Movies-TV

Very Unremarkable.

Gene Hackman is one of the best actors around and from memory very rarely makes a bad film if ever and although this film isnt bad it isnt brilliant either. Everything that you see in The Heist has been seen before . You just have to watch films like The Score or Oceans Eleven to see the same film but just a different location. Without going into the plot the film is full of twists that you can see coming a mile away and are and are hardly inspiring. Dont get me wrong the film is watchable as is any with Hackman and enjoyable at times. De Vito is especially good as the bad guy but at the end of the day this film will soon slip from the memory of most diserning film buffs. 6 out of 10.

Brilliant. Ignore the detractors. They don't get it.

When ratings for this film are averaged, the result is always mediocre. Why? Because people either absolutely love this film, or hate it. Well, if you're head's in the oven and your feet are in the freezer, on average you're quite comfortable (in between). What I find to be the case, however, is that people who do not like this film typically don't get it. Not only do they miss the intricate plot twists, they do not appreciate the world that Mamet is immersing us in. The dialogue in this movie is rife with Raymond Chandleresque simile. "Cute as a pale full of kittens." (Contrast this with Chandler's crack, "Cute as a washtub.")


Mamet loves magic. He loves sleight of hand, and many of his movies have the effect of a magic trick. He uses distraction, just like a magician, and--just like a magician--he does not explain himself. And thank God for that. Mamet actually treats his audience as though their IQ is bigger than their waste line, and far too few filmmakers today are willing to do this. Mamet is able to do so because he funds his own movies by doing rewrites and screenplays for big studios (for instance, he rewrote Ronin under a pseudonym).

This movie rocks, plain and simple. Seeing Gene Hackman--one of the greatest actors in history--in a David Mamet film is quite a sight to behold. Mamet's vintage dialogue, as delivered by Hackman is, well, gold. Mamet regular Ricky Jay almost steals the show as Pinky. Jay, if you don't know, is in real life one of the greatest sleight of hand artists in the world and is also a world-renowned expert on con artists. He can throw a regular playing card into a watermelon from across a large room. He can also hurl words about with equal dexterity.


Yes, I agree with Ebert. The line, "Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money!" is about the funniest line I've ever heard. I also really like the line, "...had he had another bible in front of his face, that man would be alive today." And I LOVE the following exchange:

"I hear you put a lot of milk into it, it lessens the chance of stomach distress."


"I can't be worrying about every little thing."

By the way (spoilers here), Hackman's character did not KNOW that his wife (who is really just a young con man groupie) would leave and double cross him. He was merely prepared for the possibility. This is evidenced in the line, "I wouldn't even tie my shoes without a backup plan."


That is also why he smiles at the end of the film, because he had thought of everything, and finds that satisfying. This has confused some people, including Roger Ebert, who loves this movie. (By the way, take the shoe-tying line together with the exchange quoted above--pretty cool.)

Another point that I agree with Ebert on is that the gun fight in this film is amazing. Why? Because it looks REAL. Variety chastised this film because the gun fight wasn't "stylized enough." That means, "didn't look fake enough." I much prefer this, or the gun fight in Copland, to any music video-looking nonsense, as in Shoot' Em Up or any of John Woo's "bullet ballets." Do yourself a favor and watch Heist, more than once or twice. It's better than The Spanish Prisoner, and in my opinion, is even better than House of Games.

Mamet's worst, a terrible picture

This movie was so bad that it is hard to believe David Mamet wrote and directed it. the dialogue feels like Mamet with some intriguing one-liners, but that's the only decent thing about the film. The plot is awful. It's one heist after another after another. And that's it. There's nothing in between and nothing before or after. It's all heists. How much fun can that be? Not much. There are so many twists that you stop caring. Not just that, you stop trusting and believing. If you don't believe something then you are not going to be surprised when it turns out to be a lie. That's the way this movie makes you feel. I loved Wild Things because it caught you off gaurd with its twists. This movie tries to catch you off gaurd but doesnt even come close. You have your guard on, knowing that the twists are going to come. My big complaint was that the story had no emotion. Nobody to trust or to care about. Nobody who cared about anyone else. It was like watching total emptiness. How did Mamet, a genious who made Glengarry Glenn Ross and The Spanish Prisoner, make this crap?

Boring!

