Most irritating film ever made... - 44 Minutes: The North Hollywood Shoot-Out (2003) Discussion

[–] brendanchenowith 19 years ago

Well, they had to find a way to make 44 minutes last into 2 hours.

I have the Discovery Channel version on videotape. It's almost exactly 44 minutes, more graphic and more heart-rending than the FX version.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ryan1021 19 years ago

Well they could not get a head shot because the initial responding officers only had handguns and shotguns, as opposed to the guys AK-47s and AR-15. One it is hard to get a head shot with a hand gun from that distance, and two it is even harder when someone has a gun that can throw a wall of lead your way. The police were just completly outgunned no question to it.

For the second, I don't know why they were not able to get a sniper there quicker, maybe there wasn't a place where they could get a good vantage point quickly, I don't know.

As far as why did the swat take so long, because they always do. Remember Columbine, it took the cops forever to get in there and do something.

reply

[–] russianrocket832 19 years ago

ok everybody is calling them heroes and they are because they were brave enough to go in there but they're also morons. i mean how the *beep* does it take you 45 minutes to stop 2 people, you know they had over 300 officer respond to the shoot out. i mean take an aim and hit them in the head, you got 2 helicopters and an armored car jesus christ. i mean use flash bangs or something. and the easiest wayto stop them would be to just spray them with water do you realize how powerful a fire truck hose is and it can knock down a full grown man. i mean lapd is known to be the most resourceful pd in the world they stopped a freaking tank for crying out loud i mean common be a little more creative, if you had given me all the resources they i alone could stop them in 15 minutes

Jennifer Aniston... WOW

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] snwlover79 19 years ago

I have read all the bad reviews of this movie. I just watched it today and thought it was pretty good. I watched it live when I was in high school and obviously there was some inaccuracies in the movie. None to glaring though in my opinion. I kept saying shoot him in the head too, but being that I was a military police officer in the Marine Corps I know that an M9 beretta only has a range of about 50 yards, if you are lucky. Effective range of about 25 yards. So as easy as it is to monday morning quarterback this event, most people have no idea what its like to shoot a peashooter against a cannon.

I do like the fire hose idea, but the only problem is how are you going to get a truck close enough to the shooters, jump out, pull your hose, hook it up to a hydrant, and spray the robbers without getting smoked.

All in all these officers were very brave because I can guarantee that most people caught in the line of fire would piss their pants and run, leaving an open path for the robbers to drive out.

reply

[–] nekogami11 19 years ago

I completely agree with you. I actually liked this movie very much. Granted, there was some artistic license in order to make the movie longer, but all in all it was a good movie.

To all the people bitching about the job these officers did, I would like to ask what they would do in the same situation with what the officers were armed with - their patrol cars and a 9mm - whereas the robbers had body armor and AK-47s. Officers didn't have automatic weapons back then. It wasn't until after this happened were they required in the patrol cars.

Why did it take so long for SWAT to get there? Because this happened at about 9am and there was still rush hour traffic to consider. None of you have obviously been in LA traffic.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] leon_kennedy_rpd1732 19 years ago

@russianrocket832

ok everybody is calling them heroes and they are because they were brave enough to go in there but they're also morons. i mean how the *beep* does it take you 45 minutes to stop 2 people, you know they had over 300 officer respond to the shoot out. i mean take an aim and hit them in the head, you got 2 helicopters and an armored car jesus christ. i mean use flash bangs or something. and the easiest wayto stop them would be to just spray them with water do you realize how powerful a fire truck hose is and it can knock down a full grown man. i mean lapd is known to be the most resourceful pd in the world they stopped a freaking tank for crying out loud i mean common be a little more creative, if you had given me all the resources they i alone could stop them in 15 minutes

First of all, just because they're cops and they can stop suspects, they couldn't stop these guys in time. The suspects planned this operation very well, maintaining ammunition and wearing body armor. There is no possible way they could get through 10 layers of Kevlar with their weapons.

