Heat (1995).

Review #2491: Heat.

Cast: 

Al Pacino (LAPD Robbery Homicide Lieutenant Vincent Hanna), Robert De Niro (Neil McCauley), Val Kilmer (Chris Shiherlis), Jon Voight (Nate), Tom Sizemore (Michael Cheritto), Diane Venora (Justine Hanna), Amy Brenneman (Eady), Ashley Judd (Charlene Shiherlis), Mykelti Williamson (Sergeant Bobby Drucker), Wes Studi (Detective Sammy Casals), Ted Levine (Detective Mike Bosko), Dennis Haysbert (Don Breedan), William Fichtner (Roger Van Zant), Natalie Portman (Lauren Gustafson), Tom Noonan (Kelso), Niki Haris (Marcia Drucker), Kevin Gage (Waingro), Hank Azaria (Alan Marciano), Danny Trejo (Gilbert Trejo), Susan Traylor (Elaine Cheritto), Kim Staunton (Lillian), Henry Rollins (Hugh Benny), and Jerry Trimble (Detective Danny Schwartz) 

Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, #1713 - Manhunter, #2091 - Miami Vice, #2325 - Collateral)

Review: 

"I charted the film out like a 2 hr 45 min piece of music, so I'd know where to be smooth, where not to be smooth, where to be staccato, where to use a pulse like a heartbeat."

It helps to know the story a bit, admittedly. Once upon a time, a Chicago detective named Chuck Adamson kept tabs on the crew of one Neil McCauley, an ex-inmate of Alcatraz that one time saw the two end up meeting for a cup of coffee. Adamson later became a producer and screenwriter himself (where he co-created Crime Story, a show Mann was the executive producer on from 1986-1988). What interested him was the professionalism that Adamson respected in McCauley even with the recognized fact that one of them probably would kill the other. Mann had first written a draft in 1978 but he trimmed it down when NBC approached him to do a TV show. The result (filmed in less than a month) was L.A. Takedown (starring Scott Plank), a TV film that aired in 1989 that the network rejected because they didn't like the lead actor. But a few years later, with a few more moves under his belt, Mann set out to do the movie he wanted to do at last, complete with having Al Pacino and Robert De Niro being in the same movie (a relatively big deal for the time for a film that, well, has them meet twice) and one that was shot in Los Angeles that used nearly a hundred locations around the city for 100+ days of filming. Released on December 15, 1995, the film was a relative success with audiences (particularly abroad). Apparently, actual robbers took inspiration from the movie in later years to go along with video games such as Grand Theft Auto and directors such as Christopher Nolan.* In 2022, Heat 2, a novel written by Mann and Meg Gardiner was released that was both a prequel and sequel to the movie. A feature film adaptation is currently under development that may start filming in 2026.

What we have here is a movie full of intensity in the great game of choices, personal codes and the consequences that can have an effect on a wide range of people. It's a wonderful epic in the sprawling confines of a frontier that is intimidating as it is lonely. It's as much a neo-noir as it arguably is also a Western in its own respect, one that looks upon the nature of obsession and the sacrifices one makes to burnish that fire and live on the edge. A good chunk of the characters that we see throughout the near-three hour run time all have illusions about who they are vs. what really lies beneath the surface of their work, one in which it isn't so easy to just turn it off just because it's time to go home now, whether that involves cops that can't exactly tell their spouses about recently murdered people or men who believe themselves to be alone in their process or even those trying to dig their way out besides being an "ex-con". Simply put, the juice comes and goes but the work will be playing everywhere until the Earth is nothing but dust. Apparently, there was a scene that showed Pacino's character chip a bit of cocaine before it was cut out of the film. At any rate, high-strung user or not, I don't see anything wrong with where Pacino is going with such a fascinating role because, well, volatile is volatile (besides, "overacting" is only a bad thing when one wants to pick at things - the scene interrogating Azaria is delightful more than just "ham"). He handles it with such gusto that you understand pretty quickly how one can hate the sight of a horrible crime (dead hookers, robberies, you get it) and yet have the juice to want to crack it. Regardless of if one had a person like Venora or Portman in their orbit, there are just some people that need the chase because the pursuit of justice is just as addicting as the pursuit of a good score. De Niro matches that with his own type of worthwhile energy, a brooding man who values success at his craft because there is nothing better in his worldview even if he is confined by a code that might as well be a prison (such as how he lives or the ever-changing cars). One can only try to fool themselves with thoughts of being with Brenneman but really what matters to him is fulfilling his obligation to this mythic code of no excuses (and no second chances for violators) and trust for certain folks only. Pacino and De Niro basically are yin and yang in the knowing sense of "whatever it takes". It is just as well to see Kilmer and others fill the tapestry of obsession that wants to believe they are in control of their own lives in responsibility, whether that involves the disciplined (and still fallible as a character) Kilmer or the cut-rate Sizemore or even tragic side figures such as Haysbert that remind you that nothing is easy to escape. The robbery sequence obviously is the highlight of the film in its slam-bang execution of loud devastation that works to clockwork in seeing where one will go in realizing the full process of the job, right down to the eventual climax in wordless (but impactful for what is seen) resolution*. As a whole, Heat is a long burn not so much about a heist but about the people that toil in the work of people at a variety of angles that crisscross with each other in sacrifice and foibles to worthwhile staccato execution. It's a hell of a movie to see turn 30 years old.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, the way that Kilmer reloads his weapon during the famous shootout scene is apparently a thing that professionals tell others to aspire to do in real life.