This is probably one of those movies which only looks good on the previews. The story has been done many many times before, nothing original in Heist. I didn't think Gene Hackman or even Danny DeVito was that good in this film. The girl was really annoying and Sam Rockwell annoys me. Very disapointing this film, it didn't have clever robing scenes or even a decent action scene! I give this film a D

Good dialogue – but the plot is a little tired

After an elaborate jewel robbery Joe Moore and his crew go to collect their cut from Bergman. However Bergman ropes them into another job – taking gold from a Swiss airline prior to transfer. Joe reluctantly agrees to do the job and takes Bergman's nephew along to reassure him. However Joe is never without a backup plan and double cross follows double cross.This really tries to be good – it has a good sense of tough moodiness about it and has plenty of good lines and a top class cast. However it tries too hard to be a twisty crime thriller and doesn't quite convince. Where twists and double crosses are best is when they are unexpected and surprising.
Heist has so many `twists' that they lack impact or power. Instead of being surprised we expect the next one to be only a few seconds away. Although some of them are clever most of them lack the punch Mamet clearly wanted them to have. That said it's still an enjoyable thriller but don't expect the plot to stand up in the cold light of day.As I said the cast are famous and all do well. Hackman is grizzled but clever and can easily `do tough', Lindo is always good to watch but Ricky Jay seems out of place. I always find him easy to watch because he is naturally curious I think but his manner doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the cast. DeVito and Rockwell are good. It would be hard to compete in such a male driven plot and indeed Pidgeon struggles to get a character for herself.The cast do so well because Mamet is a good writer of dialogue – even if he overdid the twists, lines are quotable, funny or just cool – `My motherf****r is so cool when he goes to sleep sheep count him' or `don't you want to hear my last words?' – `I just did'. Even if the plot doesn't convince the direction, the dialogue and the cast make this better than the mess it should be.Overall it has good qualities, but the one driving force it needed was a much better story. It's entertaining enough to pass 100 minutes – but really the many word that comes to mind is disappointing.

Solid action thriller for smart folks

If you've seen any of David Mamet's work as a writer and director of movies (House of Games, for instance, or The Spanish Prisoner) you have some sense of what you're in for here: an elaborately constructed confidence game, played out in this case by a team of men and one woman who also happen to be gold thieves, and none of whose loyalties or motivations can be taken for granted. There are at least twice as many plot twists as reel changes, and it would be lethally foolish to assume that any new revelation brings you any closer to the light than you had been before. Going into a Mamet movie, it best just to know you're going to be had, and also what a sheer kick it is. What this one's got that his earlier ones do not are the niceties of a budget and studio support: movie star-actors of the Gene Hackman and Danny DeVito sort, big production value, even some explosions for those who can never have too much summer. The dialogue is trademark Mamet tough guy (and tough chick) stuff -- "She could talk her way out of a sunburn," is one for the books, as is "Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money." (Yes, all the good lines are in the trailer. It's David Mamet, for crying out loud, what would you do?) -- and the performances from everyone are grade-A quality. Not Mamet's most serious work, even by a long shot, but a healthy provision of summer-style action made watchable for people who've got some smarts.

Why Joe's part was played well by G. H. despite the popular opinion otherwise

I think some comments of how poorly Joe was portrayed by Gene Hackman are greatly incorrect. Here's why: he played the character as Mamet most likely intended. We are used to seeing the bright sheen and slick attitude of movie con-men (Danny Ocean, Henry Gondorf, et al) and any offering less suave is not well received. Joe was an aging has-been. The film alludes to his down-slide the whole time. He gets "burned", loses his take and gets forced into another "thing". Bobby even voices this explicitly to him when he "walks out" on the "thing". **side note: Bobby obviously was putting on the dog and pony show for Jimmy when he said those things, but they still have merit as I'll explain**So, why am I under the opinion G.H. did a better job then most give him credit for? Joe was down and out- supposedly weak in the game and broke. He had to keep up this illusion to successfully allow everyone else (but Bobby and Pinky) to under-estimate him. He also feared there was probably validity to his supposed weakness. He musters his talent to execute a great heist and dodge the complications. Essentially, Gene Hackman had to play a character who was descending into age and loss, gathering his talents for "the thing" and dealing with betrayal, have the confidence in himself but also the fear of his "lameness", and put on a front that he was a foolish has been. He did not play him "weak", but played the "has-been with doubt who thinks he can pull it off but keeps a 'lame' front". The layered complexity of the character was portrayed by G.H. very well but lost on those who fail to see it.

