root for them.

You 'd think that this would make it easier to sympathise with the criminal gang, but lo and behold, even they aren't interesting enough either. You have Val Kilmer come off as some petulant child with a gambling problem, which we never see have any real effect on in his character other than to establish he's a risk taker, as if being a career-criminal wasn't already indicative of that, and then De Niro just looks bored and in search of some thing to do. The rest of the gang, Danny Trejo, Tom Sizemore and Jon Voight barely have a character at all, they 're just there to provide dialogue and plot-point exposition.

The complete comedy of how bad horribly written these characters are comes from the film's only real villain, Waingro (or whatever the hell he name is) and he's so utterly cliched and stereotypically evil they might as well have named him Bad Guy or Mr Evil.

Basically the guy's only purpose is to make all the other characters more sympathetic because so far, our 2 leads are boring as hell and a wlaking stereotype, our 3rd guy, Val Kilmer, is in the film just so why can have the wife betrayal, a pointless side-plot seeing as how they could have had any number of criminals fill that part, and a gang of forgetable police shoot-out fodder.

Let me lay down this beat, see if you can pick it up:

Al pacino isn't really likeable. He's a sad, tired old bastard who's wife and step-child are more trouble than they 're worth to him. By the end of the film all he's got is his job and he's not intersting enough with that a lone.

De Niro is sort of relatable in the sense that he's a bit of a social recluse and given the setting of the large city, bright lights theme most of us can related to the isolation his character feels, but that still doesn't cut it as he's a bad guy, no question.

He orders the execution of some poor bastards that just doing their job as armoured guards, he terrorizes and threatens a wife to stay with her abusive husband (oh but that's ok because he offers to pay her way if he screws up again, as if somehow this is HIS decision to make) and he robs banks...

Basically he's a loner with no qualms about killing innocent people to save his hide. But we are meant to over-look all this because he decides to get vengeance for the death of his friend and betrayal of Wayngro... That's like sympathising with a murderer over him being raped.

And this is where I trully draw the line and call this film bloody awful. So Waingro's a real sob sure, but what did he do so different? He killed the guards in cold blood, just like de Niro ordered the others to do later. You coudl argue he did it out of pleasure and De Niro out of necessity but that's a bullsh!t excuse in my eyes. De Niro willingly put himself in that situation by robbing the armoured car, so tough sh!t mate, you 're not a good guy in any way, shape or form.

But wait a minute, how do we possibly care for ANYONE at this point? They 're all either boring as f@ck, or asholes! Why should we care?

Because Waingros turns out to be a child-molesting, serial-killer Nazi... Yes people, you read this right. The main characters in Heat are so HORRIBLY written and uninteresting, they ONLY way the writer can get us to care for them and become even slightly emotionally involved in the plot is if they throw in a child-molesting, serial-killing Nazi into the mix to suck up all the possible hate and leave nothing but positive feelings for the rest seeing how compared to Hitler, most people come off better.

This is such a lazy and juvenile way to write a story, not to mention insulting to the viewer, as it tricks you into thinking the characters are worth caring for and even insults your intelligence by thinking this schlock actually works (which it did apparently, and beautifully so as well...).

Anyway, long story short, boring murdering ashole kills Nazi so suddnely he's good guy, even though he did it for completely selfish reasons and not out of principle, and that means we automatically ought to care if he gets away or if walking 90's cop stereotype gets his guy. Utter crap.

Furthermore, the there's a few more points I want to make about how plainly stupid the characters act when the writer needs to add tension and create a shamble of a plot for us to have to sit through.

1)De Niro and his gang are somehow this elit gang of robbers yet don't think to inquire deeper into the new addition mere moments before going on a heist.

Hey morons, ever think to simply cancel the job if you couldn't find a guy in enough time to check him out for something as trivial as being a complete psycho and loose canon? Elit gang of criminal robbers my ****, these guys are amateur clowns.

2) so Waingor goes off the deep end and kills a guard in cold blood, necessitating the execution of the rest of the guards, something De Niro is mad about and plans to kill Waingro for.

So what does this criminal genius do?

Does he pretend nothing's wrong and kill him when he least expects it?

