View Full Version : Heist?
This looks like a great movie and I think that I am going to see it this weekend. Cmon it's a film by David Mamet with Gene Hackman and a great supporting cast looks good to me...if anybody has seen it please tell me if it's worth seeing...post your thoughts. Thanks guys!
Holden Pike
11-10-01, 02:36 AM
Hiest is better than average, but not much more than that. It is certainly better than this summer's The Score with DeNiro, Brando and Edward Norton. The Mamet dialogue and character quirks make Heist sing at its best, plus that top-notch collection of actors. There aren't any twists genre fans won't see coming from a mile away, but it's all well executed, and the procedural mechanics of the actual jobs seem credible. For me it wasn't as good as Mamet's The Spansih Prisoner, but it was as good or slightly better than House of Games.
It's worth seeing, but no instant classic. I'll give it only a B- grade. There's frankly better stuff out in the theaters to choose from right now.
I've seen five movies in the past two days: Amelie, Waking Life, The Man Who Wasn't There, Monsters Inc. and Heist. Gotta say of that bunch, Mamet's was the least satisfying. Not a bad flick, just not nearly as good as the others.
New review of "Heist" posted, written by MoFo member "aspen." You can find it here:
http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/index.html?id=13
Holden Pike
11-11-01, 01:41 PM
I'd take an opposing view to Aspen's major points.
The plot mechanics of the job, while competent, are not really all that special in genre terms. It's a damn sight more realistic than the Entrapment type of supertech nonsense, but no more clever than The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, Die Hard, Topkapi, The Hot Rock, The Killing etc. I would assume reading that review that, like the majority of this board, Aspen hasn't seen many movies made before 1990.
As for the dialogue and characters, for me they are the only real reason to see Heist.
David Mamet's dialogue is very stylized and particular, that's for sure. To the unititiated it may seem repetative and the profanity can be off-putting, but to those who know and love Mamet's work, this stuff is like music, orchestrated with purpose and wit.
His characters are likewise stylized, and their quirks and what is revealed about them (or not revealed about them) is often the point. Mamet uses genre less to reach mass audiences than to play with expectations and conventions. For example, the Hitchcock stuff he does in The Spanish Prisoner and the Hesit stuff in Heist are Post-Modern movie-wise uses of now obvious and tired situations filtered through Mamet's own style and perspective so he can let his larger themes and character types run free, with little regard for how it's going to play to 'the Mall crowd'.
That's part of the problem filmmakers like Mamet and say Robert Altman face when their films are marketed toward mainstream audiences. When filmmakers like that work in genre, it's almost always commenting upon what came beofre and using it as a springboard for something different. So if you go into The Spanish Prisoner or Heist or The Long Goodbye or The Player looking for a general perception of a mystery/thriller/what-have-you, of course you're usually going to be disappointed and left cold. But if you are familiar with the genres and have seen the classics and near-classics, that knowledge will instantly inform you and allow you to recognize the deeper kind of fun being had or points being made on screen.
But we've all seen varying amounts and kinds of films, thank goodness. I'd say if you like Mamet's style, you'll enjoy Heist just fine, thanks to the dialogue and characters. If you don't know or care for Mamet, you'll probably enjoy the actual crime parts just fine...but that'll only hold true if you aren't terribly well-versed in the heist genre (and not just movies made in the past 5 or 10 years). If you know the greats of the genre, Hiest ain't got anything new or different to offer,it's pretty routine.
Put all of that together, and I'll still stand by my original grade of B-. ;)
Originally posted by Holden Pike
I would assume reading that review that, like the majority of this board, Aspen hasn't seen many movies made before 1990.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I resent this!
I haven't seen it yet, but soon enough, soon enough...
Originally posted by Holden Pike
I would assume reading that review that, like the majority of this board, Aspen hasn't seen many movies made before 1990.
Don't take this the wrong way, but that's the condescending, holier-than-thou attitude that Sades was upset over awhile back. Maybe you don't realize you do it...but you do. You know, most people don't watch a lot of old movies...and in that respect, I think his review was fairly useful.
I think it really depends on how you view movies in general. Now, I have yet to see Heist hopefully I'll do it tonight or tomorrow sometime and I will be better able to convey my thoughts when I do see the film.