And second, patrol officers don't carry flashbangs. Only SWAT officers do and they were far away when they were responding to the scene. The patrol boys were just holding off the 2 suspects until help arrived. What else could they possibly *beep* do? Risk their lives to the extreme and run up to the guys while they reload and tackle them? That would be just crazy....

reply

[–] The Gryphon 19 years ago

the easiest wayto stop them would be to just spray them with water do you realize how powerful a fire truck hose is and it can knock down a full grown man

Damn good idea. Why didn't the police think of that? You can't shoot an AK-47 if thousands of gallons of water are hitting you square on.

reply

[–] havox2002 17 years ago

You can't shoot a waterhose if you got hundreds of rounds of 7.62mm rounds coming at you now can you? Some of you guys are trying to overly simplify this stuff with out thinking clearly. This idea, and using snipers. It took SWAT awhile to arrive and at that the standard cops were only carrying shotguns and .9mm's which won't do *beep* at the range they were at with guys with bodyarmor. And getting a headshot at their range is alot more difficult too. A .9mm round loses velocity quickly making it highly inaccurate at longer distances, not to mention a cop is going to have a harder time aiming on a moving suspect that is retaliating with automatic fire that can go in and out of a car.

reply

[–] The Gryphon 17 years ago

You can't shoot a waterhose if you got hundreds of rounds of 7.62mm rounds coming at you now can you?

Sure you can. Park it behind another large vehicle and spray over the top or below the vehicle. The bullets won't hit the officers and the water will knock the bad guys off their feet.

reply

[–] Squigger 17 years ago

they are heroes. and this was one of the best movies made

reply

[–] johntex9 15 years ago

You are 110 % right, Squigger. God Bless those mena nd women in LAPD Blue,

reply

[–] ChristopherX20 15 years ago

Well the movie was on yesterday on new zealand tv,and did not know till a few days before.Well taped it and not fully watched yet,but seemed pretty good and like th enews footage seen.Parts like of the robbers talking would all have to be guess work.In news footage cant remember seeing 2 guys shooting outside the bank,or this did happen,if so where can i see the footage?.

Like this dvd below,has the best footage or all of it?.Like got some of the youtbe videos,is that most of it on there too.As did net search and see lots videos on different sites,most the same right and maybe like the dvd footage too.And the real guys though bank robbers had wanted to get away,but with that firepower made it hard,and there plans not going right.Like how they did not kill any police and civilans is hard to believe,not aiming to kill,or just not good shots,and the drugs effecting there shooting.

They seemed to be or phillips spraying more than aiming from footage i remember.If had aimed or even shot from more cover,could have gone on longer,but then police with better guns would have got them if in the open.Imagine if they had had some hand grenades too,the loss of life could have happened,but then suppose to ahrd to get?,or who takes to a robbery anyway too.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Shootout-North-Hollywood/dp/B001CUB8J4
History -- Shootout North Hollywood Shootout

Christopher

reply

[–] mkelly-27 17 years ago

How about we take everyone here who thinks that the cops did a bad job, couldn't get a headshot or whatever they didn't like about them, and put you in the same situation, I'm sure you'd all *beep* your pants and stay behind a car. I guess it also didn't help they had armor piercing bullets either, so I'd just back off, and shut up.

reply

[–] vhylok 17 years ago

Have you ever fired a pistol? It's hard enough to hit anything at 25 yards with perfect stance, grip and nice calm breathing. With two guys firing rifles at everything that moves? Forget it!

I read that whenever a cop took a shot, the robbers would focus on where the shot came from and pound that area with lead. It was much smarter for the cops to stay under cover. Considering what the robbers had, even a squad car or BRICK WALL wasn't really sufficient cover.

You could stop them in 15 minutes? That's a laugh.

reply

[–] lhuffman_66 17 years ago

Anyone complaining about how this played out needs to see the actual footage of this. To begin with, I watched this transpire live. Were there mistakes?...yes, but only if you look at it in hindsight. What the police faced that day was unlike anything they had ever faced. Therefore, they were at a loss as to what to do. They were overpowered and, as it turned out, in a bad position. Good position if they were facing handguns and shotguns...they had no clue they were facing automatic weapons until it was too late. And if you are going to say they should have positioned themselves for automatic weapons...well then they would ahve been in the wrong position had the robbers had handguns, as 99.9% of all of the other robbers they face. In other words...they were in th right place following the right procedure for the vast majority of the instances they respond to.

