MovieChat Forums > PrimeMinisterX
PrimeMinisterX (8822)
Posts
Charming Christmas-ish classic
Well I enjoyed it
The SECOND Best Adapation of A Christmas Carol
A worthwhile watch during the Thanksgiving season
The girl in the red coat
A Challenger Appears
His presence instantly makes any movie he's in much better
Underrated Director
First half feels almost like a different movie from the second half
Historian breaks down the trailer
View all posts >
Replies
The agenda-pushing is definitely getting old! So many films now are about pushing a social message and checking off DEI boxes.
I sure miss the old days when films were principally about providing entertainment. This is one reason why the 90s remains my favorite film decade of all time.
I believe I've seen every film that Mann has done since Heat. As I said, The Insider is excellent.
Ali I believe I saw but found it forgettable (which is why I have literally almost forgotten watching it). The first two acts of Collateral were good but I thought the ending felt stock and underwhelming. I saw Public Enemies in the theater and was disappointed by it, but I gave it another chance a few years down the road and enjoyed it more the second time around. My experience with Blackhat was similar: I didn't much care for it the first time around but watched it again and liked it more the second time, though holy shit the ending is stupid. And Ferrari had a good cast and was well-shot but by and large was just dull.
One thing that has stood out to me is that Mann, despite being an early adopted of digital cameras, seemed to take a long time to figure out how to get a nice image with one. Collateral, while it looked digital, still looked okay to me, but Public Enemies suffers badly from the soap opera effect and Blackhat looks extremely digital and muddy and is just kind of an ugly film to look at.
Ferrari looks really nice though, and it makes me wonder if, for some reason I'm unable to explain, Mann WANTED those earlier films to have the highly digital look that they have.
I saw the film in the theater and then watched it, I think, only once on Blu-Ray. I couldn't tell you the difference between the cuts or feeling like the experience of watching it at home was markedly different.
And yeah, it sounds like you're right. It seems like they're trying to make social statements with these films more than they're just trying to make fun horror movies.
I will agree that it's better than 1/20th as good as Heat. But I would put it more like 1/6th as good. Maybe 1/4th on a good day. Certainly not 1/2 as good. But perhaps my feeling about it would be better if I hadn't seen Heat first.
I certainly am not above enjoying an old school made-for-TV movie. In fact, 1999 had three that I really enjoyed: Joan of Arc, Pirates of Silicon Valley and TNT's rendition of A Christmas Carol. But L.A. Takedown didn't do much for me. I will say that the bank robbery scene and subsequent shootout were pretty good. But I didn't feel like any of the rest of the film struck me as particularly good or memorable, and the decision to have Waingro kill Patrick is questionable.
Regarding the film's budget, I can't recall whether $60 million seemed like a big budget in 1995, but certainly in 2025 it seems modest. An inflation calculator tells me is that almost the equivalent of $125 million today. If that's accurate, I will say that it doesn't seem like THAT expensive of a film, so perhaps you are right regarding efficiency. But the result was excellent. I'm sure a lot of that money went to the absolutely stacked cast.
Mann's days as a director are undoubtedly winding down, if due to his age than to no other reason. Sadly, since Heat, he hasn't made any other films that are even close to as good. His best movie since Heat, in my opinion, was the movie he made right after it: The Insider. That was a great film. But his 21st century work has been disappointing.
Hi SPP! I hope you're doing well.
I saw the 2010 film in the theater and, while I didn't think it was a perfect movie by any means, I enjoyed it enough that I later picked it up on Blu-Ray. I should rewatch it. It's been a long time. Like yourself, I never understood the cold reception it got.
As for this new film, I watched the trailer and it didn't look interesting at all. I also thought that the Invisible Man adaptation they did a few years ago was dull. I paused that one about halfway through and never went back to it.
The tone and feel of these new Universal monster movies seems all wrong.
My immediate reaction is that you make a good point but upon further reflection I have to ask: Are we sure that either of these items are on the prohibited items list? While both may seem suspicious, neither is inherently dangerous.
Ugh. Pass.
This new wave of Universal films sucks. Just go watch the 2010 Wolfman with Benicio del Toro. It was enjoyable enough.
They should've just gone forward with the Dark Universe. I enjoyed The Mummy and it made almost half a billion dollars.
Why did you read it twice if you thought it was "very weak"?
There are plenty of women who enjoy being homemakers and who find it fulfilling.
After rewatching Heat for maybe the fifth time a couple of nights ago, I decided to watch L.A. Takedown tonight. My conclusion is that Takedown is interesting as a curiosity but little more. It is literally lesser on every level: Lesser budget (and it shows), lesser performances, lesser action, lesser story.
You are right that Takedown is leaner, but since Heat is one of those rare films that is very long but during which I never find myself wanting to check my watch, I don't feel like that is a good thing. In Heat, Michael Mann creates a world that is interesting to visit. It has its own aura, its own vibe, and when the credits role I am not ready to leave this place and its characters. I didn't feel anything like that while watching L.A. Takedown. Never once did feel absorbed into the story or its world and, even at only 90 minutes, I felt bored much of the way through.
As I said, Takedown is an interesting curiosity. It's interesting to see what is largely the same story play out on a smaller budget, with different actors, in a different decade. But I don't feel like I could recommend it to anyone to watch for any reason other than that they are a Heat fan and they want to see Michael Mann's practice run before making the real thing.
View all replies >