I think that Holden is really an individual who tries to view movies as a sort of continuum he's seem so many of them and is able to compare and contrast different styles with different periods and see what works and what doesn't. For Holden if it's been done before better and in a more artful manner than a somewhat lesser effort that would seem great to somebody that doesn't have such movie experience would rate considerably lower. I mean for him it's been done before and it's been done better before and it's just a rehash of "classics" that he's already seen.
For somebody that is new to the heist genre (Holden I don't see why you're continually spelling it "hiest"--that's not the name of the film at least in this case) than you would probably enjoy it far more than he did because for you it's new and it's fresh and it probably hasn't been done better before in something that you have seen recently and I think that's what he meant by his comment. To somebody that isn't acquainted with the genre as well and who hasn't seen all of the "classics" that Heist was modeled after than you probably would like it a lot more. So really it's all a matter of how you view movies. If you're viewing it as a stand alone type of movie and its maybe the first or second or even third movie that you've seen in the genre and if you've only been exposed to a finite set of movies and time periods than you don't have much to compare it to and as a stand alone film it probably rates pretty good.
By and large Heist has been getting pretty good reviews in the newspapers and periodicals that I've read and I think that's sometimes indicative of a good movie but certainly not always.
And then there are those people that go to a movie just to see a movie and be totally wrapped up in the moviegoing experience and then there are those who like to study film and analyze it and dissect it and all of that it just depends on what type of person you are and how you view film whether it be as a purely enjoyable vocational or recreational activity or as a grand art form as Holden obviously does.
Instead of saying that in such a flippantly condescending manner Holden (I dont particularly view it as such but I do see how some people could mistake it for that kind of an attitude) maybe it would be better to state it in a manner that I have stated instead of the way you did so...just an idea friend...:)
Holden Pike
11-11-01, 10:28 PM
I wasn't being condescending or flippant, but pointing out an observation that many here haven't seen a whole lot of movies made before 1990. Many of you have admitted as much, so it shouldn't be a shock and there's no reason to be defensive. I wasn't making that statement pejorative, but a couple of you must have taken it that way for whatever reason.
I wasn't putting a greater value judgement on it, only as it narrowly releates to assessing how different and complicated the jobs are in Heist vs. other films from the same genre. The exact quote I was chielfy responding to is "I can honestly say I've never seen a heist movie in which the thieves have as complicated a plan as this one." I don't doubt that honesty at all and think it is a perfectly clear statement. My conclusion from it is that Aspen probably hasn't seen Topkapi, The Hot Rock, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, or even Die Hard for that matter, because those all have more complicated criminal schemes than Mamet's Heist.
It was an observation, and I think a pretty fair assumption. Change it around and look at it this way: if somebody says, 'I just saw The Shawshank Redemption, and it was the longest movie I have ever watched.' If I then say, then you must not have seen Once Upon A Time in America or The Godfather Part II or Lawrence of Arabia or Gone with the Wind, isn't that a fair statement? Shawshank runs about 2 hours and 20 minutes. Compared to most Hollywood fare, that's a little longer than the norm. But obviously compared to films that run in excess of three hours (as all the ones I listed above do), it's not long at all. So am I being a d!ck to point out that person's perspective of a "long" movie is different from mine (or anyone who has seen lots of movies)?
I don't see any difference in discussing running times or the complexity of a robbery. Both can be assessed (though complexion is less precise and a bit harder to define, but still), and if one of the selling pioints of that review is that the robbery plot is very complex, I think it's just as valid for me to say from the perspective of seeing lots of films in this genre from all different time periods, in comparison to the most complex ones I've ever seen, Hiest is fairly straightforward and routine. Both opinions are "right" from each reviewers viewpoint.
Once again, I've made a statement on this board that has been taken personally by some here. OK, that's cool I suppose, but if you think my intent was to say nanny-nanny boo-boo I've seen more hiest flicks than you-hoo, it wasn't. That is something YOU are reading into it. If I'm gonna say nanny-nanny boo-boo, I come right out and say "nanny-nanny boo-boo", not "you haven't seen many movies made before 1990".
