I grew up on "The Untouchables" and as a slice of cinema it was one of my earliest memories of true directing and style - watching De Palma's famous train station sequence used to always leave me in awe, but it wasn't until I was older that I understood and recognized some of De Palma's trademarks. Looking back on "The Untouchables" now I view it as a different sort of movie - it seems somewhat less operatic and more of a tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, exaggerated mob movie with all of De Palma's typical touches.
But then again, it isn't. Because this is really the second of two times only that De Palma has totally proved to audiences that he's able to construct a masterful thriller/drama _on his own_ without copying (or "referencing") Hitchcock. "Blow Out" is a good movie, as are many of De Palma's others, but "The Untouchables" and "Scarface" are arguably the only two he's made where it's really a De Palma movie, and not a De Palma-Hitchcock homage.
"The Untouchables" seemed a lot better when I was younger but it's still a classic and due to my fond memories of it I'll probably always have a soft spot for it. However I do now recognize flaws I didn't used to - De Niro's Capone, for example, is a great portrayal but given awkward screen time...it works as a sort of convenient interlude to Costner and co.'s adventures - Costner kills some people, flash to De Niro yelling "I want his head!", flash back to Costner...it's not exactly a perfect balance as many of it just seems out-of-place...De Niro is wonderful but would losing his scenes harm the film? Not much. Instead, studying his character more would have been a wiser choice - De Palma could have easily made a three-hour epic that studies both men's stories and motivations and as a result the overall story would have been much stronger and the film better.
As it is this is sort of a "Godfather Lite" - it's not an incredibly strong film, it has some flaws, it could have had ideas expanded, but at the end of the day it's a really great piece of entertainment with some marvelous set pieces, convincing performances and a legendary and iconic turn by De Niro, who totally steals the show from everyone else.
The baseball speech scene is a classic - that's the type of stuff that makes me wish they had spent a bit more time focusing on him along with Costner, rather than just Costner.
But then again, it isn't. Because this is really the second of two times only that De Palma has totally proved to audiences that he's able to construct a masterful thriller/drama _on his own_ without copying (or "referencing") Hitchcock. "Blow Out" is a good movie, as are many of De Palma's others, but "The Untouchables" and "Scarface" are arguably the only two he's made where it's really a De Palma movie, and not a De Palma-Hitchcock homage.
"The Untouchables" seemed a lot better when I was younger but it's still a classic and due to my fond memories of it I'll probably always have a soft spot for it. However I do now recognize flaws I didn't used to - De Niro's Capone, for example, is a great portrayal but given awkward screen time...it works as a sort of convenient interlude to Costner and co.'s adventures - Costner kills some people, flash to De Niro yelling "I want his head!", flash back to Costner...it's not exactly a perfect balance as many of it just seems out-of-place...De Niro is wonderful but would losing his scenes harm the film? Not much. Instead, studying his character more would have been a wiser choice - De Palma could have easily made a three-hour epic that studies both men's stories and motivations and as a result the overall story would have been much stronger and the film better.
As it is this is sort of a "Godfather Lite" - it's not an incredibly strong film, it has some flaws, it could have had ideas expanded, but at the end of the day it's a really great piece of entertainment with some marvelous set pieces, convincing performances and a legendary and iconic turn by De Niro, who totally steals the show from everyone else.
The baseball speech scene is a classic - that's the type of stuff that makes me wish they had spent a bit more time focusing on him along with Costner, rather than just Costner.