This film takes place during the Prohibition, the golden age of American Mafia, and shows the difficulties that law enforcement had to arrest Al Capone, Chicago's biggest mafia boss. Brian de Palma seems to have a powerful attraction for violence and the mafia, this being his second major film on the subject (the first, if I'm not mistaken, was "Scarface"), but there is no doubt that his work was good and deserves congratulations. The story is told from the point of view of law enforcement, which is a novelty since most of the films that focus on Al Capone tend to show his life, or moments of his criminal course. This film shows him as the big villain he was and glorifies police officers, easily transforming Eliott Ness (played brilliantly by Kevin Costner in one of the most interesting works of his career) into a paladin of justice and law. Robert De Niro revisits his gangster movies ("The Godfather", "Goodfellas" etc.) in a curious and comic interpretation of Al Capone, and Sean Connery plays a street policeman of Irish descent. In fact, it was precisely in this character that Connery got his only Oscar, despite all actors have fulfilled my expectations. The film is well constructed, looking to alternate epic action scenes (sometimes recalling in my mind the glory of cavalry battle charges) with moments of great psychological depth and some suspense. At times, however, the film seems a bit forced, with exaggerated appeals to sentimentality, as it does in the final sequence, often parodied or imitated in later films. Another problem with the film is that it is not faithful to historical events. Al Capone's arrest was not like that, nor was Ness behind it. The film contains some scenes of great violence and is inadvisable for children, adolescents and impressionable people.
629 Reviews
It's the Chicago Way
jhclues21 June 2001
In 1919, over the veto of President Wilson, the Volstead Act was passed, which made provisions for the enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment, and successfully ushered in the era of Prohibition; what it did not do, was keep people from drinking, or more significantly, keep certain `businessmen' from selling it, which opened the flood gates to a billion dollar industry of illegal alcohol. And in the larger cities, the mob bosses jumped onto the bandwagon with both feet, the most notorious of which was Al Capone, who by 1930 had a thriving business and the city and the people of Chicago in his pocket. From the cop on the beat to the judges sitting on the highest courts, everyone seemingly had a price and could be bought. And that's the way it was until Treasury Agent Eliot Ness showed up for work and hand picked a squad of honest cops to help him get Capone and clean up the City of Chicago. `The Untouchables,' directed by Brian De Palma, is the story of Ness and his men, dubbed `Untouchable' because they couldn't be bought, though from the beginning the odds were stacked against them. They were a handful against an army of hoodlums who wielded grenades and tommy guns, and they could trust no one outside of their own circle, not even the cops with whom they shared the streets. Many looked upon what Ness was trying to do as an exercise in futility, but he never gave up, and went after Capone with everything he had, which wasn't much beyond his own guts and determination to `do some good.'
Ness's initial efforts were a disaster-- Capone had informants everywhere and always knew ahead of time whenever a raid was going down-- so he quickly realized that the only way to do this thing right was to get men he could trust and keep everything quiet. The bureau responded by sending Ness (Kevin Costner) an accountant, Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith), who first had the idea of going after Capone for income tax evasion. Ness then recruited Jim Malone (Sean Connery), a veteran cop who walked a beat and was well versed in doing things `The Chicago way,' and George Stone (Andy Garcia) a crack shot recruited right out of the Police Academy.
Connery gives an exemplary performance as Malone (for which he received the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor), the tough, Irish cop who becomes something of a tutor to Ness, letting him know from the start what he's getting himself into. How do you deal with someone of Capone's ilk? According to Malone, `If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun. If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way-- that's how you get Capone.' It's a perfect part for Connery, whose rugged appearance and demeanor are entirely convincing; he's got that somewhat cynical, world-wise and weary manner of a man who has seen it all, but lets you know that underneath he still holds out hope that some day in some way, right will win out after all. And Connery plays it with a hard, uncompromising edge that makes it so believable, and makes Malone a memorable character. De Palma brings it all vividly to life, building an underlying tension from the beginning that he maintains throughout the film, aided by the intense, sometimes haunting score by Ennio Morricone. Costner gives a solid performance as Ness, but he is somewhat overshadowed by the actors and the characters who surround him, especially Connery as Malone, and Robert De Niro, who as Capone is absolutely menacing and larger-than-life. De Niro captures the ruthlessness that indelibly marked Capone's infamy forever in the annals of criminal history, with a portrayal of him that is arguably the best in cinematic history. De Niro plays it as it lays, presenting Capone as the brutal criminal he was, without attempting to airbrush away any of the attributes that made him so despicable. It's a terrific performance, for which he should have received at least an Oscar nomination.
The supporting cast includes Richard Bradford (Mike), Jack Kehoe (Payne), Brad Sullivan (George), Billy Drago (Nitti) and Patricia Clarkson (Ness' wife). Extremely well crafted and delivered by De Palma, who had a great screenplay (by David Mamet) and a terrific cast with which to work, `The Untouchables' is a powerful, intense film that successfully evokes this particular period in the history of America. And it subtly underscores the true heroics of men like Ness and his crew, who through their fearless dedication possibly made it a little safer for someone to walk down the street, or for an honest man to simply go about the business of making a living-- things too often taken for granted in our busy world today; things that are important, and which makes a film like this so much more than merely entertainment (though it definitely is that). And that's the real magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.
