Heat (1995)

*. Back in 2015 Daniel Engber wrote a piece for Slate looking back on the oeuvre of Michael Mann that started out like this: “Have you seen the newest Michael Mann film? No, not the one about the ex-con who falls in love as he tries to take a final score—you’re thinking of Heat. Nope, also not the one about the ex-con who falls in love as he tries to take a final score—that was Public Enemies. I can see why you’re confused, but this is certainly not the one about the ex-con who falls in love as he tries to take a final score—that was Thief. I’m talking about the one that arrives in theaters Friday, about an ex-con who falls in love as he tries to take a final score. It’s called Blackhat. Have you seen that film before?”
*. Engber’s point humorously underlines the repetitive quality of Mann’s work, the way throughout his career he has recycled not just this same story arc but individual scenes and exchanges of dialogue, sometimes word for word. Indeed, this film is actually a remake of L.A. Takedown, a TV movie he did in 1989. This is not a condemnation of Mann, but I think it does point to one of his big limitations. There’s less to him than the stylistic signatures.

*. If Mann’s work is of a piece then I’d have to say, and I think I’m probably in good company saying it, that Heat is his masterpiece, the movie that marked the arrival of Peak Mann. Opinions may vary on how good a thing that is though.
*. I didn’t like Heat when it first came out. I thought it was dull. I don’t mean it dragged, even though at 3 hours it was too long. It moved well enough, but it just felt dead. Perhaps the best way I can put it is my reaction to the ad copy, which made such a big thing about De Niro . . . and Pacino . . . together! And sure enough, they are together. Cop Vincent Hanna (Pacino) and robber Neil McCauley (De Niro) even sit down and have a coffee. So what happens when these two heavyweights face off? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Their meeting has no purpose and doesn’t advance the plot an inch. Not to mention it being kind of silly.
*. And the dialogue! There they are, Pacino . . . De Niro . . . together! . . . and they have nothing to say to each other. Vince: “You know, we are sitting here, you and I, like a couple of regular fellas. You do what you do, and I do what I gotta do. And now that we’ve been face to face, if I’m there and I gotta put you away, I won’t like it. But I tell you, if it’s between you and some poor bastard whose wife you’re gonna turn into a widow, brother, you are going down.” Neil: “There is a flip side to that coin. What if you do got me boxed in and I gotta put you down? Cause no matter what, you will not get in my way. We’ve been face to face, yeah. But I will not hesitate. Not for a second.” Yeah. I dig it. Heavy, man.

*. What I liked in 1995, and like today, is Ashley Judd. At the time I was infatuated, and I might still argue that she turns in the best performance here. I don’t know what’s behind David Thomson tacking her at the end of a list of supporting players to watch as “even Ashley Judd.” She’s great. What I wondered this time out was if the same hair stylist was doing her coiffure as Val Kilmer’s. They look so alike. And I think his might have even taken more time in the chair.
*. As for the two stars, is it unfair to say that they’re dancing on the line of giving parody performances? Pacino gets to break out several “Hoo-ah!” moments (in early drafts of the script Vince had a cocaine habit) before relapsing into gum-chewing alert indifference, while De Niro is all threatening reticence and shrugs. But, and I’m struggling to defend them here, the fact that they’re going through the motions in such obvious ways does fit. Vince and Neil are characters stuck in routines. Vince is playing the cop and Neil is playing the bad guy. It’s fate, or some spin on the old line about how a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. They lay out the ground rules in the diner.

*. At least we can say that this may have been the last time they were realistically attractive stars (though Pacino was just coming off facelift surgery). They look great. Great enough to rope in younger women? Diane Venora was 12 years younger than Pacino (but the same age as his character), Amy Brenneman 21 years younger than De Niro. But Brenneman is a struggling artist in L.A. and De Niro looks like he might make a good sugar daddy. So there’s that.
*. I am making light of these relationships because I think they’re a joke. Mann likes these problematic pairings but they play out in such predictable, clichéd ways they become unbearable. These women must suffer until they can come to some kind of tearful understanding of their troubled men. The business with Natalie Portman’s attempted suicide bringing Pacino and Venora together at the end, temporarily, was laughable and sickening at the same time. Sorry, babe. That ship has sailed. Back to your weed and Prozac. And Ralph.

