|
|
Post by bravomailer on Mar 16, 2021 4:01:10 GMT
As I understand it, Ness had nothing to do with nailing Capone for tax evasion. And Frank Nitti wasn’t tossed off a roof. As I noted in a later post, Nitti committed suicide. A friend's father, then a teenager, helped dig his grave.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Mar 16, 2021 9:32:00 GMT
It's been years since I watched it and the old memory is fuzzy on this one. Think I found it to be decent, but not De Palma's best by any means.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 16, 2021 15:02:46 GMT
I think those qualities in Ness help us buy into his bone-deep commitment to eradicate Capone. Otherwise, why is he willing to take on this near impossible task? One can be dedicated to a good cause without being cloyingly saintly. Look at Fonda as Wyatt Earp in My Darling Clementine. Pursuit of justice intermingles with thirst for revenge. In fact, Jimmy Malone (Sean Connery) is as dedicated as Ness is and uses the Chicago Way. So does Ness - but only for a moment. So the film has him change completely but revert to (stereo)type in a moment. TV and Hollywood offer so many ends for Frank Nitti. But apparently he killed himself along a railroad track. A photo of his corpse is used in a montage in The Godfather. Malone's motivation wasn't really the same as Ness'. Malone was resigned to the thought that being an honest just doesn't count for much. And in Ness he saw the chance to make being an honest cop really count for something. I didn't find Ness cloyingly saintly, just really earnest. Remember he blows his top in the hotel and has to be restrained.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 16, 2021 15:08:39 GMT
The movie is really an adaptation of books by Ness and Oscar Fraley, just as the TV show was. As I understand it, Ness had nothing to do with nailing Capone for tax evasion. Absolutely. The movie has only the scantest adherence to any facts. It's a rousing yarn, told in big bold strokes. Look at the climax in the courtroom. In a real legal proceeding such a sequence of events would be impossible. It's a nervy, entertaining way to wind things up, and Mamet and De Palma pull it off brilliantly.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on May 30, 2021 4:21:39 GMT
I remember watching this expecting a serious crime drama and being taken aback that it was more of an action film/western with a larger than life feeling and with almost no relation to the actual reality of the story or real life laws lol.
Second viewing was better
|
|
|
|
Post by 博:Dr.BLΔD€:锯 on Jun 2, 2021 22:21:05 GMT
Loved it and still do.
One of Brian's best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jun 18, 2021 22:38:20 GMT
Just watched it again and noticed this - On the same night or the failed liquor bust, the newspaper is already published showing the embarrassing photo of Ness. That went to press real quick.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jun 19, 2021 2:03:39 GMT
Style over substance with less of the annoying glitz found in most of Ain't I Clever DePalma's work. Fine performances from Connery and DeNiro, and a chilling Billy Drago. The film is historical bs but evokes some of the grandeur of Classic Hollywood and moves at a rapid pace. And then there is Morricone, the composer with a genuine magic touch.
If I had to chose only one of his movies to like, this would be it. Saw it in '87 with a girlfriend who had a thing going for Costner and sat through two shows. Arguably the director's best overall extravaganza.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Jun 19, 2021 2:17:20 GMT
Just watched it again and noticed this - On the same night or the failed liquor bust, the newspaper is already published showing the embarrassing photo of Ness. That went to press real quick. Must have been one of those "Stop the presses!" situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 19, 2021 3:02:58 GMT
As I understand it, Ness had nothing to do with nailing Capone for tax evasion. And Frank Nitti wasn’t tossed off a roof. \\L Like the OP said, excellent example of "style over substance", much like "Gunfight at the OK Corral", with zero regard to historic fact and every regard to "fun".
