The Untouchables...

[StraightRazor]

Am I the only one here who has never and never will like this film? Maybe it's Kevin Costner's complete lack of emotion, or the horrible music, or the blatant thieviery of the 'Steps' sequence, but overall, I just dislike it. Not even Sean Connery and DeNiro could save it for me. It was one of those movies, like Return of the Jedi, that I loved as a kid, but later came to realize, "Hey, this really stinks". I still like the period look, except for most of the fedoras, but that's not really a redeeming quality. It's like it try's way too hard to get you to like the charachters, when really, I dont. Costner is...Costner. No more no less. Andy Garcia is...there. Not even Connery's death did it for me. He had no further purpose in the story anyway, so why not kill him off?

I think my lack of 'enthusiasm' was because there was really never anything at stake. Sure, we all know Capone is a rat, but who cares? We love a good villian. Theres no tension because there is nothing at stake. What if Capone gets off? He'll keep flooding Chicago with liquor? Heavens!!

Costner's family is safely tucked away, no drama there.

The only reason to keep the film going after Connery's death is to avenge his death and the death of the mousy little accountant. Murders not even commited by Capone but some flunkie. Big deal.

I never felt like it was being told from the right point of view. Capone is the one we all want to know about. His story should have been the centerpiece. Like 'Scarface' only in the 20's. As it turned out, it always seemed better suited for the History Channel, not the big screen. I'm sure I'll get ripped apart for this, but its just my opinion.

 

[scotrace]

yabut

Great clothes.

 

[Harry Lime]

Not really sure about your argument.

You're entitled to your opinion of course and "The Untouchables" isn't for everyone. Costner's depiction of Ness has always drawn mixed reviews. Several things to keep in mind:
1) There is almost no historical accuracy in this film. It's based on a flawed TV show based on a flawed book from a flawed man. It really should be considered a fable based on some characters in a time period.
2) Telling the story from Capone's point of view wouldn't be the story of "The Untouchables." That's sort of like saying "Star Trek" would be better if it was "Star Wars."
3) The screenplay is by David Mamet and there is arguably more tension in it than you find (even though we know Capone gets it in the end. So what? We know the allies win in the end and they still make a lot of WW2 pictures.) Costner's family is under threat, as is his personal code and morals. A lot of people like the accountant and Malone characters and they were killed under Capone's orders. The Nitti chaarcter is a bad dude and a constant threat (totally fictionalized version of his life.) And the corrupt system of 20's Chicago is also on trial.

In the end, as with most films, it's more of a subjective thing than anything. The film didn't do it for you and that's fine. I like it but probably because I don't judge this one for more than it is, a popcorn movie with some cool locations, clothes, cars, etc. The whole "Untouchables" story is largely exagerated myth but one that is sort of enjoyable for the likes of many on the FL. myself included.

And there's no reason to shred you. You don't like it and you're entitled to your POV.

Harry Lime

 

[Jack Scorpion]

I'm at the "it was cool but I don't need to see it again" level.

Have any of you guys seen the Twilight Zone Episode about The Elliot Ness serial killings that he never solved? I haven't and I'm curious.

 

[Big Joe]

Read about the real Elliott Ness

http://www.crimelibrary.com/ness/nessmain.htm

As always, truth is better than fiction.

Big Joe

 

[jake_fink]

As always, truth is better than fiction.

Except when the fiction is better than the truth. (Let us have no dogma... please.)

The Untouchables is a fine entertainment and a well crafted film. The steps sequence was an obvious lift from/homage to Potmekin, but DePalma always was a borrower - remember Body Double? Dressed to Kill? Remember Vertigo? Psycho? The tension in the film comes from the unrealistic expectation that the word Untouchable represents, given the frail and often pliable morality of we mere mortals; we are all Touchable. Ness has to rise above it, avoid the pitfalls and become more than mortal, almost god-like, which he does in the end. The two characters that die do not die to make us crave revenge, but to show how easily we can be Touched. They both die after sipping from the poison chalice, taking a drink of alcohol and supporting, though indirectly, Capone's corruption and criminality. I'm a great fan of Mamet's and I think this is one of his better screenplays. (He also wrote the screenplay for Bob Rafelson's Postman Always Rings Twice - in which the postman only rings once, but hey, who's counting.)

None of it looks convincingly period to me though. It all looks like play, like eighties guys dressed up for a party. That's okay, since we're dealing with fable, which is fabular and built around a moral. As far as casting goes though, I'll keep my trap shut, lest I get everyone mad at me.

I'm looking forward to DePalma's film of James Ellroy's novel The Black Dahlia.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

There's a T - Zone episode??

I'm at the "it was cool but I don't need to see it again" level.

Have any of you guys seen the Twilight Zone Episode about The Elliot Ness serial killings that he never solved? I haven't and I'm curious.

I didn't know that. Sounds as though it's about the so called "Torso Murders" that happened in my hometown of Cleveland during the thirties and into the forties. Now that would make for an awesome creepy and suspenseful movie if done right! But who would star in it??

 

[Mickey Caesar]

Great clothes.

I really liked the scene at the shooting range where we meet Andy Garcia's character for the first time and Sean Connery almost bops him with a blackjack.

 

[John in Covina]

Pre-expectations can ruin almost any film. It is why Public Enemies is only an ok film with some good parts and some that just don't work. I had hoped for more.

With the Untouchables I came into it not really expecting much and it exceeded my expectations. Now later on I know that it is legend not fact and that there are some errors as to style and fashion, but it still stands up for me as well crafted.

There are no original films just as there are no original stories. Some place there is a list of the 28 or what ever the number is of original stories and all stories fall in to one or two of these themes. The thing is a good director pays tribute to what was created before by envoking that earlier image a bad director steals outright without the acknowledgement to what was pioneered before or even worse takes credit for creating it.

I'd say as a popular film more people like it than don't, even here in the Lounge where films of the vintage eras come under close scrutiny.

It may be the thing where your first impression has set you in the dislike mode and made it so you are unable to see what others liked about it, that does happen. But I hope that in the future some time you are able to watch it again with someone that likes it and can express its virtues clearly to see what they see.

 

[Widebrim]

I really liked the scene at the shooting range where we meet Andy Garcia's character for the first time and Sean Connery almost bops him with a blackjack.

Yeah, I think that's where Connery calls him a wop or guinea, and Garcia calls him a mick while pointing a gun at his head. The beginning of their friendship, believe it or not.lol