The shootout outside the bank is practically epic and it goes hard to this very day. I don't know what your objection to it is, but for me, it shows how there's not as much difference between the cops and robbers as one might presume.

@CelluloidFan said:

The shootout outside the bank is practically epic and it goes hard to this very day. I don't know what your objection to it is, but for me, it shows how there's not as much difference between the cops and robbers as one might presume.

OTT is a particularly useful acronym because if something is already OTT it would be ironic to elaborate by adding a pile of words to describe it.

I accept there is an audience for that stuff. Michael Bay has made billions at the box office.

But I couldn't get past the stupid. No police incident in the history of bank robberies has looked anything like that. It also makes no sense at all for the robbers to take military style assault weapons and 1000s of rounds to a job where they had every expectation of walking straight in and straight out.

Mann was right to think audiences would love the shootout. I would have enjoyed it too in a different sort of movie. But dropping that in the middle of what is imo a psychological thriller where the two antagonists are oddly similar, throws the movie off kilter. The final battle between McCauley and Hanna is the more appropriate showdown. It loses most of its impact in the shadow of the big bang that happens earlier.

This is a good movie. Great movies don't have those sorts of problems.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

The shootout outside the bank is practically epic and it goes hard to this very day. I don't know what your objection to it is, but for me, it shows how there's not as much difference between the cops and robbers as one might presume.

OTT is a particularly useful acronym because if something is already OTT it would be ironic to elaborate by adding a pile of words to describe it.

I accept there is an audience for that stuff. Michael Bay has made billions at the box office.

But I couldn't get past the stupid. No police incident in the history of bank robberies has looked anything like that. It also makes no sense at all for the robbers to take military style assault weapons and 1000s of rounds to a job where they had every expectation of walking straight in and straight out.

Mann was right to think audiences would love the shootout. I would have enjoyed it too in a different sort of movie. But dropping that in the middle of what is imo a psychological thriller where the two antagonists are oddly similar, throws the movie off kilter. The final battle between McCauley and Hanna is the more appropriate showdown. It loses most of its impact in the shadow of the big bang that happens earlier.

This is a good movie. Great movies don't have those sorts of problems.

Hollywood needs to grab you up as a consultant of some kind. I like your reply, but I cannot help but think that you're maybe trying to think for Mann's characters -- unless one of them clearly said, "We're gonna walk right in and out of this one," which I don't recall.

Happy New year, Jacinto!!!

@CelluloidFan said:

Hollywood needs to grab you up as a consultant of some kind. I like your reply, but I cannot help but think that you're maybe trying to think for Mann's characters -- unless one of them clearly said, "We're gonna walk right in and out of this one," which I don't recall.

Happy New year, Jacinto!!!

spoilers

That's pretty much what is said about the job. And not just once but three times. In the brief with Kelso, then in the deal with Nate, and then when the crew are deciding whether to go ahead with the robbery.

What made it a sweet opportunity was not just that it involved 10 million plus in cash, but that they had disabled the alarms beforehand. Having done so they had no reason to expect a police presence. The only reason the cops were there was because Benny had called in a tip after Waingro had tortured Trejo for the info. That was a total surprise to the crew and an important plot point, so any suggestion that they had planned for this scenario violates the plot.

And HNY to you too.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

Hollywood needs to grab you up as a consultant of some kind. I like your reply, but I cannot help but think that you're maybe trying to think for Mann's characters -- unless one of them clearly said, "We're gonna walk right in and out of this one," which I don't recall.

Happy New year, Jacinto!!!

spoilers

That's pretty much what is said about the job. And not just once but three times. In the brief with Kelso, then in the deal with Nate, and then when the crew are deciding whether to go ahead with the robbery.

What made it a sweet opportunity was not just that it involved 10 million plus in cash, but that they had disabled the alarms beforehand. Having done so they had no reason to expect a police presence. The only reason the cops were there was because Benny had called in a tip after Waingro had tortured Trejo for the info. That was a total surprise to the crew and an important plot point, so any suggestion that they had planned for this scenario violates the plot.

And HNY to you too.

Dig: I haven't watched the film in its entirety since I was about 24 years old, which was when it was released, in the '90s, and I forgot about all of that background info. I guess you rewatched the film from start to finish and then came here to take it apart. I don't have that advantage.

There's a weird, aggressive quality to your words in your posts here, that in my opinion, throws this message board off-kilter. It's New Year's Eve, and I didn't come here looking to debate anyone, fact-for-fact, about Heat or any other film. Perhaps you can do that with another poster. So... thanks for your input and I guess I'll see your name here next year.