Because I've seen more movies than others I don't think it makes me holier-than-thou (or they). But it means I certainly have a different perspective on lots of film-related issues. I don't really see what there is to "resent" about such a statement, but feel free, please. If you get a chance, read again in full what I wrote in that post. I never said Aspen was wrong or stupid or anything of the sort, I said "I'd take an opposing view", and then I elaborated how and why. If you think that's combative or condescending, so be it. Generally when I'm going for condescending and sarcastic, you can't miss it, Poopsie Woopsie. I wasn't in that post.
I don't know how to explain myself any more clearly that that (again).
"And now, on with the Opera. Let there be dancing in the streets, drinking in the saloons and necking in the parlors. Play, Don..."
- Groucho Marx as Otis B. Driftwood, A Night at the Opera (1935)
Holden Pike
11-11-01, 10:35 PM
As for misspelling HEIST, I'm a pretty bad speller and always have been. Taking German for four years in High School didn't help much with "ie"/"ei" issues, since their spelling rules for these letters and corresponding sounds is basically opposite from English.
But generally, I have trouble with spelling, especially in longer posts where my proofreading skills (as meager as they are) tend to dissipate rapidly. Spellchecking programs are both a blessing and a curse. It means many of my mistakes are caught when they're in place, but it also means I don't learn the proper spellings, dig?
*and by my count, in my first two posts, I spelled HEIST incorrectly only twice out of eight attempts - six-for-eight is not exactly a failing grade (75%). Room for improvement, but not dunce material.
;)
All I can recommend is that you read your post again...the condescenion is there. Maybe you're a really unlucky guy who happens to talk and think in a way that translates poorly into online discussions...I dunno...but if more than one person is seeing a holier-than-thou attitude in what you're saying, then there's got to be something to it. I'm not claiming that you think that way (though honestly, I wouldn't feel out of line to say yes or no to it...both have evidence), but I am claiming that you sound that way...be it concious, subconcious, or completely unintended.
No one is accusing you of calling Chris (aspen) a liar...not by a long shot. Just belittling him. Is it really that hard to understand why saying that this person obviously hasn't seen many older movies emits a very negative vibe?
Holden has elaborated his viewpoint and his perspective a hell of a lot better than I did in my post and that's exactly what I was trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to point out. Beautiful post Holden!
As I said I wasn't offended by what you said and I personally didn't find it condescending so if you thought I was one that thought so than I'm just reiterating that I wasn't. I think you've very eloquently explained your difference in viewpoint from others on this board and I don't think that's necessarily a bad or a good thing guys it's just a different perspective. We just need to realize that...it's what makes boards such as these what they are. We have different people from all walks of life and with different and varying movie tastes and experiences...and that's what makes this board what it is! :idea:
Holden Pike
11-11-01, 10:41 PM
Yeah, Commish, that's hard for me to understand.
Is it equally hard for you to understand that pointing out such a thing doesn't automatically mean it is condescending? Saying someone hasn't seen many movies made before 1990 is NOT a putdown (BTW, I didn't qualify it with "obviously", as you just did). If you or others are taking it as some kind of insult, get renting or subscribe to Turner Classic Movies. I'm not intending it to belittle.
Your mileage may vary.
I never said it was automatic...and I'm not horribly offended by it...but I wouldn't blame anyone for being offended by it a bit. I don't know what else to say, Holden: exactly how many times would how many people have to tell you you sound condescending to them before you acknowledged it as something you may do without realizing it?
No, it's not automatic...and no, I don't really believe it was intentional. Most of the flaws I display daily are unintentional...so intentional is really half the issue. When you say that someone hasn't seen older films, you're essentially making an assessment of their experience in the matter...a negative one...because, let's face it, the more films you've seen, the more experienced you are. While total movies seen is not the most important thing when it comes to writing a review, it is a plus...and as such, you're basically claiming that this person sounds inexperienced to you...it's also semi-implied that this person is inexperienced COMPARED to you...hence your listing of several movies you've seen.
Like I said: maybe it's completely by accident. I don't dislike you for it, but I see condescension as plain as day...I don't care much, and it's not a big deal, but it is there nonetheless...I'm simply stating that I see, more clearly now, what it was that Sades mentioned awhile back.