Ness's initial efforts were a disaster-- Capone had informants everywhere and always knew ahead of time whenever a raid was going down-- so he quickly realized that the only way to do this thing right was to get men he could trust and keep everything quiet. The bureau responded by sending Ness (Kevin Costner) an accountant, Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith), who first had the idea of going after Capone for income tax evasion. Ness then recruited Jim Malone (Sean Connery), a veteran cop who walked a beat and was well versed in doing things `The Chicago way,' and George Stone (Andy Garcia) a crack shot recruited right out of the Police Academy.
Connery gives an exemplary performance as Malone (for which he received the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor), the tough, Irish cop who becomes something of a tutor to Ness, letting him know from the start what he's getting himself into. How do you deal with someone of Capone's ilk? According to Malone, `If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun. If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way-- that's how you get Capone.' It's a perfect part for Connery, whose rugged appearance and demeanor are entirely convincing; he's got that somewhat cynical, world-wise and weary manner of a man who has seen it all, but lets you know that underneath he still holds out hope that some day in some way, right will win out after all. And Connery plays it with a hard, uncompromising edge that makes it so believable, and makes Malone a memorable character. De Palma brings it all vividly to life, building an underlying tension from the beginning that he maintains throughout the film, aided by the intense, sometimes haunting score by Ennio Morricone. Costner gives a solid performance as Ness, but he is somewhat overshadowed by the actors and the characters who surround him, especially Connery as Malone, and Robert De Niro, who as Capone is absolutely menacing and larger-than-life. De Niro captures the ruthlessness that indelibly marked Capone's infamy forever in the annals of criminal history, with a portrayal of him that is arguably the best in cinematic history. De Niro plays it as it lays, presenting Capone as the brutal criminal he was, without attempting to airbrush away any of the attributes that made him so despicable. It's a terrific performance, for which he should have received at least an Oscar nomination.
The supporting cast includes Richard Bradford (Mike), Jack Kehoe (Payne), Brad Sullivan (George), Billy Drago (Nitti) and Patricia Clarkson (Ness' wife). Extremely well crafted and delivered by De Palma, who had a great screenplay (by David Mamet) and a terrific cast with which to work, `The Untouchables' is a powerful, intense film that successfully evokes this particular period in the history of America. And it subtly underscores the true heroics of men like Ness and his crew, who through their fearless dedication possibly made it a little safer for someone to walk down the street, or for an honest man to simply go about the business of making a living-- things too often taken for granted in our busy world today; things that are important, and which makes a film like this so much more than merely entertainment (though it definitely is that). And that's the real magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.
Awesome
billcr1217 May 2018
Somehow, I just got around to this film after over thirty years. Kevin Costner plays the federal agent Elliot Ness. He pursues Al Capone during Prohibition. His main partner is Sean Connery as a Beat cop in 1930 Chicago. Robert DeNiro is Capone and all three are great. Connery won an Oscar. Ironically, it was tax evasion that was Capone's downfall. This is not a spoiler, as everyone knows the old story. Even so, the Untouchables is a violent and funny adventure. The script is precise and Brian DePalma's direction is as good as expected; never a dull moment. The two hours just flies by.
My Favorite!
MinorityReporter21 September 2005
Quite a few words spring to my mind when I think of The Untouchables. Words like: Excellence, entertainment, larger than life and Sean Connery. These words basically summarize the entire film from my point of view of course because in my opinion (which I don't expect people to agree with) this is the best gangster film there is. Obviously people aren't going to agree because people prefer the likes of the operatic Godfather trilogy or the ultra realistic Goodfellas but in my head The Untouchables is the best.
Here are a few reasons why. First reason is that The Untouchables is just so darn entertaining. All the other films had completely different aims and even though I love a deep and brilliant story my main objective when I see a film is to be entertained and basically no film does that better than The Untouchables. That does not mean, however, that The Untouchables is just some half baked action comedy. No. There is genuine emotion and real story in this film. The story is, as most people know, loosely based on the actual events during the prohibition era in USA in the 1920s (the story is also based very, very loosely on the series that go by the same name) which to some extent means that what we see on the screen is real making the characters and general story seem that much more believable. This also adds greatly to the already very high entertainment value of the film because it draws the audience in. To add to the realism of the film the dialog is also very memorable and there are some great one-liners including some of my all time favorites in this film.
