Heat Review
Wednesday, 18. March 2009, 23:46:53
I was stupid to say Orange County was the 2nd best film (though it’s still great). Heat is the second best film. It shouldn’t be, but I’ll explain that later.
The film centres on the showdown between two men. Both are leaders, who might have been heads of rival tribes in another setting. Michael Mann’s story sets them in the broken city of 1990s Los Angeles. One man is an hard-bitten police detective who is married more to fighting crime than his current wife, or either of his past two wives. The other man is an armed robber, head of a small gang of highly successful criminals, ruthlessly focussed on doing the job and getting out.
The main plot is interesting and pushes the story on well, but is actually largely unimportant. This film is really about women and family and how men, particularly men driven by career ambition, resolve the timeless, universal inner conflict. On the one side there is the love of a woman, the love for their family and ultimately their own sense of humanity, all set against the masculine idea of loyalty to friends, workmates and ultimately their sense of eternal purpose.
The criminal has chosen his path of crime, but fears getting caught, and if he has any soul he builds a family, but then fears dragging them into his dark world. At any risk of being caught, the criminal must be prepared to walk away from the job or even his family, both to save himself and them. But the policeman equally has chosen the path of fighting crime, and fears also his family being dragged into his dark world, risking his relationship by withdrawing from them to spare them from the horrors he has seen.
The criminal we are shown is the mythical ‘honourable’ thief, who may perform brutal armed robberies, but he only does the job and gets out. He wants to retire some day. The policeman just wants all the crime to go away. He loves his job, but he’s only human. The whole way through, the film alternates between showing the criminal’s life and the policeman’s life. We see family, loyalty, friendships and how the criminal’s life mirrors the policeman’s. They even meet for coffee at one point, having what some may see as an almost homoerotic conversation, sharing personal stories and showing their respect by saying they would kill the other without hesitating.
Which is more pretentious? Me, or the film? If the film is pretentious, though, it doesn’t matter. Director Michael Mann somehow lifts the film above the pseudo-intellectual, bringing out superb performances in the stellar cast. Except Robert De Niro, who can’t do love and has an annoying facial tick, though as the stoic criminal he is quite good. And the president from 24 acts his part well, but he just doesn’t sound like a criminal. The soundtrack is perfectly wrought and songs are well-chosen. The cinematography is lusciously epic, though the lenses are a little wide for my taste sometimes.
Finally, the action is not the best I’ve seen, but it is suitably dramatic and the firefight after the bank job is even almost believable, being a metaphor for the war between two men that wrecks the lives of those at he centre of it and threatens all those not directly involved.
My next task is to watch LA Takedown. It’s the same film, only made for TV six years earlier for probably a tenth the budget.
The film centres on the showdown between two men. Both are leaders, who might have been heads of rival tribes in another setting. Michael Mann’s story sets them in the broken city of 1990s Los Angeles. One man is an hard-bitten police detective who is married more to fighting crime than his current wife, or either of his past two wives. The other man is an armed robber, head of a small gang of highly successful criminals, ruthlessly focussed on doing the job and getting out.
The main plot is interesting and pushes the story on well, but is actually largely unimportant. This film is really about women and family and how men, particularly men driven by career ambition, resolve the timeless, universal inner conflict. On the one side there is the love of a woman, the love for their family and ultimately their own sense of humanity, all set against the masculine idea of loyalty to friends, workmates and ultimately their sense of eternal purpose.
The criminal has chosen his path of crime, but fears getting caught, and if he has any soul he builds a family, but then fears dragging them into his dark world. At any risk of being caught, the criminal must be prepared to walk away from the job or even his family, both to save himself and them. But the policeman equally has chosen the path of fighting crime, and fears also his family being dragged into his dark world, risking his relationship by withdrawing from them to spare them from the horrors he has seen.
The criminal we are shown is the mythical ‘honourable’ thief, who may perform brutal armed robberies, but he only does the job and gets out. He wants to retire some day. The policeman just wants all the crime to go away. He loves his job, but he’s only human. The whole way through, the film alternates between showing the criminal’s life and the policeman’s life. We see family, loyalty, friendships and how the criminal’s life mirrors the policeman’s. They even meet for coffee at one point, having what some may see as an almost homoerotic conversation, sharing personal stories and showing their respect by saying they would kill the other without hesitating.
Which is more pretentious? Me, or the film? If the film is pretentious, though, it doesn’t matter. Director Michael Mann somehow lifts the film above the pseudo-intellectual, bringing out superb performances in the stellar cast. Except Robert De Niro, who can’t do love and has an annoying facial tick, though as the stoic criminal he is quite good. And the president from 24 acts his part well, but he just doesn’t sound like a criminal. The soundtrack is perfectly wrought and songs are well-chosen. The cinematography is lusciously epic, though the lenses are a little wide for my taste sometimes.
Finally, the action is not the best I’ve seen, but it is suitably dramatic and the firefight after the bank job is even almost believable, being a metaphor for the war between two men that wrecks the lives of those at he centre of it and threatens all those not directly involved.
My next task is to watch LA Takedown. It’s the same film, only made for TV six years earlier for probably a tenth the budget.
WIDGETIZE