Like a pretzel

Heist is about a retiring thief (Hackman) who, along with his partners (Lindo, Jay) and his young wife (Pidgeon), pull of jobs for a backstabbing boss (DeVito). When DeVito gets them to rob a Swiss airplane full of gold bars, nobody wants to split the money, and Hackman and Pidgeon can spend the rest of their lives together without a worry in the world.Basically, there is a lot of double crossing, mostly between Hackman, Pidgeon, and Rockwell. First they're on the same sides, then they are against each other, then they are on the same sides again, and it seemed Hackman could read their minds, as he had plans for everything.Although it was acted quite well, and it fulfills its purpose as a heist movie, it'll make your head spin with everything else.

Could have been so much better

With the cast this movie had I was expecting much more. The acting isn't bad, it's the story that I didn't like. The movie seemed to drag on slowly forever and then never seemed to end. See ...it is much better in my opinion.

I Love Mamet but This is Lesser Mamet

David Mamet is at the top of the writing heap in the film world. He's also almost as good as a director. However, this film lacks the originality and depth which I'm used to seeing in his work. Maybe if I weren't comparing it to "House of Games," "Things Change," "The Winslow Boy," "Glengarry Glenn Ross" and the screenplay for "The Verdict," I would have liked this better. As it is, the film is about Gene Hackman's character, an older big scale thief who is going to score one huge, last heist. There are plenty of pitfalls along the way for him, not the least of which is the woman in his life, played by Rebecca Pidgeon, and a cohort in crime, played by Danny DeVito. There are plenty of twists and turns but they are standard for a caper film. "House of Games" by contrast, while also set in the criminal world, went a lot deeper into the thematic material it was handling, especially a character's obsession and fascination with certain kinds of taboo conduct. I'm sorry I bought the DVD of this film because it is not a keeper whereas Mamet's other work, mentioned above, does fall into the keeper category.

Definitely one of the best caper movie of the bunch.

I think that this movie is underrated. Since I stumbled upon Glengarry Glen Ross - the best film I've ever seen - I've been eager to watch and read Mamet's stuff. Till now, though, I haven't found anything that can be comparerd to such a peaking masterpiece. Heist is no exception, in this sense. But it is a great and highly entertaining caper movie indeed. The script - with the ever-sharp Mamet's dialogs and delightful jokes as the one of the stolen stadium - is lube for the brain. Cast - as usual in Mamet's films - is flawless and the stars Akman and Devito did their very best. And, you know something?, director David Mamet's got terrific with the camera.

You'll Like It If You Like Gene Hackman

It's a classic heist and con plot, but I didn't care for it. The intricacies of the heist and all the double-crossing are too complicated. Gene Hackman never impressed me. He can't act to save his life, and he has no film presence; even though, I know this flies in the face of the opinions of about 100 million other people.

maybe it's film noir without the noir....

I think when you take a look at this film and make a judgement about its quality you need to take into consideration what the film is really trying to be. Obviously, it's another heist movie (hence the title), but I think what reveals the movie's true character the in the most direct fashion is the beginning sequence with the studio logos, ect. Review this chunk of film and you'll notice that the modern logos have been rendered in black/white and bastardized into an early 50's? (perhaps 30's) version. So not only is it a strong genre piece, its also drawing from elements in film noir and replicating (in a modern way) style elements from those early criminal films. Some people are alienated by the unrealism of the dramatic and dynamic dailogue in this film. But, if characters in movies talked like real people do, a sitcom would last from dinner until the eleven o'clock news and you'd have to take vacation time to see a full-length film. Additionally, you have to look again to the period pieces that this film is emulating. The acting in this movie is beautiful, the soundtrack was designed with effect in mind, not marketing, and the cinematography is sound. In short, it's good. A highly entertaining and engaging movie.

I just don't get Mamet

I had a hard time sitting through this one. David Mamet gets nods for his use of rhythmic dialogue. The dialogue in Heist is what turned me off. I felt the actors were limited to simply delivering lines: Deliver a line, wait for a line. And so on....I was not drawn in. The characters were meaningless. The story held nothing new.