The acting is nothing short of brilliant. This is without a doubt Kevin Costner's best role. Some people have remarked that he seemed stiff and unable to portray the emotion of the character and to that I can only ask: Were we watching the same movie?! He is a hundred percent believable all the way through. In the beginning he seems a bit too much like a square I-wanna-do-some-good kind of character but as the story progresses he really evolves and becomes more and more emotionally involved in what he does. Both in his friends and in the cause. He even bends some of the rules he initially tried so hard to uphold. Brilliant. Charles Martin Smith does a good job as well and even though his character is very limited he still manages to pull the audience in. Andy Garcia appears in this film in a very limited role as well and he serves his purpose brilliantly. He is the sharpshooter of the group and he is perfectly believable in that part. He doesn't get to say much but what he does get to say is said with as much passion as I have ever heard from him (he seemed a little stale and lifeless in Godfather III). Robert DeNiro is great as Al Capone. He steals every scene he is in and he really brings the larger-than-life quality to the character which is extremely fitting. The film's best performance belongs to Sean Connery though. The film is for lack of a better expression a Sean Connery tour-de-force. Not only does he steal every scene he is in but he also brings the certain indescribable something to the character that he always does and in every situation you feel with him (as you do in all his films whether he is a villain or a hero). He also got a well deserved Oscar for his performance. People have claimed that the Oscar wasn't as much for this particular performance but an Oscar in recognition of his contributions to the film industry. This belittles his performance which I can safely say is the best of his career and one of the best displays of acting that I have ever seen.
The film also has a memorable score made by the legendary Ennio Morricone who is perhaps best known for the work he did with the equally legendary western director Sergio Leone (who doesn't know the score from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) and in my opinion the score he did for The Untouchables is the best he has ever made. The score is very unlike most scores from the 80s which does that the film doesn't feel like an 80s film as much as Scarface which I find inferior to this masterpiece. The score is grand and epic just like the story and the effects. For an 80s movie the effects are pretty amazing. Once again everything works.
All in all The Untouchables is a riveting story which is highly recommendable to all fans of crime/gangster movies.
10/10 - on my top 10 of best films
Here are a few reasons why. First reason is that The Untouchables is just so darn entertaining. All the other films had completely different aims and even though I love a deep and brilliant story my main objective when I see a film is to be entertained and basically no film does that better than The Untouchables. That does not mean, however, that The Untouchables is just some half baked action comedy. No. There is genuine emotion and real story in this film. The story is, as most people know, loosely based on the actual events during the prohibition era in USA in the 1920s (the story is also based very, very loosely on the series that go by the same name) which to some extent means that what we see on the screen is real making the characters and general story seem that much more believable. This also adds greatly to the already very high entertainment value of the film because it draws the audience in. To add to the realism of the film the dialog is also very memorable and there are some great one-liners including some of my all time favorites in this film.
The acting is nothing short of brilliant. This is without a doubt Kevin Costner's best role. Some people have remarked that he seemed stiff and unable to portray the emotion of the character and to that I can only ask: Were we watching the same movie?! He is a hundred percent believable all the way through. In the beginning he seems a bit too much like a square I-wanna-do-some-good kind of character but as the story progresses he really evolves and becomes more and more emotionally involved in what he does. Both in his friends and in the cause. He even bends some of the rules he initially tried so hard to uphold. Brilliant. Charles Martin Smith does a good job as well and even though his character is very limited he still manages to pull the audience in. Andy Garcia appears in this film in a very limited role as well and he serves his purpose brilliantly. He is the sharpshooter of the group and he is perfectly believable in that part. He doesn't get to say much but what he does get to say is said with as much passion as I have ever heard from him (he seemed a little stale and lifeless in Godfather III). Robert DeNiro is great as Al Capone. He steals every scene he is in and he really brings the larger-than-life quality to the character which is extremely fitting. The film's best performance belongs to Sean Connery though. The film is for lack of a better expression a Sean Connery tour-de-force. Not only does he steal every scene he is in but he also brings the certain indescribable something to the character that he always does and in every situation you feel with him (as you do in all his films whether he is a villain or a hero). He also got a well deserved Oscar for his performance. People have claimed that the Oscar wasn't as much for this particular performance but an Oscar in recognition of his contributions to the film industry. This belittles his performance which I can safely say is the best of his career and one of the best displays of acting that I have ever seen.
The film also has a memorable score made by the legendary Ennio Morricone who is perhaps best known for the work he did with the equally legendary western director Sergio Leone (who doesn't know the score from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) and in my opinion the score he did for The Untouchables is the best he has ever made. The score is very unlike most scores from the 80s which does that the film doesn't feel like an 80s film as much as Scarface which I find inferior to this masterpiece. The score is grand and epic just like the story and the effects. For an 80s movie the effects are pretty amazing. Once again everything works.
All in all The Untouchables is a riveting story which is highly recommendable to all fans of crime/gangster movies.