No big deal for me, honestly...I don't care much at all, but I am sure of it.
Holden Pike
11-11-01, 11:13 PM
Yes, COMPARED TO ME I doubt this particular reviewer has seen as many heist flicks as I have. For the last time, HOW IS POINTING THAT OUT CONDESCENDING?!? Put the comment back into context. Wasn't I just saying how and why I didn't think Mamet's Heist is anything special in regards to the presentation of the crime? I'm sure that was my point, and if making such a point is being an @sshole, then I guess I'm an @sshole. It's quite possible that fits your definition of flaunting superiority. For me, it's relaying exactly how my perspective on big screen criminaltiy's complexity is different.
If the fact that I've seen a lot of movies colors all my film-related opinions with some sort of inherent condescention towards those who haven't, then there's not a heck of a lot I can do about it. I suppose I could hit my head against the pavement until the memories leave me wee noggin, or I could stop right now and hold my tongue until everybody catches up. Neither is particularly attractive to me.
And as for how many times I have to be 'told' that someone finds me or my communicating style this way or another, frankly it doesn't effect how I think or how I write in the least bit. I take it as everybody has their own perspective and opinions and are entitled to 'em. If more people responded in kind, we wouldn't go off on tangents like this in the first place.
I don't really care much either. I only respond to such personal things when the posts are adressing me or my comments specifically. Otherwise, I say let's agree to disagree on this point and get our perspectives across on things cinematic!
How can you basically say that someone lacks experience, and then demonstrate your own experience in that area, and not see how it can be taken as condescending, or belittling? It's like a pro baseball player stopping by at a Little League game and correcting everyone...sure, maybe it's meant well, but it's also condescending.
Now, as for the other issue: maybe you think the best way to handle disagreements is to realize that we all have our own perspective, but I think a much, much, much better way is to listen to what people say and realize that even though these things are a matter of opinion, sometimes someone else's perspective makes more sense. If I had people telling me everyday that I talk too much, I wouldn't chalk it up to us all having our own opinions and perspective...I'd figure I probably talk too much.
Anyway, I'll let aspen defend himself (though I dunno if he's seen this thread) on this issue from now on. I don't want you to not talk, and I don't want you to injure yourself. At this point, I don't want you to do anything differently, because it'll only cause more problems. I just hope you might come to see what I see. If you don't, well, hey, there are a million things worse you could do...it's not a huge deal.
All the best. :)
Alright guys enough of this crap! I didn't start this thread so we could discuss incessantly how Holdens posts are viewed by different members of the board so let's stop this right now and move on to discussing the film. If anybody has anything else to say about Heist please post but enough of this bickering back and forth! As Holden said let's move back to discussing things that are cinematic.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
Holden Pike
11-11-01, 11:48 PM
Sorry, not quite done, AKA.
The problem with your analogy, Commish, is that hitting a baseball and watching movies are not comparable. Baseball is a real skill, watching movies simply takes time. I've spent more time watching movies than many people. Big frippin' deal. There are plenty of people who have seen FAR many more films that I have.
If somebody writes a review and states their opinion, they should be ready to have that opinion responded to. On the net and a board such as this it is rather the point. If and when Aspen sees this, I hope he puts his two cents in.
But to be clear, not having seen many movies is not a bad thing, and it's not a cumulated experience one should feel embarassed about not having as much of as somebody else. This is the part I just don't get, and I truly don't understand why it is taken personally or as some sort of knock.
But when the reviewer SPECIFICALLY states their accumulated knowledge of a genre is coloring their assessment of an aspect of a movie, isn't it ABSOLUTELY fair game to respond in kind? That's what I was doing.
But I'm finally realizing it wasn't that all this little hubub is about. But I see now it's more my inclusion of the aside, "like the majority on this board". Believe it or not, this was not an intended knock or slight either. It was an acknowledgement that most of the participating membership here I've read posts from the past couple months (has it been that long already?) will probably tend to agree with Aspen's assessment more than mine, and for the same reason. If anything, I was qualifying my own perspective again, but not out of some sense of superiority, just to signal that my perspective - especially on such a point as this particular one, comes from my having seen lots and lots of these kinds of movies. If like Aspen you haven't seen lots and lots of 'em, you may think it's especially clever and intricate too. THAT'S A VALID PERSPECTIVE. I NEVER IMPLIED IT WASN'T. Not invalid for Aspen, not for anybody else with a similar base of familiarity with the genre. Not a knock, an observation.