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

Hollywood needs to grab you up as a consultant of some kind. I like your reply, but I cannot help but think that you're maybe trying to think for Mann's characters -- unless one of them clearly said, "We're gonna walk right in and out of this one," which I don't recall.

Happy New year, Jacinto!!!

spoilers

That's pretty much what is said about the job. And not just once but three times. In the brief with Kelso, then in the deal with Nate, and then when the crew are deciding whether to go ahead with the robbery.

What made it a sweet opportunity was not just that it involved 10 million plus in cash, but that they had disabled the alarms beforehand. Having done so they had no reason to expect a police presence. The only reason the cops were there was because Benny had called in a tip after Waingro had tortured Trejo for the info. That was a total surprise to the crew and an important plot point, so any suggestion that they had planned for this scenario violates the plot.

And HNY to you too.

Dig: I haven't watched the film in its entirety since I was about 24 years old, which was when it was released, in the '90s, and I forgot about all of that background info. I guess you rewatched the film from start to finish and then came here to take it apart. I don't have that advantage.

There's a weird, aggressive quality to your words in your posts here, that in my opinion, throws this message board off-kilter. It's New Year's Eve, and I didn't come here looking to debate anyone, fact-for-fact, about Heat or any other film. Perhaps you can do that with another poster. So... thanks for your input and I guess I'll see your name here next year.

I didn't come here to 'take it apart'. As the title suggests, these are my thoughts on rewatching the movie. My appreciation of the movie improved over the years between watching. I acknowledged that part of that difference comes down to me being harsh first time around. Part of it is that the move has aged well.

Nor was my original post all about what I think is wrong with the movie. I concluded with a paragraph on what I thought was good. 'Top notch' in fact.

I'll own up to 'weird'. But 'aggressive'? We've had this discussion about my style before. I try to be dispassionate. Social media is full of the emotional and volatile and angry and it doesn't need me adding to it. Plus, I don't have the patience for it. I'm sorry that you feel attacked in some way. But truly, nothing in my words could reasonably give rise to your response.

It seems to me that you had forgotten key parts of Heat and that our conversation lead you to feel embarrassed by that realisation. You shouldn't be. This isn't an exam for getting into film school; it's people discussing movies. No one is getting a pass or fail grade for what they post here. As for 'off kilter', my own opinion is that what is more likely to cause a thread to head south (beyond obvious trolling) is people commenting on movies they haven't seen, or in your case, saw so long ago that they have an inadequate recollection: a point you admit. Personally, I would never comment on a movie I had not recently seen.

And what does 'dig' mean?

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

Hollywood needs to grab you up as a consultant of some kind. I like your reply, but I cannot help but think that you're maybe trying to think for Mann's characters -- unless one of them clearly said, "We're gonna walk right in and out of this one," which I don't recall.

Happy New year, Jacinto!!!

spoilers

That's pretty much what is said about the job. And not just once but three times. In the brief with Kelso, then in the deal with Nate, and then when the crew are deciding whether to go ahead with the robbery.

What made it a sweet opportunity was not just that it involved 10 million plus in cash, but that they had disabled the alarms beforehand. Having done so they had no reason to expect a police presence. The only reason the cops were there was because Benny had called in a tip after Waingro had tortured Trejo for the info. That was a total surprise to the crew and an important plot point, so any suggestion that they had planned for this scenario violates the plot.

And HNY to you too.

Dig: I haven't watched the film in its entirety since I was about 24 years old, which was when it was released, in the '90s, and I forgot about all of that background info. I guess you rewatched the film from start to finish and then came here to take it apart. I don't have that advantage.

There's a weird, aggressive quality to your words in your posts here, that in my opinion, throws this message board off-kilter. It's New Year's Eve, and I didn't come here looking to debate anyone, fact-for-fact, about Heat or any other film. Perhaps you can do that with another poster. So... thanks for your input and I guess I'll see your name here next year.

I didn't come here to 'take it apart'. As the title suggests, these are my thoughts on rewatching the movie. My appreciation of the movie improved over the years between watching. I acknowledged that part of that difference comes down to me being harsh first time around. Part of it is that the move has aged well.

Nor was my original post all about what I think is wrong with the movie. I concluded with a paragraph on what I thought was good. 'Top notch' in fact.

I'll own up to 'weird'. But 'aggressive'? We've had this discussion about my style before. I try to be dispassionate. Social media is full of the emotional and volatile and angry and it doesn't need me adding to it. Plus, I don't have the patience for it. I'm sorry that you feel attacked in some way. But truly, nothing in my words could reasonably give rise to your response.