10/10 - on my top 10 of best films
The Untouchables
auuwws25 February 2021
An excellent movie with an excellent story. I am a person who does not know anything about the story of Al Capone's fall, and this film presented it to me excellently, the acting was very good, but I think if the acting could have been better, it was especially from Robert De Niro, the atmosphere of the film was excellent and it simulated the 1920s From the twentieth century, I really enjoyed watching the film and I recommend watching it
Brian De Palma's Masterpiece
jcanettis30 January 2005
"The Untouchables" is in my opinion De Palma's greatest work, with his other masterpiece, namely "Scarface", coming a very close second. In "Scarface" the focus is on a paranoid and self-destructive gangster who rises to meteoric heights and then falls; in "The Untouchables" the focus is on a very honest man with a noble mission, Elliot Ness (Kostner), who is prepared to do anything to clean Chicago from the corruption and mayhem caused by the notorious gangster Al Capone (De Niro). His quest is really tough, as his opponent is determined and powerful, but he has the help of three invaluable partners: Malone (Connery), a no-nonsense experienced cop, Wallace (Martin Smith), an accountant who will try to help bring tax charges against Capone, and Stone (Garcia), a great shooter.
As I noted before the film is brilliantly directed, with some scenes such as the one with the baseball bat, or the one with the baby in the train station, having become classic. The acting is superb, and while Connery was the one who received his well-deserved Oscar, Kostner and De Niro made Oscar-class performances too.
Although belonging to a typical genre, this film certainly stands out. Don't miss it! 10/10.
As I noted before the film is brilliantly directed, with some scenes such as the one with the baseball bat, or the one with the baby in the train station, having become classic. The acting is superb, and while Connery was the one who received his well-deserved Oscar, Kostner and De Niro made Oscar-class performances too.
Although belonging to a typical genre, this film certainly stands out. Don't miss it! 10/10.
Few Films Can Touch Its Excellence.
tfrizzell31 July 2002
Outstanding production that was the best film of 1987 with the exception of the very dominant "The Last Emperor". "The Untouchables" is the story of Elliot Ness (perfectly played by Kevin Costner) who tries to bring down Chicago Mob boss Al Capone (Robert DeNiro in one of his most under-rated roles) during the early-1930s. Illegal liquor smuggling and other much more serious crimes are running amok and corruption is all over. Costner realizes very fast that he must hand-pick his own men to bring DeNiro down for good. Thus he enlists the help of a young cop from the academy (Andy Garcia), a wimpy book-keeper (Charles Martin Smith) and a hard-nosed Irish beat cop (Oscar-winner Sean Connery in the performance of a lifetime). Together they slowly start to peel through the multiple layers of protection to get DeNiro for good. It seems that the fact that DeNiro has been lax in paying his income taxes could be his ultimate downfall. Beautifully directed by Brian De Palma, "The Untouchables" stands very tall with the other great productions of the 1980s. Ennio Morricone's Oscar-nominated score is one of the finest the cinema has ever experienced. Really excellent. I have no negative comments on this production. 5 stars out of 5.
Never stop fighting till the fight is done, here endeth the lesson.
hitchcockthelegend4 March 2008
As good a gangster movie that has ever been made as DePalma does justice to Mamet's electric script. The acting on show is right out of the top draw, the inevitable ease that DeNiro puts menace into Capone is quite impressive, whilst the fresh faced pugnacious tenacity of Andy Garcia's George Stone is something of a delightful experience. Yet that is not enough because we still need the central actors to carry the film if it is going to triumph. Connery is a given performance wise (accent aside of course, but then again who cares when the character portrayal is as sharp as it is here?) but it is Costner as Eliot Ness that shines like the star he was soon to become, it's a magic performance that manages to fuse genuine tenderness of family love with little trips to the dark side in pursuit of making good triumph over evil.
I love that the film is showing how violence and fear affects families, mother and child is a theme that is central to the film's heartbeat, notice how some of the more violent scenes are followed by tender scenes of Ness and his family. The set pieces here are attention grabbing entertainment, a roaring Canadian border rumpus and a smashing roof top pursuit and face off are top value, but it's DePalma gold watching a brilliant Battleship Potemkin homage at the Union train station that takes the cake as the film enters the last quarter. Surely historical facts does not matter when films are as sharp as this one is?. It's frightening, touching, and even witty. So for me at least, the film is 10/10 in every department (and yes, even with Sean's accent).
Footnote: The academy saw fit to nominate Ennio Morricone for his wonderful score, yet strangely he used some of it for the main theme in John Carpenter's 1982 film "The Thing", they must have missed it that time I presume! Must be the genre angle one thinks...
I love that the film is showing how violence and fear affects families, mother and child is a theme that is central to the film's heartbeat, notice how some of the more violent scenes are followed by tender scenes of Ness and his family. The set pieces here are attention grabbing entertainment, a roaring Canadian border rumpus and a smashing roof top pursuit and face off are top value, but it's DePalma gold watching a brilliant Battleship Potemkin homage at the Union train station that takes the cake as the film enters the last quarter. Surely historical facts does not matter when films are as sharp as this one is?. It's frightening, touching, and even witty. So for me at least, the film is 10/10 in every department (and yes, even with Sean's accent).
Footnote: The academy saw fit to nominate Ennio Morricone for his wonderful score, yet strangely he used some of it for the main theme in John Carpenter's 1982 film "The Thing", they must have missed it that time I presume! Must be the genre angle one thinks...