The End of that (I hope).
I don't know that anybody else here has seen Heist yet, AKA. When they do and have formed their opinions, I'm sure they'll post 'em.
Anyway, both Aspen and I basically recommend Heist. Different reasons, but about the same level of recommendation when all is said and done. Be sure and let us know what YOU thought after you see it.
Well my bad old friend, I didn't think you'd take my post so seriously, and I apologize for reading into yours too much. I can see where TWT and Holden are coming from on this, and I have an idea: Let's talk some more about Heist, and save this schoolgirl drama for the slumber party, aight? Sheesh.
This movie completely and utterly sucked!! I was incredibly shocked to see it flame so badly. I don't know how anyone not under the influence of hallucinogens could have seen it any differently. I would have never thought that a cast of Hackman, Lindo, and DeVito could produce such a wretched film. It was like a bad 1950's cop show. I was expecting Hackman to bust out with, "Eh copper, you'll never catch me copper you see." And then when the dialogue was obviously crap the characters just started screaming and yelling at each other. I could just picture them reading the script and saying... "hmm, this sucks, let's throw some F bombs in there and yell a little, that'll spice it up". The real Heist was having to pay to see that horror. Friggin please, easily the worst film since Ghosts of Mars.
ryanpaige
11-13-01, 03:30 AM
It had a couple of funny lines in it (well, one that I remember offhand).
I wasn't all that impressed with the movie (the dialogue was mostly well done, but the plotting was not all that wonderful. It did feel like I had seen it all before, but done much better in some other movies), but I've seen much worse. I wouldn't see it again, but I don't feel like my $3.75 was really wasted or anything.
I think you should know what you're talking about before you post something.
I have seen plenty of older classic films, I believe I mentioned "The Great Train Robbery" in my review. Or did you only read parts of it and skip that part?
Originally posted by Holden Pike
I wasn't putting a greater value judgement on it, only as it narrowly releates to assessing how different and complicated the jobs are in Heist vs. other films from the same genre. The exact quote I was chielfy responding to is "I can honestly say I've never seen a heist movie in which the thieves have as complicated a plan as this one." I don't doubt that honesty at all and think it is a perfectly clear statement. My conclusion from it is that Aspen probably hasn't seen Topkapi, The Hot Rock, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, or even Die Hard for that matter, because those all have more complicated criminal schemes than Mamet's Heist.
Have you seen Heist?
I haven't seen those others you mentioned but I've seen all the Die Hards and it doesn't compare. Die Hard type movies aren't really heist films anyways, they're more of an action movie. In Die Hard 1 they never even leave the building.
First of all in movies like Die Hard its pretty easy to predict what's happening... usually because they let the audience know whats going on, just not the characters. I'm guessing your one of the people that always says "I saw it coming" AFTER you see the movie. Hindsight is 20/20, personally unless someone predicts something before a movie comes out or whispers it in my ear I usually think they full of crap. Sure you may know that something isn't what it seems, but exactly what the truth is you won't know.
In Heist the actual theft is not all that complicated, it is the get-away that is. Gene Hackman's character has backup plan on top of backup plan on top of backup plan. The actual theft isn't much, its the drama and manuevering between the theives that sells the movie.
Holden Pike
11-13-01, 03:22 PM
Yes, I saw Heist. Wound up seeing it twice, on Friday and on Saturday.
I know you mentioned The Great Train Robbery. Not sure if you meant the Edwin Porter silent one-reeler or Crichton's '70s flick with Connery and Sutherland, but either way, yeah, I know you listed it.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on the complexity of the crime and getaway. I still don't think it was anything special or intricate. You do. That's cool.