Does he fake a robbery and take him out and portray his death as yet another crime statistic in the big city?

Of course not. He gets his ENTIRE gang that was in on the job to meet in a public diner, have them act all suspicious around Waingro by giving him the silent treatment and then like a complete f@cking moron like he is, De Niro slams the guy's face on the table, for THE ENTIRE F1CKING DINER TO SEE HIM, THE ASSUALT AND ALL OF THEIR FACES, and then proceeds to man-handle him out to the parking lot, IN BROAD DAYLIGHT , IN PUBLIC, AFTER ASSAULTING HIM, and attepts to assisinate him BY GUNSHOT... And of course, suprise surprise, someone distracts them momentarily and Waingro turns into Hudini and disappares into thin air...

What a bunch of f@cking *beep*

3) and lastly, the biggest single insult to humanity ever commited to film:

HOW THE F@CK DOES VAL KILMER GET AWAY AT THE END?????????

This guy killed cops in a shoot-out not 36 hours ago, the entire f@cking police department of Los Anglese and probably every law-enforcemnt officer in the state (FBI, Sheriff's Departments, Airport Security, Traffic Wardens, even the f@cking mall security guards are probably on alert!) and despite being the target of a state wide manhunt for COP KILLING, a crime punsihable by the DEATH SENTENCE in California, he manages to get away from the very police road block set up specifically to catch him outside his own safe-house simply by cutting his pony-tail and showing a fake ID...

F@CKING ASSSSSSS!!!! Jesus Christ that so f@cking stupid! Is this film REALLY telling us that the guy who looks exactly like the guy accussed of being a cop killer can simply roll by a police road block specifically set up to catch him with by simply flashing a fake ID and driving a car that wasn't stolen???

Ate these people BLIND?! You have his MUGSHOT!!! IT'S HIM!!! LOOK AT THE PHOTOS! IT'S THE SAME GUY!!!

Good god this movie's so f@cking stupid... Basically all Bin Laden had to do was get himself a fake ID and he could have lived out his days as a hot-dog vendor outside the CIA headquarters in Langley... Brilliant.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

It makes some decent points, but it's by no means an epic takedown. About as nuanced and intelligent as I would expect to find in a fitness website

I can definitely agree that Mann is not great at directing actors. He is nowhere in the league of Scorsese or Coppola. Not every director can maximize the talents of these great actors

Pacino, I can agree over did it. If you read the Heat screenplay, Hanna is kind of a dirty cop, but he does not have the kinds of outbursts that Pacino ad-libbed in the film. For example, the iconic "BECAUSE SHE'S GOT A GREEEAAAT ASS!" I think Pacino just improvized. In general, Pacino was in a period of overacting in the 90s. He was a legend already, had gotten his Oscar, and maybe just wanted to have fun while acting. I dunno

With De Niro, I kind of disagree. Yes, he plays the character of McCauley as very cold and emotionless, but that is the point. McCauley has suppressed his emotions because of his commitment to the job. Like he repeatedly says, "form no attachments that you can't leave in 30 seconds if you spot the heat around the corner". He is the way he is because he thinks that that is the only way to do the job properly. And De Niro did his best interpretation of that

And yes, he handled Waingrogh stupidly, but that is kind of the point. McCauley wants to believe that he is cold-blooded, but he often lets his emotions get the better of him. That is his tragic character flaw. He had the chance to flee with his gf, but instead chose to murder Waingrogh, and that is what led to his death

We don't REALLY know if Val Kilmer gets away at the end. Heat is based on a true story. In real life the person who Kilmer's character is based on DID get away. For a while. Then he was caught and is still in custody to this day. The movie doesn't show anything past when McCauley gets killed. It doesn't tell you the ultimate fate of all the characters

[–] Ace_Spade (9440) 5 years ago

Cyberbob, I read your replies after I wrote mine, and I don't think I needed to write mine at all now. (Also, I think your evaluation of Pacino and DeNiro choosing different paths is more understanding of the film than mine)

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Thanks, dude.