Not bad, not great

The only part of this movie I really thought stuck out as being a cut above was the gunfight near the end. It's very, very rare that a director uses actual real gun sounds rather than Aliensesque stylized gunfire sounds. I shoot all of those types of guns from time to time and that's what they sound like. Also, the firefight was executed in a believable, non-slick way.The parts that stuck out as being subpar were the score, and the believability of the "Heist" and it's parameters. This movie also has a feel of having a TV movie budget.All in all if you like Mamet movies I think you should see it, but wait for video. Don't set your expectations too high and you'll find it worth watching. It doesn't insult your intelligence like a lot of action-ish movies so at least it has that going for it. I'd watch this again before seeing Con Air again.

Disappointing...

This is the fifth Mamet movie I've seen and it ranks fourth behind Glengarry Glen Ross (spectacular, especially Alec Baldwin's scene), The Spanish Prisoner (wonderful), and House of Games (wonderful). It beats Homicide.Basically, heist is about a group of people trying to steal stuff and make sure they don't get d**ked over by various people. Unfortunately, as someone already said, Mamet seems to have tried too hard. There isn't a *coolness* about it like there was with House of Games and Spanish Prisoner. Instead, it spent way too much time dealing with double/triple/quadruple/quintuple-cross, baiscally playing hot-potato with a whodunit story. After a while you just roll your eyes and stop keeping score. Don't get me wrong, there are some great things about this movie. Gene Hackman is great in his role. And there are Mamet-like twists that actually work and you enjoy the confusion. But in the end, it's like Mamet feels he has to fill a quota of plot twists and does it in a manner that makes you feel more annoyed (geez, just get it over with) than happily confused.Still, I remember the first time I saw The Spanish Prisoner and I was *floored* when I realized what had happened. Hopefully, Mamet can recapture that essence in another movie. And, due to that hope, I will continue to look forward to Mamet's movies even though this ended up being a disappointment. 7/10

Mamet can still turn a phrase...

Kind of a 'by the numbers' bank job movie but with the usual crackling wiseguy dialogue from Mamet. Couple of my faves; "He's so cool sheep count him when they try to sleep", "She could talk her way out of a sunburn". Gene Hackman plays Joe Moore, a professional thief who's on his way out of the business and Rebecca Pidgeon (also in Spanish Prisoner) plays his young wife, Fran. The drama turns mainly on whether Joe is over the hill and later on where peoples loyalties lay. Hackman is always engrossing but I felt that the dialogue was often too hard boiled for the character he played. He was casted beautifully in The Royal Tennebaums (which I coincidently watched the night before this movie), as a likable jerk, somewhat seedy but always a smooth talker. Not someone who stands over a dead body and says, "It is what it is". My other problem with the movie had to do with the ending.**Spoiler** Fran was supposed to be 'the gold ring' for Joe, her betrayal should have made much more of an impression. Instead we see Joe, smiling, driving off with the loot moments after the attempted double-cross.Still, those two issues aside I was pretty engrossed and always entertained by the dialogue. I liked it far more then Ocean's Eleven which bored me stiff.

Superfluous Plot

The movie starts off interesting. The story developes with satisfying complexity and mystery.

However, as it gets towards the end, there are too many "gatcha"s and "surprise!"s and "not so easy"s and "fooled you!"s that it gets too unrealistic, it wasn't even cool anymore. The characters didn't convey enough emotions to make it convincing either. We ended up walking out of theater saying, "Yeah, right."

Too bad because like I said, the first half of the movie was pretty good.

Great Cast - Bad Movie

Don't bother with this one. I'm a huge Hackman fan but the dialogue in this movie ("I'll be quieter than an ant p***ing on cotton"!!!)was terrible. The movie was boring. We've all seen the plot 100 times before. A crook on his last big gig before he's out of the game. I had to turn it off.

Suspicious lack of extra features

The most laughable scene entails Hackman 'expertly' allaying the fears of a cop in a routine roadside check by over-acting to such an extent that he would have created less suspicion simply dressed as Osama Bin Laden.
Throughout the picture I was distracted by a guy who looked just like the singer Midge Ure during his 'Ultravox' period. Appropriately enough, as this means nothing to me.