It seems to me that you had forgotten key parts of Heat and that our conversation lead you to feel embarrassed by that realisation. You shouldn't be. This isn't an exam for getting into film school; it's people discussing movies. No one is getting a pass or fail grade for what they post here. As for 'off kilter', my own opinion is that what is more likely to cause a thread to head south (beyond obvious trolling) is people commenting on movies they haven't seen, or in your case, saw so long ago that they have an inadequate recollection: a point you admit. Personally, I would never comment on a movie I had not recently seen.

And what does 'dig' mean?

Here's the top definition of "dig" from urbandictionary.com: 1. To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp; gather.

I'm glad you stated that "no one is getting a pass or fail grade for what they post here," because despite what you say about how "truly, nothing in (your) words could reasonably give rise to (my) response," I actually felt set up after responding to this thread. Different people reply to posts for different reasons, and I seriously doubt that everyone who comments on a movie here has a scene-for-scene remembrance of that movie when they post. That's part of the fun of the message board, in my humble opinion. People come here to debate one another, to say what's on their minds. Not everyone gives an authoritative breakdown of a film, scene for scene, or listing what they feel are its every fault.

Now, your take on reviewing and qualifying films is fine by me, to an extent. Granted, this is not "my" board. I am only giving my opinions on what makes discussion of a film "good" or "bad" - or constructive versus destructive. Genre conventions are useful because they help people in their understanding of what should happen in a film; they help us to "know" what to expect, which can be a plus or minus, depending on your viewpoint. Genre conventions are good, in my book. However, when you start breaking down Heat as ostensibly "stupid" because "No police incident in the history of bank robberies has looked like that," in my humble opinion, you are enforcing convention into cinema, art and criticism in a way that is inhibiting and restrictive. I figure that Michael Mann did the shootout that began outside the bank the way that he did precisely because it was novel. Some filmmakers strive for any bit of possible originality that they feel they can create in their films, in which case, what I feel are your restricting expectations that they follow genre conventions, historic conventions, etc. to the letter, in how they construct their films, is repressive.

Moving on, your sentence, "It also makes no sense at all for the robbers to take military style assault weapons and 1000s of rounds to a job where they had every expectation of walking straight in and straight out," is your opinion. Perhaps Mann meant to set up the expectation that the bank job would be easy - a piece of pie - in order to surprise us when Neil and associates pull out the big guns and start firing away. I learned years ago that surprise is my greatest weapon when it comes to writing. Again and again, your words construct walls for us to think in, live in.

You are quite disingenuous in your approach to dealing with me in your posts. I don't feel like going into more detail than what I stated up above about how you wrote that "nothing" in the words of your posts could cause me to respond the way I did... suffice to say that I feel I am the object of subtle verbal aggression when I read your posts that are directed at me. And I am tired of it. Again, I wish you well as a writer. I am saddened that you feel such a great need to undermine me here at this web site as you've proven, but hey, it's not a perfect world.

@CelluloidFan I don't know what I can do to reassure you. Nothing I have ever said to you was intended as an injury. From my perspective it is simply a discussion about a movie. I am not the slightest part rancorous towards you. I am however baffled by your repeated assertions , across several threads now, that I am being aggressive towards you. You seem to take disagreement as a personal affront. If I reply to you it is because you have said something that interests me.

Of course most of what I have said is opinion. I am not saying I could do better than Michael Mann; I am saying that Mann could do better. If I'm wrong and that moves me to a better understanding, that's still a win for me. But I don't change my opinions on a whim, or because someone tells me I'm wrong. Like any thinking person I need to be convinced by a well thought out argument.

I don't have a problem with wild shootouts. Had this happened in a Bey or Tarantino movie, I'd accept the context. Nor do I have a problem with cinema doing things that haven't been done before. I appreciate the visual language of Lynch as much as the next guy.

But I believe that the internal logic of a film or story has to be coherent and consistent. Not as a hard rule, but as a common sense approach to story telling. When an artist in any medium breaks conventions it has to be absolutely confident and purposeful. For example, it can't be just to get a sponsors name on the screen. In Heat, the mid movie shootout contradicts the plot, barely involves the primary characters, and is of an entirely different tone to the rest of the movie. That it looks good by itself is neither here nor there. It surprises you, and offends me, for the same reason: it doesn't belong. And it is objectively stupid. You are free to disagree with me on that, but I stand by my earlier comments on why that can't happen irl, and why it shouldn't happen in this story.

@mechajutaro said:

There's a lot of stupid in this movie.

Anyone who goes into a Micheal Mann movie expecting a coherent plot and a staunch commitment to realism is going to be more disappointed than someone who sits down for an interview with Kate Upton, and anticipates being bowled over by her immense wit and intellectual firepower

I think coherence should be expected of any story. It doesn't need to be real world coherence, but it needs to be internally coherent. Lord of the Rings is totally unreal, but, so far as I can tell, it has an internal logic that is consistent.

