Heat

1995 "A Los Angeles crime saga."
8.3| 2h50m| R| en| More Info
Released: 15 December 1995 Released
Producted By: Warner Bros. Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: https://www.20thcenturystudios.com/movies/heat
Synopsis

Obsessive master thief Neil McCauley leads a top-notch crew on various daring heists throughout Los Angeles while determined detective Vincent Hanna pursues him without rest. Each man recognizes and respects the ability and the dedication of the other even though they are aware their cat-and-mouse game may end in violence.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Warner Bros. Pictures

Trailers & Images

Reviews

cricketbat Heat has some really intense moments, it just takes a long time for them to happen. This film drags on much longer than it should have. It did add a little more to the heist movie genre, though, and it was fun to see DeNiro and Pacino playing off of each other.
oliviaharper Heat is an amazing movie but with the people associated this is a given. Directed by the amazing Michael mann and starring De Niro and Pacino (amongst many others) Heat is a fantastic Los Angeles crime film filled with great dialogue, fantastic characters and amazing sequences. Really, the choices you have for top notch action is hard to decide but the bank shootout takes the cake. This scene became so legendary that it inspired an actual robbery. You have to see Heat if you like character based action films. This is a treat.
Bafer Brökenstræng 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.
Lars Lendale This is probably one of the most far-fetched movies and wasted casts of all time. It starts with a heavy heist, spectacular but right from the beginning, you can tell that this picture is going to out-smart itself, with cheesy soundtrack and ridiculous slow pace. The whole theme of the movie, is let's make these vilains so damn smart, let's show how intelligent they are and let's make sure the cops repeat it 15 times so that the viewer gets it....BORING ! Why would a team of gangsters hire somebody off the street they never worked with until the last moment ? And why wouldn't McCauley just gun down the other thief in the van and get rid of him, instead of trying to pay him his share TO THEN kill him in the middle of a parking lot ??? Where is the sense in that ! Why give him a meeting in a cafe, give him his money but then plan to kill him ? Oh my goodness this makes no sense at all. For a gang of pros they really know how to screw up like amateurs if this is going to be the theme. And then the cops, they start off as a team of tools, who can't get any information by their own department but need cons on parole or ex jail birds and check this out, Vincent schedules a meeting with Albert an informant who for some reason has his brother coming into town (why would Vincent agree to visit his brother anyway?) from Phoenix and he holds some really special information about the current case he's investigating. Wow, just like that, an outsider from Phoenix knows exactly the authors of a big heist by lucky fortune because he once met an ex-jail bird in custody, right in the middle of some street. Who wrote this script ? This is bad, this is far fetched, this is a draft, this is not a script. How can the police or the FBI not have a list of cons working in a perimeter instead of going through informants who's dialogues make no sense ! Man this is the way to make Police look absolutely useless. So just like that by recognizing the word "slick", the LAPD then manages to identify several gang members without really revealing it to us, considering how appalling they are we have our doubts. But even with a team spying on them the gangsters still manage to outsmart the cops by spying on them as well !But there are too many shortcuts in this movie, I don't understand how the Police suddenly gets the bank heist information at the last minute, gets there in time and then not just fire one gun shot but at least a thousand of them in the middle of the street (lucky pedestrians) from some narcotic agent who turned heel, makes no sense to me, and they still lose out on the two criminals. Never understood the diner scene and the confrontation, especially to talk about nothing and a cop trying to convince a criminal not to commit a crime like that makes sense. Why does the gang who seemed so determined to kill Waingro forget him for so long and how the hell does he get Trejo's adresse ?But the shooting is the most outrageous scene of all, there is no way that the police can risk flying bullets and crossfiring kill pedestrians in the middle of a gun-shooting -- just let the criminals go and sacked them in a turn or whatever but don't stand there stray fire impulsively, this is absolutely ill-advised. This scene is completely nuts. If you did not secure the perimeter before it is impossible to get into this kind of a shooting, this is cowboy stuff, not to mention the moment where Vincent shoots Cerrito holding a little girl hostage in the head. And even after that scene, there's still a good 45 min, the movie is way too long, doesn't move fast enough, lingers too much on useless dialogues that get the story nowhere, the scene with the new-boyfriend watching the TV and the suicide girl I mean who cares when you're 2hrs30min in the movie just get it going ! The structuration of the script is completely wrong, these scenes do not add anything to the picture and especially not at the climax of the script !And the ending ends exactly like the whole movie is, far-fetched, a final chase where Pacino has legs of a 30 year old in the body of a 55 year old and shares a fraternal truce with McCauley, it's just not good at all. This whole theme of outsmarting vilains and making them look more glamor than they are is quite lame and uninteresting. Too bad, a lot of good actors, could have projected something so much better.