This is a movie based on an actual event. Being critcal of how things happened based on this movie is ridiculous in the extreme. The documentary of the event as it happened showing real footage and interviewing police who were there involved will illuminate the situation. Anyone who still has problems with it must be people who expect the police to be perfect and be able to anticipate everything...even if they have never faced it before.

Forget this movie...watch the documentary that airs on the Discovery channel or other such cable channels. It was a truly horrific ordeal...amazing to think this happened right down the street.

reply

[–] pgrass13 16 years ago

Maybe they were trying to avoid hurting any bystanders. I saw it live on the news when it happened and don't remember the specifics.

Same thing we do every night try to take over the world

reply

[–] sljones44 19 years ago

what do you expect? its the L.A.P.D? They f'd up the O.J investigation, and nearly screwed up the Manson one, two. (they originally thought the two murders LaBianca-Polanski, were unrelated- one being a "drug deal gone bad). Also, the Robbers had serious firepower - and were shooting indiscriminately. the whole Idea was to clear the area and set up fields of fire so that only they were the targets. It's a lot more difficult to get roof top positions when suspects are moving and firing automatic rounds everywhere. You seen the traffic in L.A? - No wonder they got there at all, hell the news copters were there first!!!

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jesus_sanchezz 19 years ago

They also left out the cops watching as the second robber bled to death in the middle of the street for over an hour.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thejdog 18 years ago

You know what tho, what would you have done. Two ass wipes with 2 AK-47's are shooting at you, probably almost killing you multiple times! I would've done the same, *beep* them, the courts aren't going to do jack *beep* I know this, and I have no bad feelings about the cops letting the *beep* bleed to death.

I think it's funny that the mother tried to sue the LAPD for the wrongful death. The *beep* son of a bitch fired thousands of rounds against hundreds of officers. I myself would have shot him multiple times to make sure he was dead, *beep* making him *beep* there and bleed to death.

Although I'm sure that LAPD would've gotten sued for shooting him in the head while he was shooting back at LAPD. Although they did have armor from head to toe just about!

reply

[–] dgeyer 19 years ago

First off, I'm tired of all you complete morons saying "why didn't they just shoot them in the head?" These comments are made by people who have obviously never fired a gun in their lives. Handguns are not accurate at long ranges, and a long range for a handgun would be 50 feet or farther. At that distance the bullet begins to drop and lose velocity making it difficult to accuratly shoot, especially for the 9mm rounds they were firing. The shotguns they had were also inaccurate at long ranges due to the buckshot they were loaded with. Not to mention they were constatly pinned down by automatic gunfire. Why did it take an hour? TRAFFIC. If you haven't been to the area in California who won't get it. Traffic just doesnt f'in move and it takes a long time to get across the city. So stop whinning about how long it took them or the fact that the cops aren't shaft and can't just stick out a pistol and score a 200 foot headshot.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] copdigger63 19 years ago

Better yet, why didn't the LAPD issue the same weaponry used by the bank robbers? I understand they do now, but a real tragedy could've been avoided.

GOSH! This camel grass juice is GREAT!
BEWARE ALL STIMULANTS, ROBIN

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vhylok 17 years ago

Well, peace officers on patrol rarely need an assault rifle on duty. That's why there is a SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) team. A shotgun is probably more useful for patrol cars than an M-16. These are police officers, not soldiers! Handguns are for police defence, not assault! If cops are going to raid a crackhouse, then obviously they are armed to deal with it, but on regular patrol an M-16 is not needed and is probably dangerous ... except for this day ...

reply

[–] wutzkicken 19 years ago

How can u blame the movie for "NOT GETTING A SNIPER IN THERE" or "TAKING SWAT SO LONG TO GET THERE" and "NOT BEING ABLE TO GET A HEADSHOT".

first of all, the movie was reporting the facts. In real life, the REAL EVENT there was no sniper, no head shots were taken, and SWAT was late on arrival. So do you expect the movie to falsly re-inact the event with inaccurate elements?

