Les rues de L.A.

L. A. TAKEDOWN is an extremely watchable film, and has a script that is permeated by a kind of grim intelligence. The characters, far from being plastic stereotypes, actually engage on a psychological level. Michael Mann directs with considerable skill, and most tellingly, knows how to use music to maximum effect. In this respect, his ability at times almost reaches the genius level of the Italian director Gillo Pontecorvo. But main honours in this film must go to Alex McArthur who gives an amazing performance of such skill and power that he actually conveys the very thoughts and feelings of his character through body language or facial expression. The scene where the two protagonists (the hoodlum and the cop) have coffee together is almost faultless in conveying the powerful emotions and tensions that are at work between them, as well as the mind-set which motivates each of the characters, and, for once, the various love scenes are convincing and important to the development of the narrative. Interestingly too, (although it perhaps happened by default since it was a film made for television), the actual violence that is a necessary part of the story is rendered perhaps even more powerfully by NOT being shown, or by happening off-camera. But to my mind, the film belongs to Alex McArthur who turns in one of the best acting performances I have seen in a very long time, which is able to make you both loathe and feel pity for his character at one and the same time. No mean feat!

Yeah I know every review will inevitably compare this film to its far bigger budget remake. Upon watching the two films back-to-back though I have to say that there are a few things I do enjoy better about this slimmer and more streamlined film than the more bloated HEAT.

For one, although I'm a huge fan of De Niro and Pacino, I found Scott Plank and Alex MacArthur much more serious and believable in their roles as far younger up-and-comers with something to prove. MacArthur especially exudes a calm intensity with a little more (albeit tactically restrained) fire under the collar than you'd usually see in a character like this.

Secondly, I love the supporting cast here. Instead of the likes of Danny Trejo, Jeremy Piven, and Hank Azaria, we get a little more of a B-crew with some solid work from character actors Juan Fernandez (SALVADOR), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, and FLASH GORDON himself Sam J. Jones as some jerk at the bar. Instead of Wes Studi and Ted Levene, we get Richard Chaves (PREDATOR) and Daniel Baldwin. Perennial "that guy" character actor Xander Berkeley plays Waingrow much more as a sniveling wannabe than an actual tough-guy, but I think it actually works better and gives more menace to the character.

Oddly enough this film crosses over a lot with the cheeseball Spanish ABYSS knockoff ENDLESS DESCENT in that both movies feature Ely Pouget (who turns in some great work) as the leading lady and open with a shot of the protagonist coming out of a hangover with one foot sticking out from under the sheets. They were both made the same year too! Go figure.

TAKEDOWN sorely misses the violence, class, and action of HEAT but still has some pretty heavy stuff considering the budget and the time in which it was made. Mann handles the bank robbery as well as anything you would have seen on "Crime Story" and doesn't skimp on the weaponry in the big set-piece shootouts. I was actually delighted to see them cut out much of the romance and needless character development that HEAT got so wrapped up in (especially in terms of the cook/getaway driver, here played by an extra as opposed to the distractingly Allstate-ed up Dennis Haysbert).

There's a few plot differences, but not many as several scenes are line-by-line the same. The ending's a bit of a delight though and much more of a surprise than what we got in HEAT. My only beef with this film has to do with the bad sound and flat TV cinematography. Worth tracking down if you can find a decent copy.

This movie has the same basic plot outline as Heat and MOST of the same characters, but is in NO WAY "scene-for-scene the same as Heat." The acting is absolutely atrocious and some of the scenes make no sense without some of the setup Heat has. I can understand why these actors haven't gone on to much beyond this movie -- THEY'RE AWFUL!!!!! Some of the storyline is just implausible and downright silly. I can also fully understand why this isn't available on DVD here in North America (the quality of this film is akin to what you might see on late night local television). However, if you're a die-hard Michael Mann fan, as am I, you should still see this, because it because it shows how much development he puts into a story.

This is the original version of what we now know as the modern classic Heat. If you watch LA Takedown and Heat, you will see many of the scenes paralleled. LA Takedown is not a great movie, but it does make an interesting companion to its superior counterpart. Worth watching for this reason alone.

Most people who see L.A. Takedown nowadays will see it for one reason: the fact that director Michael Mann remade this as Heat starring Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino in the Alex McArthur and Scott Plank roles. And that is basically the only reason why you would want to see this, unless you're an avid fan of '80 cop shows (there's even an detective-on-the-prowl-style montage).

When you watch this as I did (after seeing the brilliant Heat) you'll be pretty surprised by how much of L.A. Takedown went into Heat. From the opening heist to that famous coffeebar scene, a lot in both movies is identical, from characters to dialogue to camera angles. Most differences between both films are actually additions (which, of course, make Heat a good hour longer than L.A. Takedown). The Chris Shehirlis character (Val Kilmer in Heat) is basically an extra in L.A. Takedown as is the getaway driver for the bank robbery. Ah yes, the bank robbery. It's present here too, although of course, it doesn't last for nearly fifteen minutes (try three). Then whole subplots from Heat (for instance the one featuring Vincent Hanna's daughter) are absent and the ending is quite different, causing L.A. Takedown to lack the almost epic feel of Heat. Still, a lot of what is L.A. Takedown went on to become Heat.

And that's why L.A. Takedown merits viewing; to see how this film evolved from a cheaply made, averagely entertaining TV pilot show to what may just be the crime movie of the nineties. Many of the differences concerning the script I've already mentioned. The other main differences lie in acting and direction. To say that someone named Scott Plank (yes, plank) is not up there with Al Pacino is hardly surprising. But Plank is really pretty embarassing in this, coming across as someone who's copying crap TV-show acting like that from shows such as Hunter or Miami Vice. Even more embarassing is McArthur, who doesn't succeed in bringing any of his character's complexity to light (his character is actually pretty well developed in the script, which makes McArthur 'performance' even worseand it's the only character whose name was changed for Heat - don't ask me why). The rest of the cast isn't even worthy of comparison with their Heat counterparts.

As for directing, L.A. Takedown actually lookes pretty good, given that's it's a cheap TV movie. As said, some camerawork is very literally repeated in Heat (the opening heist is just one example), but L.A. Takedown is more coloured than Heat. Heat may be very stylised, the reality aspect of it was never looked over. In L.A. Takedown the stylism is present, but the realism takes a back seat, as dark streets and dim lights convey the traditional view of L.A. as a seedy place. But although the technical brilliance of Heat's cinematographer Dante Spinotti is clearly missed, L.A. takedown is visually not that bad.

In short: L.A. Takedown is not a good movie, and by itself not even remarkable. It is however a very interesting companion to Heat and both movies combined show that what you should remake is bad movies with unused potential, not good movies.

Rating: 4/10 (Heat: 9/10)