A Seven!
peteranderson13 December 2005
Another overall score of 7 out of 10. -Prohibition was a main, huge and big point of the 1930's and its good that it has been brought up in this film alongside gangster Al Capone. What the film does well is their capacity to keep level the gangster side of the movie and the crime and the 1920's feel with an American feel. All the theme and genres are kept to well they hit their targets with success and the acting is reasonably good. Kevin Costner is excellent in this, a few others could improve but Kevin is still very good. It had moments of tension and moments which ensured it hit its genre and target audience. A typical 80's gangster movie which proved very good. The writing was also very good as well, good lines, good camera work and good stunts. A 7 is a good mark from me personally it is above average and therefore a good movie and an excellent attempt at making a movie. Despite this I feel Kevin Costner was good in his role and I would reward the film with 3 awards for Writing (Screenplay), Director (Film) and Acting (Kevin Costner and him alone).
7.
7.
"Untouchable" - True Gangster Greatness
dee.reid11 March 2005
I'm going to make this short and to the point:
To me, Eliot Ness and the Untouchables were true patriots, fighting to end corruption wherever it reared its ugly head. With that in mind, 1987's "The Untouchables" is one of the greatest gangster movies - period. Brian De Palma, coming down off of the landmark gangster classic "Scarface" (1983), continued the trend with this carefully woven tale (screenplay complements of David Mamet) about Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner, perfectly cast) and his band of incorruptible federal agents. Ness is as naive as they come - bright-eyed and ready to take gangsterism down the "old" way - but being that this is Prohibition-era Chicago, the police are on the take, and no one can be trusted for fear of retribution from Al Capone (Robert De Niro). Ness finds his most trusted and loyal partner in a beat officer, Jimmy Malone (Oscar-Winner Sean Connery), who so carefully spells the law out out for him, "He {Capone} sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!" The Untouchables certainly do seem to overstep their boundaries in bringing Capone down, using a number of well-planned and law-bending tactics. The cinematography is beautiful, helping to capture the gangster-era in all its glory, and the Ennio Morricone score really gets you pumping for the action. De Palma is at his greatest in directorial excellence in staging stellar, heart-pumping action sequences (with the Morricone score blasting away too), which come to include the Canadian liquor bust, the train-station shootout, and the ending rooftop chase between Ness and Capone's #1 hit-man Frank Nitti (Billy Drago). Beware though, since this is De Palma territory here, we should be on the lookout for some scenes of pretty stylized bloody violence and the blood + guts action that characterized the times. Still, "The Untouchables" is one of my top 10 "must-see" pictures and I'm sure it's essential viewing for any gangster movie aficionado.
10/10
To me, Eliot Ness and the Untouchables were true patriots, fighting to end corruption wherever it reared its ugly head. With that in mind, 1987's "The Untouchables" is one of the greatest gangster movies - period. Brian De Palma, coming down off of the landmark gangster classic "Scarface" (1983), continued the trend with this carefully woven tale (screenplay complements of David Mamet) about Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner, perfectly cast) and his band of incorruptible federal agents. Ness is as naive as they come - bright-eyed and ready to take gangsterism down the "old" way - but being that this is Prohibition-era Chicago, the police are on the take, and no one can be trusted for fear of retribution from Al Capone (Robert De Niro). Ness finds his most trusted and loyal partner in a beat officer, Jimmy Malone (Oscar-Winner Sean Connery), who so carefully spells the law out out for him, "He {Capone} sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!" The Untouchables certainly do seem to overstep their boundaries in bringing Capone down, using a number of well-planned and law-bending tactics. The cinematography is beautiful, helping to capture the gangster-era in all its glory, and the Ennio Morricone score really gets you pumping for the action. De Palma is at his greatest in directorial excellence in staging stellar, heart-pumping action sequences (with the Morricone score blasting away too), which come to include the Canadian liquor bust, the train-station shootout, and the ending rooftop chase between Ness and Capone's #1 hit-man Frank Nitti (Billy Drago). Beware though, since this is De Palma territory here, we should be on the lookout for some scenes of pretty stylized bloody violence and the blood + guts action that characterized the times. Still, "The Untouchables" is one of my top 10 "must-see" pictures and I'm sure it's essential viewing for any gangster movie aficionado.
10/10
Better-than-average cop-drama, but vastly overrated
grantss28 October 2014
Better-than-average cop-drama. That's about the best one can say about this movie. For a crime drama, it is not very gritty and is filled with Hollywood clichés.
Reasonably interesting but could have been great. However, there are so many Hollywoodisms and glamourisations it feels quite superficial.
The weak script and formulaic movie-for-the-masses directing by Brian De Palma are compounded by the usual unconvincing performance from Kevin Costner. He alternates between dead boring and overly gung ho here.
Sean Connery is almost equally flat and unconvincing.