*. The epic gunfight in the streets of downtown L.A. is justifiably famous. Indeed, I tend to think it’s really the whole point of the movie, despite how ridiculous it is. How much ammo were the gang carrying on them to keep firing like that? As I’ve pointed out before (see my notes on Predator) ammunition is heavy, and apparently some 800-1000 rounds were being expended here in every take. Also: Nobody can hit the robbers even as they are standing out in the open in broad daylight and being fired on from all sides?
*. And then it ends . . . why? Did everyone just run out of bullets? Did Mann yell “Cut!” Finally, De Niro gets into a car and just drives away and . . . that’s it. Next thing we know he’s getting Kilmer patched up by some hairy sawbones. This isn’t a script that cares very much for connecting tissue.
*. As far as heists go, I’m not sure Mann develops the idea of how professional a crew this is very far. Their big plan for knocking over the bank is to disable the alarm system and then walk in with assault rifles and balaclavas and emptying all the cash in the vault into duffel bags. Then drive away. Wow. As Vince puts it admiringly: these guys are good!
*. You may be getting the impression that I still don’t like Heat very much. However, I did think I liked it more this time than I have previously. It has grown on me somewhat. In some ways it plays almost like a period piece, not as obviously as the MTV cops of Miami Vice but still very much as a ’90s gangster flick. Perhaps it’s the music. Perhaps it’s a style thing, and for Mann style always was the thing. So much else seems disposable. I still think it’s overrated, but there’s no denying it’s watchable and even at times entertaining.
*. As noted by Engber, Mann went on to do a lot less of the same. Pacino and De Niro would appear again — together! — in risible CGI-assisted performances in The Irishman. Val Kilmer got a reputation as being difficult to work with, and has more recently been suffering health problems. Ashley Judd doesn’t do as many films, concentrating on humanitarian work. She came out tops again.

13 thoughts on “Heat (1995)

  1. Bookstooge

    I don’t know if I would choose to ever watch this. I was never a Pacino or De Niro fan, so no attraction in that regards and the story seems like 100 other movies, so this needed something “more” for a casual like myself.
    And this review definitely hasn’t made it sound attractive 😀

    Reply
      1. Bookstooge

        not really, unless the robbers are “kind of” good guys. Like in Ocean’s 11.
        But when I stop to think about it, they aren’t really even “kind of” good guys. It’s just the casino guy is even worse.
        Sigh…..

  2. film-authority.com

    I saw this at a cinema where the projector broke down and there was no picture, only sound for the big gunfight. As a Mann fan, I felt this was his most overrated film, too long and bloated. Now the Miami Vice movie, now that’s a masterpiece….

    Reply
    1. Alex Good

      Did you ask for your money back?
      I haven’t seen the movie version of Miami Vice. Even forgot it existed. I did think this was probably Mann’s best movie, I just think that he’s overrated in general.

      Reply
      1. Alex Good Post author

        Maaaaaaybe. But to be honest I was never a huge fan of the books (they’re sort of a cult like Lord of the Rings) and the trailers don’t inspire me. I’m sure the effects are great though.

  3. Tom Moody

    Heat is great, very re-watchable. I enjoy it for the dramatic LA location shooting (Tom Noonan up in the Hollywood Hills taking heist plans from the airwaves, the “barrio” restaurant where Pacino swaggers around, the huge oil tanks where Pacino & crew get “made,” the derelict drive-in movie theatre filmed in mid-day, the airport with its shifting beams of light, de Niro’s beach apartment, the crowded downtown location where guns blaze, the cheap apartments at night, and on an on…). I like that ridiculous scene in the restaurant where Pacino and de Niro say nothing (and I still suspect was not filmed with both of them present). I like Pacino’s wife saying “We sift through the detritus…” and Pacino saying “I have to hold onto my angst, it keeps me sharp.” I like de Niro the technician reading books on metallurgy and I like his crew (Sizemore, Kilmer) even though they are thugs. Your screenshots capture the cool romance of this movie even though your words lack enthusiasm.

    Reply
    1. Alex Good Post author

      Yes, it’s that air of cool romance that I responded to more this time, and what made me think of it as a period piece. That style of cool was something we don’t have now (not saying it’s better or worse now, just different). It’s also there in the way Pacino and De Niro could still both pull off seeming like handsome leading men. And the locations are great. There’s even a special feature included with the DVD that talks about them, then and now style. I’m not sure Edie would have such marvelous digs as a struggling artist, but I guess she’s renting with a bunch of other people. And I like how Pacino makes a crack at his crappy postmodernist dwelling. I think it’s still a good movie, but Mann had real limits as a storyteller, and in creating characters (especially women). Plus the climax of the movie is that firefight in the street and I find the ending at the airport a bit off.

      Reply
  4. Tom Moody

    Yes, seeing it in the theatre in 1995 I was exhausted by the time they got to the airport. Lately I tend to watch half of it at a time so I appreciate the cat and mouse in the dark more. But the “street battle” is definitely the high point.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.