|
|
|
|
Post by Hurdy Gurdy Man on Jun 19, 2021 4:23:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jun 20, 2021 0:47:18 GMT
Marvelous film. Probably the best film adaptation of a TV show there is. The movie is really an adaptation of books by Ness and Oscar Fraley, just as the TV show was. See that’s something I never understood. I’m gonna give an example. Carrie from 1976 and Carrie from 2013. Would you say Carrie 2013 was a remake of the 76 movie or another adaption of the book? If you ask me it’s a remake of the 76 move mor cause there are scenes that are literally shot by shot almost from the 76 movie and the fact they strayed farther from the book. Now I haven’t seen the Untouchables tv show or read the books, but I know De Palma also made the movie adaption of Mission Impossible, so I don’t see why this CAN’T be a remake of the show. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 20, 2021 13:06:02 GMT
The movie is really an adaptation of books by Ness and Oscar Fraley, just as the TV show was. See that’s something I never understood. I’m gonna give an example. Carrie from 1976 and Carrie from 2013. Would you say Carrie 2013 was a remake of the 76 movie or another adaption of the book? If you ask me it’s a remake of the 76 move mor cause there are scenes that are literally shot by shot almost from the 76 movie and the fact they strayed farther from the book. Now I haven’t seen the Untouchables tv show or read the books, but I know De Palma also made the movie adaption of Mission Impossible, so I don’t see why this CAN’T be a remake of the show. I didn't see Carrie 2013, but we can safely say that the word "remake" is a pretty loose term, meaning "we've seen this material as a movie before". I think "remake" is most precisely used for a movie whose original source was an earlier movie, like King Kong 1976 or The Longest Yard 2005. But "remake" is commonly used for the second (or third) film adaptation of a non-movie source, like Little Women, The Great Gatsby, or Hamlet. I sure those filmmakers didn't consider themselves to be remaking an earlier movie; they were making some story into a movie again. So, I wouldn't call The Untouchables a remake since it wasn't previously a movie. Same goes for The Fugitive 1993. Despite similarities of production a TV series is not a theatrical movie. (Got to draw the line somewhere.) Then, also, we have to consider how the filmmaker regards his work. Even though Psycho 1998 began as Robert Bloch's novel, Gus Van Sant consciously set out to do a remake of Psycho 1960. Just how much the director of Carrie 2013 meant her movie to be a remake of Carrie 1776 rather than just a second film adaptation of Stephen King's novel, who knows? (Maybe she's talked about that in some interview.)
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jun 20, 2021 14:13:38 GMT
See that’s something I never understood. I’m gonna give an example. Carrie from 1976 and Carrie from 2013. Would you say Carrie 2013 was a remake of the 76 movie or another adaption of the book? If you ask me it’s a remake of the 76 move mor cause there are scenes that are literally shot by shot almost from the 76 movie and the fact they strayed farther from the book. Now I haven’t seen the Untouchables tv show or read the books, but I know De Palma also made the movie adaption of Mission Impossible, so I don’t see why this CAN’T be a remake of the show. I didn't see Carrie 2013, but we can safely say that the word "remake" is a pretty loose term, meaning "we've seen this material as a movie before". I think "remake" is most precisely used for a movie whose original source was an earlier movie, like King Kong 1976 or The Longest Yard 2005. But "remake" is commonly used for the second (or third) film adaptation of a non-movie source, like Little Women, The Great Gatsby, or Hamlet. I sure those filmmakers didn't consider themselves to be remaking an earlier movie; they were making some story into a movie again. So, I wouldn't call The Untouchables a remake since it wasn't previously a movie. Same goes for The Fugitive 1993. Despite similarities of production a TV series is not a theatrical movie. (Got to draw the line somewhere.) Then, also, we have to consider how the filmmaker regards his work. Even though Psycho 1998 began as Robert Bloch's novel, Gus Van Sant consciously set out to do a remake of Psycho 1960. Just how much the director of Carrie 2013 meant her movie to be a remake of Carrie 1776 rather than just a second film adaptation of Stephen King's novel, who knows? (Maybe she's talked about that in some interview.) Apparently the Carrie remake was meant to be a found footage movie (I think) it was supposed to be filmed like a set of interviews with each of the main students talking about what happened at prom night or something. There’s evidence of this in the remake when Tommy Ross was filming stuff at the prom. Apparently the studio wanted the movie to just be a straight up remake. Remember the movie was supposed to come out in March of 2013 I think, but then they had to reshoot it and almost completely redo the movie from what I understand. Again don’t know if this is totally true, but it’d have made for a MUCH BETTER remake than the one we got. |
|