I mean, your saying its a dumb movie because of what really happened. It would be like a movie was made about the September 11th attacks, and you would say the movie is stupid because no one stopped the hi-jackers in time.

BOTTOM LINE is ITS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, so I dont see how you can blame the movie for being accurate.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wutzkicken 19 years ago

yep

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maggot_brain 19 years ago

I haven't seen the movie (can't find a copy of it) but the shootout has always fascinated me. I just want to point out that scoring headshots is much harder than it seems... this ain't no goddamn videogame. In real-life shootouts there are very few headshots, mostly shots to the torso. The odd thing is that they didn't use a sniper, dunno why. And btw, is it true that in this movie both robbers are killed by police? If so that's a really big mistake in a documentary-style movie that tries to copy the real event... one of the robbers shot himself.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wutzkicken 19 years ago

in the movie one robber shoots him self, and the other one gets shot up, doesnt say if he dies or not.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] smallfry2580 19 years ago

Yeah so my dad helped work on this movie as the production designer and i was there for alot of it so i would like to get the point across that it is impossible to please everyone 'cause they all have different oppinions on what really happend and if you think you can do a better job do so...if not quit your b****ing it's just a MOVIE.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KrammitTheFrog 18 years ago

the movie could have been alot better if Micheal Mann had directed, it's defenately something he would do

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Yautja-Warrior 18 years ago

The reason they left him in the street was because he was already *beep* dead.He shot himself in the head.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeremy_moyle 18 years ago

jeez jst chill teddy bear dont so be so aggressive towards people she jst made a mistake you've got issues man.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ghostsmokesix 18 years ago

"Damn good idea. Why didn't the police think of that? You can't shoot an AK-47 if thousands of gallons of water are hitting you square on."

Uh, yeah. Good friggin luck getting a fire engine close enough to start flowing water on them. Last time I checked, they didn't make bulletproof American La Frances. And I'm pretty sure an AK could outrange any firehose in the world.

As an EMT, I can understand why the cops left Matseraneu (or whatever) in the street.
1) They did not know if there were other robbers in the area. They will not drive an ambulance into an area that has not been fully secured. Nowhere in the country that I know of will they do this.
2) I forget how many times he was shot in the legs, but it was a hell of a lot. His legs were probably shredded and he was done for. Even if they had an ambulance nearby (which they didn't), I doubt they would have been able to get to him, transport him, and get him into surgery in time.

reply

[–] LT_RYVEN 18 years ago

Shouldnt they have had an ambulance near by, you know with all that shooting and civillians/officers around... Although, if i were incharge, i woulda said "Officer winters, dont U dare touch that radio" and i would have let him bleed, area secure or not.

The head is the most difficult part of the body to protect, then its the extremeties(like hands/arms/legs) but the body is easily protected. Many layers of kevlar and actual alloy shields can be worn. Shields do as they say, deflect the round. Which is oppsed to say kevlar/ceramic plates which try to "absorb" the round into the armour because the round might ricochet and hit some1 else. Some arm armour and Lots of Leg armour coulda been pilled on but the head-shot idea that most noobs suggest,seems right. I mean the weapons they were using was a 9mm ball hollow point. Hollow points fragment upon impact, now this is amazingly effective VS unarmoured targets but armour... Even if they were 9mm FMJ or 9mm AP rounds, they still couldnt have cut through even helmet armour at those ranges. Shotguns go pretty far but even if the spread was low, small ball`s/buckshot could NOT penetrate armour even at point-blank. To cut through armour you would need atleast FMJ Magnum .357 pistol or .223(5.56 NATO if your european) for a riffle.

I liked it alot, its pure gun porn, this event didnt effect me in anyway so i see it just as a "based on facts" film.

IF YOU TAKE LIFE TOO SERIOUSLY, YOUL NEVER GET OUT ALIVE

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]