In fact, there's hardly a convincing and/or engaging performance to be found here. The only good one comes from Robert De Niro who is charming and suitably mean and scary as Al Capone.
Vastly overrated.
Reasonably interesting but could have been great. However, there are so many Hollywoodisms and glamourisations it feels quite superficial.
The weak script and formulaic movie-for-the-masses directing by Brian De Palma are compounded by the usual unconvincing performance from Kevin Costner. He alternates between dead boring and overly gung ho here.
Sean Connery is almost equally flat and unconvincing.
In fact, there's hardly a convincing and/or engaging performance to be found here. The only good one comes from Robert De Niro who is charming and suitably mean and scary as Al Capone.
Vastly overrated.
Untouchable.
Dick_Starky18 February 2005
It's Prohibition-era Chicago, and mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) controls the illegal shipment of alcohol into the city. Federal Agent Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner), vows to bring him down. Assembling a crack squad consisting of: Seasoned Cop Jimmy Maloy (Sean Connery), dead-eyed rookie George Stone (Andy Garcia), and bookish Accountant Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith). It is with this simple story that spawns a beautifully crafted piece of film-making. Sean Connery gives a compelling performance as Maloy; he's dedicated, determined, and dangerous. Kevin Costner is great as a man, just out to "Do Some Good". And Finally, you can't forget Robert De Niro. It must be his general calm that's so unnerving about him, as if you never know what he'll do next. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who likes movies. This movie had me on the brink of tears, had me standing up and cheering, and had me deeply satisfied and entertained.
My Final Rating: 10 out of 10 - A Must See!
My Final Rating: 10 out of 10 - A Must See!
The sum of its good individual components, no more
Flagrant-Baronessa25 December 2006
Director Brian De Palma is the son of a surgeon, and perhaps this explains his high tolerance for the bloodshed that has translated into brutal, raw scenes in 'The Untouchables'. Then again, this film is set during one of the bloodiest chapters of American history and demands unflinching depiction accordingly. Zooming in on prohibition-era Chicago, a dirty, dingy, crime-infested retreat of mafia, the film lets us know a special unit headed by Kevin Costner whose objective is to frame the super villain himself Al Capone (Robert De Niro).
There are, in effect, three or four things that truly stand out about The Untouchablesan otherwise standard crime by-the-numbers rompand at least one of them should be attributed to the surface of the spectacle; the costumework and settings are superbly breathed life into, as is De Palma's accolade, with a screen that is awash with lyrical colours and accompanied by a swelly, jazzy moonlit music score. Another worthy accolade is of course Sean Connery as detective Malone an American-Irish cop on the beat and down with the ways of the street who may deliver one of the worst accents in film history, but makes up for what he lacks in verbal power with heaps of charisma. Malone is given, by far, the best dialogue in David Mamet's script as when he instructs Kevin Costner on how to get to Capone: "He puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue."
Another worthy staple to The Untouchables is its strong individual scenes. In the front row for these sits the notorious baseball bat scene in which a furious Al Capone beats one of his associates' head into a bloody pulp with a bat, right in front of all the guests at the grand dinner table. Robert De Niro gained weight for his role as the crime-lord Al Capone and approaches his character with commitment, but sadly he is ineffective in the film as De Palma does not quite know what to do with him. Instead he craggily intercuts Capone's boisterous speeches and monologues with the template storyline of Kevin Costner's special unit, and the former are incongruous to the key story of 'The Untouchables'. Here it regrettably becomes apparent that the film possesses all the necessary ingredients but no blender in which to stir it and De Palma is largely to blame for lacking the necessary skill.
Having said that, The Untouchables keeps up the appearance of an epic crime film so rigorously through seamless costumes, stinky Chicago accents, vivid chases and a swarming taste to its sets that for a long time we are led to believe that De Palma has truly done it with this film. Certainly there are many scenes that testify to this and aptly camoflauge the shortcomings, such as the suspenseful pre-battle sequence at the Canadian border in which the Western-loving Costner is up on horseback to ambush the incoming shipment. Another is the first meeting between Andy Garcia and Sean Connery, in which the latter decides to recruit Garcia's Italian character in spite of racial feuding (Connery's supposed to be Irish), and instead because he likes his mouthy, bold attitude. Finally there is the unspeakably epic climax scene that plays on operatic in length through a long, glorious slow-motion capture by a staircase, politely nodding to The Battleship Potemkin's 'Odessa Steps Sequence'.
The whole film is in fact an operatic affair with technicalities deluxe. With its mindboggling ensemble (Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Robert De Niro, Andy Garcia and Patricia Clarkson) it is easy to see how it is cuing us in to like it. To some extent it succeeds well, for it is suspenseful, but it is not well sewn-together. What good is a De Niro if you are not going to use him opposite the rest? What good is a Kevin Costner (who has never looked so ridiculously handsome in his career for that matter) if you are not going to let him emote? And lastly, what good is a large handful of fully-fledged wonderful scenes if you are not going to juxtapose them with something, instead of dishing them out every now and then to keep our interest?