*Honestly, it is a bit weird but not a dealbreaker at what happens to (the Kilmer character in how he just...escapes). 

Wolfen.

Review #1902: Wolfen.

Cast: 

Albert Finney (Detective Dewey Wilson), Diane Venora (Detective Rebecca Neff), Edward James Olmos (Eddie Holt), Gregory Hines (Coroner Whittington), Tom Noonan (Ferguson), Dick O'Neill (Captain Warren), Dehl Berti (Old Indian), Peter Michael Goetz (Ross), Reginald VelJohnson (Morgue Attendant), James Tolkan ("Baldy", The Medical Examiner), and Donald Symington (Lawyer) Directed by Michael Wadleigh.

Review: 

Sure, it is possible that there is no real big link between a film like this and ones such as The Howling (1981) and An American Werewolf in London (1981). But it is fun to talk about the one thing they do have in common: each are horror movies with killer wolves, with The Howling being released in March before Wolfen was released in July and American Werewolf in London was released in August. Wolfen was the least successful with audiences among the three, not making its $17 million budget back. The movie is an adaptation of The Wolfen, a 1978 novel by Whitley Strieber (a writer of thriller novels and a "non-fiction" book about being abducted...by non-human entities). David M. Eyre, Jr. and Michael Wadleigh were credited for both the screenplay and story while Eric Roth provided un-credited work. Apparently, the book and film share distinct differences, as the book had cops become the opening victims rather than a land developer (with wife and bodyguard in tow) and the climax is also different in how the lead characters handle the Wolfen. The film began shooting in 1979 for a targeted release in the fall of 1980, but delays would arise between Orion Pictures (the production company behind the film, which was distributed by Warner Bros.) and Wadleigh. It got to the point where the Directors Guild of America had a three-week hearing involving the rights of the director, who apparently had a first cut of four hours while complaining of having no budget reported to him (at least he was granted his choice of star with Finney, since Dustin Hoffman pestered him to try and get the role to no avail). The next cut was two hours and 29 minutes, but then the producers made an agreement to let Wadleigh shoot the remainder of things needed to be filmed before Richard Chew was sent to cut the film after Wadleigh was done and let go (John D. Hancock was sent to supervise the ADR sessions). This is how you get a final version of one hour and 54 minutes. This was the feature film debut of Wadleigh, who is best known for his work in documenting the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival, for which he and his crew shot for a documentary that was released in 1970 to great success. At any rate, this is the only non-documentary that Wadleigh has ever shot.

You can tell that this is a movie written to feel four hours long that got hacked into something that is a procedural movie with flashes of horror that ends up with varying results. Man, do I wish that I enjoyed this film more than I did, because honestly, it pales when compared to the aforementioned other wolf films. For one, this film isn't a "werewolf film", because the wolves here are a spirit that may or may not be gods, ones that have walked the Earth for many, many, many years, as explained by a group of Native Americans that exists to defend their territory. So, yes, there isn't a werewolf transformation here, since the concern is really more about looking at urban decay and procedure, since one is trying to guess how folks are being terrorized by something that severs certain body parts without just thinking it is terrorism, complete with nice shots of New York (such as the South Bronx). A good chunk of this is actually fairly interesting (having a thermographic visual for the Wolfen perspective is one), but at a certain point you really are just waiting for them to stop window-dressing and get to the point. Yes, it does keep itself in the realm of seriousness without ridicule, but it only marginally has the element of shock to keep things going. Sometimes you have to cut the cord, and I think this means that we have a film that is watchable but quite average. I think the cast is assembled nicely, because Finney does make a quality leader. He keeps a shaky but composted attitude about what goes on without making it look like it is beneath him. Venora was actually making her film debut with this film after graduating from Juilliard School and stage plays. She does okay here, quiet but serviceable in the procedural element...the chemistry between not so much, but it isn't too corny. Olmos practically chews on the camera in brooding charm, which proves quite compelling. Tap dancer-turned-actor Hines provides a bit of levity to the surroundings as well, making a useful rapport with Finney in minimal moments. Noonan is offbeat and quite watchable in little moments as well, while O'Neill plays the cop beat about how you would expect. I really did want to like the film more, because there is something to brood over with the idea of nature vs. greed, but I think the pacing is a bit uneven to hold things together enough to really make capable thrills. This isn't to say that I wanted an effects show, because the movie does do fine with the perspective shots alongside ones with wolves, but I think a little more "oomph" is required here to make it less like a procedural that just happened to break out into horror, particularly with a low-key ending (again, one that plays to the allure of what is allowed to lurk in the shadows rather than the book's idea about things) - decent for the film's mood but also just okay. I wonder how this would have worked as a four-hour cut or as a miniseries, where you can play out all of the things you want in trying to do a Bronx tale of people getting cut down by wolves that have humans as their prey. In fact, if you want to play semantics about better procedurals, Q, released the following year involving a winged serpent, handled its balance of procedural and creature elements with more reverence than this film (schlock or not, some things work better to others). At any rate, Wolfen is a decent film sandwiched in between other, better, movies involving creatures of the night, which may work out quite well for those who are interested in curiosity pieces among the years of horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Bird.