Yes, this has a lot of classic storytelling elements. Tragic elements that you see going back as far as Shakespeare. Probably further, but I'm not not an expert on literature

But the entire concept/themes of the movie are basically spelled out in the diner scene with De Niro and Pacino. Two guys who are the best at what they do, live for their jobs, and have crossed paths. Neither is willing to back down, so you know only one can make it out alive

The one who lives is the one who was able to win a measure of redemption by choosing his family

There are other movies (or books or plays, etc.) that use similar structures. Michael Mann is not an amateur, he knew what he was doing. Some people underestimate how hard it is to write professionally, so they nitpick in order to feel big

[–] Ace_Spade (9440) 5 years ago

I never mind an alternate view or somebody whose tastes differ (if somebody didn't care for Pacino's choices, for instance; that's fine) but that "deconstruction" of the film barely scratches its surface, doesn't address main plot points or themes, and just seems to have missed Heat's major concerns.

When a review doesn't engage with the central themes and arguments of a story, it can't be taken that seriously.

I like that you compare it to Shakespeare. Heat is a big film with large scope. Shakespeare dealt with "big", too, although, yes, the tragic elements stretch back farther than he.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Yep, it was a pretty crappy review. Nevermind an "epic takedown"

And I personally love Pacino's overacting. I like the wild performances of guys like Oldman, Malkovich, Pacino, Cage, Walken, and Carrey. I don't think everyone needs to have the same naturalistic style in order to "act well". But most people have a very blinkered view of what good acting can be

[–] Ace_Spade (9440) 5 years ago

Pacino's performance in Heat is truly great and one of his best. It's got enough subtle moments to justify the crazy ones - none of which feel out of character for Vincent or out of place in the film.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

The point of the movie is that both Hanna and McCauley are two sides of the same coin

Both are married to their jobs and it has cost them healthy social lives. Hanna is willing to let his marriages go to shit if it means catching the bad guys. De Niro finally meets someone who he thinks is worth leaving behind his old life

But in the end, one makes the right decision and one makes the wrong decision. When Hanna's step daughter has her breakdown, he chooses to stay with her and let McCauley go. It's his wife that encourages him to go do his job. On the other hand, McCauley had the opportunity to walk away with his new love. But he makes the choice to kill Waingrogh even though he knows the hotel is surrounded by cops

One chooses his family, the other chooses the job. That is why Hanna lives and McCauley dies. It sort of deals with themes of fate and tragedy

The gambling subplot with Shiherlis is only relevant to explain why his relationship with his wife is strained.Unlike the other members of the crew, Shiherlis NEEDS to keep working. He has not saved up like McCauley or Cheritto. Shiherlis and his wife have a seriously fucked up relationship, but deep down they still love each other. That is why she chooses not to set him up at the end. And that is why Shiherlis doesn't take the plane w/ McCauley. He goes on a car because he NEEDS his wife, he doesn't care if he's risking getting caught

Is it a perfect movie? No. Every screenwriter has their strengths and weaknesses. Mann maybe is not great at writing super fleshed out characters. But he writes great action and pretty decent plotting

You can nitpick EVERY SINGLE MOVIE and find tons of flaws and things that don't quite make sense. Believe it or not, screenwriters and directors aren't actually bank robbers or gangsters or cops or superheroes. They will never write a perfectly accurate depiction of these lifestyles

I highly doubt this fitness bro could write better. That is, if it isn't actually YOUR review

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

And Waingrogh is not so much a character as he is a plot device

He is meant to represent everything that McCauley hates in people, especially those he works with

He is hotheaded and impulsive (killing the armored guard), he doesn't keep a low profile (killing hookers for fun), and he is a manipulative snake (working with Van Zant to set up McCauley's crew)

That is why McCauley ends up dying. His obsessive adherence to his principles, which he thought was what would always keep him from getting caught, is what ultimately results in his demise

The characterization of McCauley is done throughout the entire movie. Yes, it is "evil" of him to execute the other two armored car guards, but it is also intelligent, since it is already a murder scene and leaving witnesses would be sloppy

And when Shiherlis visits McCauley's apartment we see a bare, unadorned apartment. No food is even in the fridge. He has no attachments, he's ready to flee at the slightest hint of trouble