7 out of 10
There are, in effect, three or four things that truly stand out about The Untouchablesan otherwise standard crime by-the-numbers rompand at least one of them should be attributed to the surface of the spectacle; the costumework and settings are superbly breathed life into, as is De Palma's accolade, with a screen that is awash with lyrical colours and accompanied by a swelly, jazzy moonlit music score. Another worthy accolade is of course Sean Connery as detective Malone an American-Irish cop on the beat and down with the ways of the street who may deliver one of the worst accents in film history, but makes up for what he lacks in verbal power with heaps of charisma. Malone is given, by far, the best dialogue in David Mamet's script as when he instructs Kevin Costner on how to get to Capone: "He puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue."
Another worthy staple to The Untouchables is its strong individual scenes. In the front row for these sits the notorious baseball bat scene in which a furious Al Capone beats one of his associates' head into a bloody pulp with a bat, right in front of all the guests at the grand dinner table. Robert De Niro gained weight for his role as the crime-lord Al Capone and approaches his character with commitment, but sadly he is ineffective in the film as De Palma does not quite know what to do with him. Instead he craggily intercuts Capone's boisterous speeches and monologues with the template storyline of Kevin Costner's special unit, and the former are incongruous to the key story of 'The Untouchables'. Here it regrettably becomes apparent that the film possesses all the necessary ingredients but no blender in which to stir it and De Palma is largely to blame for lacking the necessary skill.
Having said that, The Untouchables keeps up the appearance of an epic crime film so rigorously through seamless costumes, stinky Chicago accents, vivid chases and a swarming taste to its sets that for a long time we are led to believe that De Palma has truly done it with this film. Certainly there are many scenes that testify to this and aptly camoflauge the shortcomings, such as the suspenseful pre-battle sequence at the Canadian border in which the Western-loving Costner is up on horseback to ambush the incoming shipment. Another is the first meeting between Andy Garcia and Sean Connery, in which the latter decides to recruit Garcia's Italian character in spite of racial feuding (Connery's supposed to be Irish), and instead because he likes his mouthy, bold attitude. Finally there is the unspeakably epic climax scene that plays on operatic in length through a long, glorious slow-motion capture by a staircase, politely nodding to The Battleship Potemkin's 'Odessa Steps Sequence'.
The whole film is in fact an operatic affair with technicalities deluxe. With its mindboggling ensemble (Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Robert De Niro, Andy Garcia and Patricia Clarkson) it is easy to see how it is cuing us in to like it. To some extent it succeeds well, for it is suspenseful, but it is not well sewn-together. What good is a De Niro if you are not going to use him opposite the rest? What good is a Kevin Costner (who has never looked so ridiculously handsome in his career for that matter) if you are not going to let him emote? And lastly, what good is a large handful of fully-fledged wonderful scenes if you are not going to juxtapose them with something, instead of dishing them out every now and then to keep our interest?
7 out of 10
should have been much better
HelloTexas1125 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I've been debating how hard to come down on 'The Untouchables' since I watched it again the other day. I don't know anything about the background of the film; whether it was made in a hurry or if there were problems with the production or a lot of re-shooting afterward. All I know is that with all the talent involved and the subject matter chosen, this should have been a masterpiece, a classic along the lines of 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas,' but sadly it doesn't even come close. To say it's an enjoyable little film about nabbing Al Capone is damning it with the slightest of praise. I mean, look at the cast. Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, Charles Martin Smith, Andy Garcia, even Robert De Niro! Can't get much better than that. So it's not them; they do what they can with the material. David Mamet, who wrote the screenplay (or at least gets credit for it), is one of the greatest living American authors. And yet the screenplay is as flat and thin as cardboard. It is almost impossible not to feel that other hands were involved in the story and dialogue; it has practically none of the incisiveness or bite one typically associates with Mamet. The director is Brian De Palma. That's where I'm laying the blame. I have never felt De Palma is the great director some claim him to be and there are many aspects of 'The Untouchables' which reinforce my opinion- multiple examples of shameless audience manipulation and tired clichés. The geeky accountant who becomes a bad-ass during a confrontation and kills a bunch of bad guys. The adoring wife who has one expression, one that says "I love you so much my heart might melt." The old Irish cop who dispenses endless pearls of wisdom and lessons-in-life. The straight-arrow leader who has a personal code he never violates. And all of this is put forward in such a ham-handed fashion; there is no subtlety to anything here. What's even worse is we never really get to know the characters; they are painted so broadly, they never register as anything but stereotypes. But there are SOME good bits in 'The Untouchables.' Mainly Robert De Niro, who is always interesting to watch. His shorthand impersonation of Al Capone strikes me as a throwaway, but it's a good throwaway and he manages to invest a fair amount of menace into the character, behind the fake smile and amiability Capone uses to disarm people. The same can more or less be said about Sean Connery (I can't believe he won an Oscar for this though). Kevin Costner is saddled with perhaps the weakest dialogue as Elliot Ness; the film can never decide who he is or what to do with him. At the beginning, reporters ask Ness, why bother to enforce prohibition? Because it's the law of the land, he says. At the end, they ask him what he'll do if prohibition is repealed. Probably go get a drink, he says. I guess that's supposed to be meaningful and profound. There seems to be no logic to the dialogue or situations. At one point, apropos of nothing, Connery's character leads them on a liquor bust literally on the spur of the moment, with no pre-planning, no explanation of how he knows about it. 'The Untouchables' has a climax of sorts in a railway station, then a courtroom scene which makes no sense at all (how can you switch juries at the END of a trial?). This film consistently disappoints; the fact that it still provides a modicum of entertainment is due mainly to the acting skills of De Niro and Connery.
