Post by drystyx on Jul 2, 2018 19:58:05 GMT
I personally prefer the Walter Winchell narration and the Robert Stack persona and the cool characters like Rico Rossi (whose voice I used to love to imitate) of the old series.
But the movie proved that no matter how far off the truth the old shows go, they can still make it even more fictional.
That's why they just shove all the out the window and go for the iconic effect.
1987 Untouchables is all about fun. It's loaded from fun scenes and lines, some comic, some tough, some emotional, some bitter, but all theatric.
My personal favorites are the first rookie who is interviewed by Malone (Connery) with his "good help" stuttering; the bit where Ness escorts Nitti to the car from the roof of a building; actually all the bits with Nitti; and the list goes on. It's just a roller coaster meant for one thing-Fun.
So how does one grade a movie like this? I personally don't deviate from rules depending on style except for all out slapstick comedy. I apply the same rules for character and credibility for everything but the avant garde experimental and pie in the face comedy.
Truth be told, most of the movies that masquerade as "true" are even more ridiculous. The seventies and eighties were particularly terrible decades for movie making because we got the worst of both worlds. MASH mixed the realistic looking mud and grime of meatball surgery in with caricatures pretending to be characters, and it failed completely to the sane viewer. We're supposed to believe that Hawkeye is Kal-El and Burns is responsible for everything bad in the Korean War. Mixed in with the reality set, it looked even more stupid. Same for the spaghetti Westerns and most of the other seventies crap.
So THE UNTOUCHABLES went solely with grandeur and spectacle, not pretending to be real, yet giving us more authentic characters than most of the realism based movies. For that it gets an 8/10 from me.
But the movie proved that no matter how far off the truth the old shows go, they can still make it even more fictional.
That's why they just shove all the out the window and go for the iconic effect.
1987 Untouchables is all about fun. It's loaded from fun scenes and lines, some comic, some tough, some emotional, some bitter, but all theatric.
My personal favorites are the first rookie who is interviewed by Malone (Connery) with his "good help" stuttering; the bit where Ness escorts Nitti to the car from the roof of a building; actually all the bits with Nitti; and the list goes on. It's just a roller coaster meant for one thing-Fun.
So how does one grade a movie like this? I personally don't deviate from rules depending on style except for all out slapstick comedy. I apply the same rules for character and credibility for everything but the avant garde experimental and pie in the face comedy.
Truth be told, most of the movies that masquerade as "true" are even more ridiculous. The seventies and eighties were particularly terrible decades for movie making because we got the worst of both worlds. MASH mixed the realistic looking mud and grime of meatball surgery in with caricatures pretending to be characters, and it failed completely to the sane viewer. We're supposed to believe that Hawkeye is Kal-El and Burns is responsible for everything bad in the Korean War. Mixed in with the reality set, it looked even more stupid. Same for the spaghetti Westerns and most of the other seventies crap.
So THE UNTOUCHABLES went solely with grandeur and spectacle, not pretending to be real, yet giving us more authentic characters than most of the realism based movies. For that it gets an 8/10 from me.