Bit harsh on Mann imo. The Insider might have been as dry as dust (I only gave it a 5) and it did indeed take liberties with the truth, but it wasn't incoherent. Likewise The Last of the Mohicans which might have been better received had it not covered similar territory to the brilliant The Mission.

@mechajutaro said:

That's not harsh, but a compliment. Mann's one of the most watchable directors of the 20th and 21st Century, because of his technical mastery. Whoever described Miami Vice as the most expensive art house film ever produced wasn't exaggerating

Incoherence as a compliment. Now there's an argument I never expected a person outside of a mental hospital to make.

Heat: A classic!

I'm rewatching the film right now, and the ending hands scene is giving me goosebumps.

@NeoLosman said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@mechajutaro said:

That's not harsh, but a compliment. Mann's one of the most watchable directors of the 20th and 21st Century, because of his technical mastery. Whoever described Miami Vice as the most expensive art house film ever produced wasn't exaggerating

Incoherence as a compliment. Now there's an argument I never expected a person outside of a mental hospital to make.

If coherence is what you prioritize, read a novel, go see a play. Being heavily visual first and foremost, film doesn't operate in the same way that literature does

It's true that film can work without a cohesive narrative. There's plenty of art films to support that view. But movies produced as entertainment are made to different specifications. One of those essential, or at least highly desirable, specifications is a story that can be understood. That story, in the right hands, can be ambiguous, complicated, nuanced. I would go so far as to say that a really well made movie will cause a shift in thinking of the audience. But a problem with the coherence of the narrative is just that: a problem. It is a continuity issue in the same way as having a character depart in one model car and arriving in a different one altogether. Except that we can laugh off the mistake with the car. When that sort of thing happens with the story then the entire thing risks unravelling.

Of course we now live in a time of comic book movies and lots of people are quite happy to be entertained by visuals alone and questions of character development and narrative are not so important. If that makes people happy then who am I to quarrel over it? It is also worth noting that Marvel and DC fans have external referents to turn to in order to resolve plot problems. The canon as it has become known. A stand alone story like Heat does not.

Heat is one of those movies that seems to be loved by everyone, but I had never seen until relatively recently. So, when I sat down to watch it, it was with a "let's see what all the fuss is about."

When I was done, I thought, "this was a good movie", but that, for me, was more about De Niro and Pacino on screen together, rather than the shootout scene.

Yes, indeed, there was a lot of stupid in this movie. Reflecting on parts of my past I wish I could forget, certain things happened that would never have happened IRL; yet, without them, the movie would have not taken the turns it did. I would almost consider calling the writing lazy in this respect, given the amount of source material there is out there for the criminal mindset.

But, there was a poignant tragedy in the demise of one of the main characters, that flaw that just kept making bad decisions, that compulsion to manifest whatever oddball internal code that couldn't be denied.

And, of course, the two main protagonists at the top of their craft, working together, giving each other space on the screen, trusting each other, creating the magic...that alone may be the value of this movie.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

It's true that film can work without a cohesive narrative. There's plenty of art films to support that view. But movies produced as entertainment are made to different specifications. One of those essential, or at least highly desirable, specifications is a story that can be understood. That story, in the right hands, can be ambiguous, complicated, nuanced. I would go so far as to say that a really well made movie will cause a shift in thinking of the audience. But a problem with the coherence of the narrative is just that: a problem. It is a continuity issue in the same way as having a character depart in one model car and arriving in a different one altogether. Except that we can laugh off the mistake with the car. When that sort of thing happens with the story then the entire thing risks unravelling.

Of course we now live in a time of comic book movies and lots of people are quite happy to be entertained by visuals alone and questions of character development and narrative are not so important. If that makes people happy then who am I to quarrel over it? It is also worth noting that Marvel and DC fans have external referents to turn to in order to resolve plot problems. The canon as it has become known. A stand alone story like Heat does not.

Your argument against the film itself is weak. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.

@CelluloidFan

Simply making a claim that my argument is 'weak' is not itself an argument. It is conclusory, insulting and lazy. Your claim that film is a visual medium and is therefore under no obligation to tell a cohesive story, as tho Heat were an Ingmar Bergman film rather than a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster, is reaching. It is noteworthy that you make no attempt whatever to explain how the aspects I referred to are coherent.

I have told you why aspects of this film don't work for me. That it works for you doesn't change that. If I said that I don't like Italian food and you chimed in saying that you adore it: that doesn't have the slightest relevance to what I have said.

But thank you for allowing that I may have an opinion. How generous of you.

That said, I have lost patience with you and will now put you into ignore.