I remember the buzz around this movie when it came out. De Niro and Pacino on screen together for the first time. I'm not a fan of the noise around movies, so I waited until it died down. You might think that waiting 23 years was perhaps a little too long but I wanted to be sure.
I'm joking of course. I did see it in the '90's, not on the big screen. Probably on video. My memory of it was pretty sketchy, likely because of two things: 1) In my 20's I just absorbed everything, as people in their 20's often do. If it's the new thing, yes. If it's a classic or must-see/hear/read, yes. If it's one of those "I can't _believe_ you haven't seen x!", yes. And 2) Weed.
So I know I saw Heat back then, but apart from the armored car robbery and the eventual meeting of Bob and Al, nope.
I've revisited a few movies lately. I decided to watch Heat again because it's one of those movies that people refer to as a bit of a landmark of its time, beyond the heavily touted meeting of a couple of Hollywood's heavy hitters.
I can't help but feel that this movie would either have been a very different beast if the two leads weren't involved, or it wouldn't have been made at all. How many drafts of the script came after Pacino and De Niro signed on? Was it Michael Mann's intention from the start to anchor the movie around a third act meeting? Did the plan always involve so much needless exploration of the protagonist's and antagonist's relationships with their lovers/partners? The production asks many questions. But the story asks none. Worse, the story _may_ ask a few questions, but I don't care what they are, let alone care to try and answer them.
Heat is one of those movies that has you looking for the star in the EP credits to confirm your suspicion that it's a vanity project. Can't pin it on the actors, though. It's the vanity of the writer/director/producer, Michael Mann.
Performance-wise, Heat is as you might expect. The two 'above the title' stars are given plenty of room to do their respective things, although you've seen them do it better elsewhere. The supporting goodies and baddies, with the exception of Val Kilmer, whose scenery-chewing turn is not helped by the fact that his & Ashley Judd's subplot is shoehorned into an already heavily domestic storyline.
I've not seen the original trailer for Heat, but I'm going to guess that it was more concerned with guns, explosions and action than it is with the love lives of its stars.
On a side note, Mann's last feature, 2015's Blackhat, was a critical and commercial failure, returning less than $20 million against its $70 million budget. Yet Mann is about to go into production for a biopic of Enzo Ferrari. By contrast, Peter Weir's last film, The Way Back in 2010, brought in $20 million against a $30 million budget, and Weir not only hasn't directed since, he's finding financing extremely difficult to come by.
I'm loath to make direct stylistic comparisons of the two directors. I will admit to a preference for Weir's body of work, but that doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed a few of Mann's contributions. That said, Weir hasn't made a movie as bad as Heat.
I'm joking of course. I did see it in the '90's, not on the big screen. Probably on video. My memory of it was pretty sketchy, likely because of two things: 1) In my 20's I just absorbed everything, as people in their 20's often do. If it's the new thing, yes. If it's a classic or must-see/hear/read, yes. If it's one of those "I can't _believe_ you haven't seen x!", yes. And 2) Weed.
So I know I saw Heat back then, but apart from the armored car robbery and the eventual meeting of Bob and Al, nope.
I've revisited a few movies lately. I decided to watch Heat again because it's one of those movies that people refer to as a bit of a landmark of its time, beyond the heavily touted meeting of a couple of Hollywood's heavy hitters.
I can't help but feel that this movie would either have been a very different beast if the two leads weren't involved, or it wouldn't have been made at all. How many drafts of the script came after Pacino and De Niro signed on? Was it Michael Mann's intention from the start to anchor the movie around a third act meeting? Did the plan always involve so much needless exploration of the protagonist's and antagonist's relationships with their lovers/partners? The production asks many questions. But the story asks none. Worse, the story _may_ ask a few questions, but I don't care what they are, let alone care to try and answer them.
Heat is one of those movies that has you looking for the star in the EP credits to confirm your suspicion that it's a vanity project. Can't pin it on the actors, though. It's the vanity of the writer/director/producer, Michael Mann.
Performance-wise, Heat is as you might expect. The two 'above the title' stars are given plenty of room to do their respective things, although you've seen them do it better elsewhere. The supporting goodies and baddies, with the exception of Val Kilmer, whose scenery-chewing turn is not helped by the fact that his & Ashley Judd's subplot is shoehorned into an already heavily domestic storyline.
I've not seen the original trailer for Heat, but I'm going to guess that it was more concerned with guns, explosions and action than it is with the love lives of its stars.
On a side note, Mann's last feature, 2015's Blackhat, was a critical and commercial failure, returning less than $20 million against its $70 million budget. Yet Mann is about to go into production for a biopic of Enzo Ferrari. By contrast, Peter Weir's last film, The Way Back in 2010, brought in $20 million against a $30 million budget, and Weir not only hasn't directed since, he's finding financing extremely difficult to come by.
I'm loath to make direct stylistic comparisons of the two directors. I will admit to a preference for Weir's body of work, but that doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed a few of Mann's contributions. That said, Weir hasn't made a movie as bad as Heat.
Tell Your Friends