Review #1638: Bird.

Cast: 

Forest Whitaker (Charlie "Bird" Parker), Diane Venora (Chan Parker), Michael Zelniker (Red Rodney), Samuel E. Wright (Dizzy Gillespie), Keith David (Buster Franklin), Diane Salinger (Baroness Nica de Koenigswarter), Michael McGuire (Brewster), James Handy (Esteves), Anna Thomson (Audrey), Damon Whitaker (Young Bird Parker), Arlen Dean Snyder (Dr. Heath), Sam Robards (Moscowitz), and Bill Cobbs (Dr. Caulfield) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, and #1550 - Gran Torino)

Review: 

"I'd love to go back in time. To Bourbon Street in the 20's, to 12th Street in Kansas City in the 30's, to 52nd Street in the late 40's."

It was once said by Miles Davis (a legend in his own right in music) that one could tell the history of jazz in four words: "Louis Armstrong. Charlie Parker." Jazz, one of the great music genres of the times, certainly had plenty of historical figures leading the way, and the key to understanding one of its styles rests with Charlie "Yardbird" Parker. The Kansas City native used his time on this Earth for a variety of impactful compositions that clearly touched upon numerous listeners with his alto saxophone of fast tempos and improvisation before his death in 1954. One of those folks was Clint Eastwood, who heard the musician play in Oakland when he was just 15. The film was made on a budget of $9-14 million and came around years after its script was developed by Joel Oliansky in 1980 (shaped by recollections from colleague Teddy Edwards), and it was originally intended to be a project for Richard Pryor. There would be participation from a variety of people close to Parker, such as his common law widow Chan Parker, provided recordings to Eastwood that she had in a vault. It was the first Eastwood film that he had directed where he did not appear in any form (Breezy (1973) had a cameo of him). This was the first of a group of jazz-related programs that Eastwood would be behind in some form (mostly producing), with 1988 also seeing the release of a documentary of the life of Thelonious Monk. It is the sound that matters most when it comes to this film (particularly with music coordinator and former alto sax at Birdland Lennie Niehaus, tasked with writing for the instruments to play where the original piano music was playing), since the recordings of Parker had to be digitally and electronically isolated from the solos, with modern backing tracks recorded over.

While it was not a success with audiences at the time of its release, it certainly has an appeal for those interested in jazz or for those who yearn to see someone at the top of their craft, struggles and all. The beauty of the film is the rhythm it carries with its tribute to a jazz legend with a biography that depicts selections from his life without rote routine or a judging eye. In a way, it moves like a beat you might hear in a jazz composition with all of the thoughtful moodiness required to make a worthwhile time. All interesting biopics have a performance to carry it and no one should be surprised by Whitaker and his effectiveness in bringing Bird to the screen. This was the first starring lead role for Whitaker, who had entered films and television with supporting roles in 1982 such as Tag: The Assassination Game (1982) and Platoon (1986) after a back injury had him shift focus away from football, although he did do some study in music before doing drama. He is the guiding force that makes the film work as smoothly as it does, one that can justify spending plenty of time with in all the soulful aspects that makes for a fascinating experience. He manages to carry talent alongside pain that we can see play a note alongside play his burden without just finding it easy to take judgement or easy pity for as a man. In other words, we see the genius that comes from the notes in the fragments that come out alongside his highs and lows that came with a struggle with addiction to heroin. Venora plays a worthy settling piece to the times away from the road, one with warmth and reason that come around with various scenes that jump from end to end (whether involving interludes at home or near the ends of the timeline spent). Zelniker does fine in those moments on the road, balancing talent with wracked nerve that obviously strikes a chord with what is needed with Whitaker, whether that means an albino act or struggles with oneself (incidentally, the real Rodney participated in the production and is even mentioned in the credits). Wright does well with following along with the beat required from Whitaker without being stepped on (as one would see coming from another figure of bebop jazz, who was touring at the time of production). David and his time spent are quite fleeting, but he sure does well with setting up one particular scene quite well involving cymbals despite playing a composite. Salinger plays the fateful part needed from someone who invites curiosity (incidentally, the real life Baroness was also featured in the documentary about the life of Monk, which aired the month before her death). I suppose any biography is going to have twiddling with the facts, and there are a few things one might quibble with, which is interesting for a film of 155 minutes. Maybe it depends on how much one knows on the subject to begin with, since one might not know about Parker's other marriages (which I probably should have guessed with the whole common thing I described earlier) or lack of mention to associations Parker had with musicians like Miles Davis. In the end, it just comes down to how much one finds themselves enjoying the experience to be had with an elegy for a legend that captures what it means to move to the tune of one's own beat as a film for all of the musicians.

Next Time: Legends in the fields of laughter come together for a most unusual film with a one-time director. Night time comes for Harlem Nights.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.