"Heist" is something of an immense disappointment. Especially
since it comes from one of the allegedly best of Hollywood screenwriters:
David Mamet. Strange, since the script seems to be the biggest stumbling
block of the whole movie.
"Heist" is (big shock) a heist film. It's got the usual
cliches firmly in place. There's the small heist at the beginning.
There's the guy who is retiring from the line of work after one last
score (Gene Hackman). There's the big heist that is the centerpiece
of the film. There's the preparation for the heist. There's the aftermath,
in which things go wrong. It's all pretty standard, really. In a great
heist movie, each of these has its own wonderful sort of thrill. Each
of them is fun. And, in a great heist film, the preparation and the
gathering of materials and training is almost as cool (if not more
so) than the heist itself. For example, "Ocean's
Eleven" (the new one) was interesting every step of the way.
The preparations were more of a treat than the big heist itself. And
each character was fun to spend time with. Each of them brought their
own specific gifts to the caper. A great heist film establishes itself
like this.
"Heist" starts off very well. Hackman's face is videotaped
during a heist of a diamond store and he decides that this is an omen
that he should retire. The only problem is that he has already agreed
to do another job for an easily agitated fence (Danny DeVito) who
will not let him go without it, or give him his share from the current
job. DeVito also insists that his worthless nephew (Sam Rockwell)
goes along for the heist. The heist in question involves stealing
a lot of gold from a plane. Simple, right? Not necessarily.
For the first hour, the only problem this film has is its dialogue.
The dialogue isn't necessarily bad. It's just.... strange. Lines like
"I'm going to be as quiet as an ant pissing on cotton" may
be unique. But they sure as shit aren't the sort of thing that a real
person would say. They're too showy. All the dialogue seems a bit
too showy. And the characters are only given thumbnail sketches of
character development. Which is okay, since I figured that there would
be more shading later on. And even with such threadbare characters
to work with, DeVito, Hackman and Ricky Jay do wonderful work. Sam
Rockwell is alright, but his character isn't that great. And Rebecca
Pidgeon just stands around and changes her motivations and whims whenever
the plot calls for her to do so. Her character is the biggest problem.
She doesn't seem to have one. She just kinda changes at the drop of
a hat.
But the first hour has some neat moments and a lot of clever ideas
and some priceless exchanges of dialogue amongst the stuff that doesn't
work so well. It's only in the second half that the film really goes
off the rails. The heist itself, which is built up as something really
challenging, doesn't seem all that hard. I didn't see what the big
deal is. Then the film has so many double crosses, triple crosses
and plot twists that, by the end, I had no idea who was allied with
who, who was doing what, or even why. And, moreover, I really didn't
care all that much. Hackman does well. But he doesn't do any spectacular
work as he did in "The
Royal Tenenbaums". The heist itself isn't as intricate or
thrilling as the new "Ocean's
Eleven". The characters aren't as unique as they were in
that film either. The dialogue alternates from fun to odd to just
plain lame. Delroy Lindo is decent. Ricky Jay and Danny DeVito shine
here. They are in great form. But the screenplay is a friggin mess.
I still can't believe it's by the same guy who brought us "The
Untouchables". That film was a model of structure and believable
dialogue and characterization.
This one actually has a character who says, of another character,
"He's so cool, when he sleeps sheep count him". Now, that
might be a neat line. But I have no idea what it has to do with anything.
I think that speaks for itself.