And here's yet another person who reads me perfectly (do you guys all have psychic powers or somethin'?): YES, I seee twists in films coming AFTER they happen, then I pretend I knew all along. I'm funny that way. Come see a movie with me and I'll whisper in your ear, if'n you'd like. But it's not going any further than that, Romeo...unless you buy me dinner, are exceptionally cute, or get me roaring drunk. Being female would help too...but that point really hinges on how roaring my drunkeness is.
As I said a couple posts up, we both recommend Heist with about equal enthusiasm, just for different reasons and aspects.
Not sure if you meant the Edwin Porter silent one-reeler or Crichton's '70s flick with Connery and Sutherland, but either way, yeah, I know you listed it.
The Crichton one. Which I recommend seeing to anyone who hasn't seen it.
Holden Pike
11-13-01, 03:29 PM
Yeah, The Great Train Robbery (1979) is good and unfairly forgotten by many.
ryan, how much do matinees cost in Texas???? 3.75???? That's incredible! Here they cost 6!!
ANywa, I still haven't seen Heist, but my dad saw it and told me it was a good movie. But then, he thinks Paint Your Wagon is a good movie. I'll hopefully check it out this weekend.
ryanpaige
11-13-01, 07:04 PM
The first showing of the day at the Cinemark Tinseltown in Plano is $3.75. The regular matinee price is more than that. I think it's under $6, but I don't remember what the price was exactly (It was $4.50 at the UA by my old house, but I moved from Arlington to Plano and there aren't any UA theaters in Plano)
But it depends on the theater. The UA Theaters seems to have slightly cheaper matinees overall, but they don't have a bigger discount for the first showing of the day like the Cinemark does. But the Cinemark in McKinney has $2 matinees (for first fun features) but no stadium seating (I think the regular price there is $4).
So it just all depends (and I thought you were moving close to Houston, which might as well be an entirely different world. It's over 250 miles from here).
I go to the Cinemark in Katy sometimes and their first shows during the week are always $3.75. Pretty cool if you can get there that early.
I saw this movie last night. I really enjoyed it a lot, I love David Mamet. I thought DeVito was absolutely awesome, ditto for Delroy Lindo. All of the double and triple crosses didnt feel like cop outs for once, usually when that happens in movies I have problems with them, but here they all felt right. This flick is a lot of fun, it's much better than almost anything else in the local multiplex right now. Check it out.
Well guys I FINALLY got to go out and see this one last night and I must say I was pretty happy with it. I felt that it was beautifully acted, well scripted and competently directed and it was just a hell of a lot of fun. I like Gene Hackman a lot and so maybe that really contributed to my enjoyment of the film but I really did enjoy it. I thought it was a good film and I'd highly recommend it for anybody who's interested in the crime drama heist type genre. It has some great dialogue (though some of the dialogue I really didn't understand and fell real flat for me)..and some of it seemed forced but for the most part I really enjoyed it. I think probably my favorite scene was when the young hot shot nearly jeopardizes the whole plan when Gene and Delroy Lindo are talking to the cops and he gets out his gun and tries to play hero and then Gene Hackman comes out and chews his out with something like eh you f@cking cowboy what the hell did you think you were doing..it was really a great scene...I liked all of the twists and turns and action and suspense and all of that...I thought it was very well made and well executed. Sure, the ending is a give away...I mean who didn't know what was going to happen with the gold at the end...though it was nice to see it all played out. I found myself genuinely amused throughout much of the film and watching Gene do what he does best was really a thrill for me. All in all it's just a fun film and I'd recommend it.
SPOILERS (FOR ANYONE WHO DIDN'T SEE THE FILM DO NOT READ ON!!!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, it was predictable to see Gene walk away with the gold and screw everybody out of the cut (except Delroy who he is going to wire his cut) and it was predictable that the young hot shot would end up double crossing Hackman's character and that Danny DeVito would get shot trying to outsmart Hackman and that he'd have it all figured out but all of that is really what makes this film a hell of a lot of fun. One thing I didn't understand and I didn't really like is how Hackman's wife runs off with the young hot shot. I didn't find that very believable at all...and I didn't really like it....or did I miss something...I mean was that part of the plan that she was going to meet up with him later after she ditched the other guy..I didn't think so but I guess it's a possibility....I just felt as if that might have been a little too much...but other than that...great film.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.