Conference bookie::movies

    ...well, I realize that's your opinion, BUT this motion picture is
    far from "pointless" as you so pointlessly pointed out (too many
    pointless's???)....a Tour de Force in modern crime drama is more
    like it...I Loved this movie!  Gets you by the throat and takes you for
    a ride thru the modern-day Jungle...the three-hour timeframe was hardly
    noticeble, and my wife and I found each other actually rooting for the
    "bad guy", as called by the base noter....well done all around...
    
    ***1/2 out of ****
    
    macky

I saw this film with some family members over the holidays and really enjoyed it
but I have a question for the rest of you out there.  This film has been billed
as the first one in which DeNiro and Pacino actually worked together (they were
both in Godfather II but had no scenes together).  In this film they have 2
scenes together, the one in the coffee shop and the scene at the end.  After the
film, 2 of my relatives claimed it was blatantly obvious that DeNiro and Pacino
had not worked together in these scenes - that you could only see one of their
faces in any of the shots (which may be true) and therefore they had obviously
filmed their parts separately.  I told them that they were undoubtedly wrong -
that in particular, the coffee shop scene could not have possibly worked as well
as it did if they hadn't filmed it together - but I could be wrong - does anyone
know what the real story is here?

    ...well, the scene at the end (no spoilers, don't worry) they were
    definitely together (remember Pacino holding onto DeNiro's hand?)...
    that's one...the coffee shop scene is not as obvious, tho I hafta
    agree with you that the scene would not have worked as well if they
    were not on screen together....
    
    macky

    Could someone enter a brief synopsis of this film? These days trailers
    usually showe almost a whole movie, but for this, all I've seen a re
    random shots of PAcino, De Niro and Kilmer and I have no clue what this
    film is about.
    
    
    Thanks,
    
    
    Marilyn

>>...well, the scene at the end (no spoilers, don't worry) they were
>>   definitely together (remember Pacino holding onto DeNiro's hand?)...

yes I do remember this but one of them had their back to us so - according to my
brother - it could have been a double...

    OK a brief synposis:
    
    There's this gang of hoods (bank robbing, murder, etc you get the line
    of work they're in), and then there's this whip-smart cop who wants
    to nail them (or the leader of the gang) to the wall....many twists
    and turns in the plot, too numerous to mention, but to me, the 
    main thrust of the film is how it so believable...you feel what
    the two main characters feel, think, live, etc....very well acted, well
    directed, wonderful cinematography (especially the city scenes of LA
    from the air)....
    
    hope this helps...i know it's a baseline description of the film, but
    that's all I had when I went into to see it....well worth it.
    
    mac

    As far I'm concerned you can save yourself $7 and about 3hrs and go see
    something else.  I don't know what I was expected but this flick just
    didn't do it for me.  As far as I'm concerned it's the same old Cops
    and Robbers movie but only too Long!!
    
    **/*****
    
    Bart Lasky

    I understand that this is Michael Mann's remake of his made-for-TV
    movie called "Takedown in LA".
    
    - Dave

    Having seen this film at a UK preview on Saturday (It's not out in the
    UK until next week), I am somewhat bemused by some of the opinions
    expressed. This film is an extremely well made, well shot, and well
    acted, the three hours seemed to be over far too quickly. Having been
    dissapointed at a few critically well recieved films of late (Seven), I
    was expecting to be slightly dissapointed in this. I wasn't.
    
    ****1/2 out of *****
    
    (1/2 mark deducted for the poor soundtrack)
    

    I went to see this film at the weekend and I thought it was a really
    good movie. 
    
    There were a lot of overheard comments on the way out of the cinema, to
    the effect that the movie was too long. However I loved the "no stone
    unturned" approach to the story. (As with a "normal" movie a lot of
    scenes you, the viewer, just get to witness the conclusion, whereas in
    this movie you get the whole works... the run-up to a main part of the
    story (sometimes without you even realising it), assides to the main
    story, insights to the characters in the story, etc., etc.).
    
    I thought the acting was brilliant. The cinematography was also very
    good. This is definitely a movie to see on the big screen. 
    
    
    One thing though.... I preferred Mortal Kombat to any Steven Seagull
    movie (imho) ;-)
    
    Stephen

    I went to see this the other night at Showcase North(great cinema). I
    was expecting a little more out of it. It wasn't a bad movie, but with 
    those stars it could of been better. It would of been nice to see
    Deniro and Pacino in more scenes together. To me it took away from the
    film. It almost seemed like they were selling this movie because of
    them both being in it then you go to see it and you feel like saying
    "when are they going to have a scene together"...I think they pulled a
    fast one us!!
    

    Yes, I agree that you don't really notice the three hours, but I'm not
    sure that *all* the asides were justified.  Didn't anyone else think
    that what Al Pacino's wife got to say was incredibly trite? Was she the
    least well-drawn character or the weakest actor?  On the subject of
    acting quality, I'm not sure De Niro was really trying - I know he has
    done it all before but is that meant to be so obvious while you're
    watching?
    
    Interesting point about the two "greats" maybe not shooting together
    but what I really want to know is: How long did it take them to shoot
    two whole minutes of Pacino running? - didn't look like he could make
    it in one take these days!
    
    Did anyone else find it odd that all the huge close ups were at the
    beginning then the camera techniques were kind of ordinary towards the
    end?
    
    An enjoyable but unimportant film, that could have been shorter
    methinks.
    
    Wendy

    A total Turkey, not worth the gravity it took to hold me in my seat. 
    Al Pacino did running and shouting, he does good shouting, the running
    I'm not so sure about.  Deniro looked bored most of the time, the
    peripheral characters we many and two dimensional it was at least two
    hours too long for the ideas it contained.  If you fancy some running
    and shouting with some blood in it try Seven a better film in every
    respect.
    
    1% for a good effort from the sound track.
    
    
    R. Michael
    
    PS.  We would have walked out but it was raining   :)

Hmmm, guess I'll have to check out Seven, because I thought Heat was pretty good!

Ken

    
    
    Seven is excellent...haven't seen Heat yet.
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    I actually though HEAT was better than seven, but only marginally. 
    Seven lost on points because the ending was weak.
    
    
    I.

    
    
    I also thought HEAT was better than SE7EN, but by quite alot.
    
    
    
    E

    It's a real tough call between 7 and Heat, my advise is to forget
    BOTH!!
    				Bart

    If we are voting then I second .17.  I can only barely remember Seven
    but Heat will stay with me for a while.
    
    John

    Yep yep yep!  A Real Good Flick!
    
    I'll have to watch this one again though...cause of background
    disturbances!  
    
    	All really good characters...and very well portrayed by their
    respective actors!  Especially the three "biggies" Pacino, DeNario, and
    Kilmer!  
    
    	I especially liked the "male bonding" thing between the main
    characters!  It wasn't really personal...just their job!