Also in the scene where they are robbing the jewelry store. They hear the slightest noise. Shiherlis insists that they continue because they need the money, but McCauley has the discipline to walk away based on just that one noise. They even leave their tools

I doubt you know anything about screenwriting, I'm sure you're just another armchair quarterback that watches youtube video "breakdowns" of movies and thinks he understands the mechanics of storytelling

But when I read Heat I saw lots of things done well. Like I said, not perfect. But certainly better than what comes out on an average weekend

[–] MavKilledGoose (788) 5 years ago

That is why McCauley ends up dying. His obsessive adherence to his principles, which he thought was what would always keep him from getting caught, is what ultimately results in his demise

McCauley dies because he ignores an explicit principle that he cites more than once as a kind of maxim (hint: it's suggested in the title).

It's one of my all-time favorite movies, but of course there are plot-holes.

The Waingro character was necessary to jump-start the story. Was Waingro necessary for the initial heist? Should he have even been on crowd control?

At the night club meet, Hanna suddenly becomes interested because his informant used the word "Slick." He learns more about the guy, calls the station, learns more about the Cheritto's criminal history, and orders "full surveillance." What judge signs off on it?

The person in the rant makes a fair point about Kilmer's character. Seeing as how everyone else bites it, as a viewer I'm willing to accept one guy can make it out (especially since he doesn't get the girl).

Most of the original post is rather silly. The movie is a character study. On an initial watch, it's definitely over-long, but viewers want to know more about the characters, so the family life element is welcome.

[–] Ace_Spade (9440) 5 years ago

I don't think that was much of an epic takedown, and it certainly wasn't on the level of the RLM guys.

Some of it is subjective. I liked the performances, but if this guy didn't: fine. We like what we like.

Other parts I think he missed something. For instance:

"Al pacino isn't really likeable. He's a sad, tired old bastard who's wife and step-child are more trouble than they 're worth to him. By the end of the film all he's got is his job and he's not intersting [sic] enough with that a lone."

That's demonstrably not true. While he sacrifices his romantic relationship to his job, his actions around the step-daughter indicate he cares for her deeply. Particularly the scene where he finds her in the tub. Pacino's performance is so distraught there that I find it had not to care for the guy.

"3) and lastly, the biggest single insult to humanity ever commited to film:

HOW THE F@CK DOES VAL KILMER GET AWAY AT THE END?????????

...Ate [sic] these people BLIND?! You have his MUGSHOT!!! IT'S HIM!!! LOOK AT THE PHOTOS! IT'S THE SAME GUY!!!"

This kind of thing happens all the time in real life. Little things make big differences, people make mistakes. It happens.

The three "main" plot points that this critique goes after aren't main at all. Waingro is a subplot, Kilmer's character is a secondary one. I'm not saying these plots are flawless or unimportant, but the larger story being told is about the relationship between the hunter and the prey: Pacino hunts DeNiro. It's a story about the lives of cops and robbers. It's a story about how people respond when pressure comes in and threatens to take it all away. Ultimately, it's a tragedy, because these guys both choose to cave to the pressure rather than to fight for their relationships. This is a drama about people and relationships and what's important in life. In my opinion (and I don't say I'm right) it does this brilliantly well.

[–] AP (5260) 5 years ago

I agree. I've always felt this movie was overrated.

[–] Gd5150 (11259) 5 years ago

I thought it was overrated when I first saw it. It’s grown on me over the years.

Main problem was McCauley should've disappeared at the end. It would’ve been so much more epic if just as Hanna was about to nail him at the airport, he was just not there. Write in some subtle clues leaving the audience wondering what happened.

Instead, despite having a half mile head start, and being completely out of Hanna’s site, somehow he gets caught. It was kinda weak.

[–] PeteyandJia (300) 5 years ago

Whoever wrote this review is dumber than Waingro. The film, in all of its rich detail, went almost entirely over their head. Poor thing. I almost feel bad for them missing out; however, they are obnoxious enough to perhaps deserve their own ignorance. So, maybe it all balances out in the end.

“Dumb motherfucker.” - Neil McCauley, ‘HEAT’