HAH: Part two SPOILERS ALERT
dancingbohemian7 February 2001
Warning: Spoilers
After this little tiff, we get back to the killing. So who should we get rid of next? Why, Malone, of course! But wait..it's not that easy. You see, even if you sneak into his house and stealthily tiptoe up behind him, he can magically hear you, and will, at the last moment, whirl around with a shotgun. But silly Malone, he's just too nice. Instead of shooting you (as he should), he chases you out of his apartment, into the hallway, where my goodness there just happens to be another bad guy waiting, this time with a MACHINE GUN!! Now we see Malone get shot to pieces..but this bullet-riddled Scottish bad boy just doesn't feel like dying quite yet. No, he has to drag himself all the way to the back of his apartment (which leaves a nice, long, artistic trail of blood for Elliot to follow). Now does the b*****d die? NO! He just HAS to wait until Elliot shows up, so he can cough blood all over him and give him the last, vital clue (which I'm sure Elliot would never have found had he searched the apartment) and dramatically gasp, `What are you prepared to do?'...like I said, a walking cliché.
Now we get to the REALLY good part. Yes, that's right, the infamous 'Train Station Shootout', where Elliot is attempting to get Al Capone's bookkeeper. At this point, we get to use lots and lots of camera angles, slow motion, and echo-y sounds in order to create, yet again, the 'artistic' effect. Here we go:
The sequence begins with Elliot positioning himself on a platform above the stairs, and Stone going somewhere below him. Soon we get to see the clock. Then Elliot. Then the door. Then Elliot. Then a woman with a baby carriage, trying to go up the stairs below Elliot. Then the clock. Then Elliot.
And so on.
Just as the drama is beginning to get to be TOO MUCH..Elliot decides to be gallant and go help the stupid woman with the baby. So he drags the thing up the stairs (we've still got the slow motion and echo-y sound thing going on) and once he reaches the top, lo an behold, there's the bad guy. He shoots the bad guy. He shoots another bad guy. Stone magically appears and shoots a bad guy that was about to shoot Elliot but just didn't quite get the shot off. Meanwhile.the baby carriage has begun to roll down the stairs (in slow motion, of course). The plot thickens. So.Elliot starts to chase after it. Naturally. Meanwhile, he and Stone continue to nonchalantly mow down all the bad guys, one shot for each. Soon, Elliot has grabbed the baby carriage, but oh dear he's out of bullets. So here comes Stone, tossing him another gun (that he happened to have handy) while sliding- baseball style- in front of the baby carriage, just so it doesn't tip over.
Wow. I don't know about you, but that's sounds like spectacular cinematography to me.
(Let me just put this out in the open: The whole baby carriage nonsense WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED were it not for Elliot's ridiculous need to be a gentlemen at all times. If he had just let the lady struggle, she wouldn't have gotten up the stairs, and the stupid thing wouldn't have started rolling down again. Or better yet, he could have told her to get the hell out of the way..)
Anyways, this whole shenanigan ends with the last remaining bad guy using the sniveling bookkeeper as a body shield, with a gun pressed firmly to his head. `Blah blah blah..if you don't let me get out of here, the bookkeeper dies' and so on. Elliot asks Stone in his most rugged voice, `Have you got him?' and Stone answers, `I got him.'..(a whole three words!!). This, of course, is referring to Stone's impeccable aim, even when he's lying on the floor, twenty yards from his target, leaning back and squinting really, really hard. Soon, the fat, blustery bad guy starts counting, but before he can even get to `Two', Mr. Stone goes, 'Bang!'. (I guess Georgie boy just doesn't have much patience)
Now, instead of just letting the bad guy get his head blown off, or something normal like that, we're expected to believe that- get this- George Stone shot directly into Mr. Bad Guy's MOUTH.not only that, he also managed NOT to hit his lips, teeth, or any of the surrounding area. And as proof of this miraculous feat, we (as viewers) get to see blood come gushing out the fat guy's mouth. Lovely. And so believable, too.
Cut to a close-up of the trembling bookkeeper's face. Yeah, that's right you little twerp, you better not mess with George Stone. He's a badass who can shoot people in the mouth.
Don't you just love Hollywood?
Following this delightful sequence of events, we begin to wrap things up. Dear Elliot and his pal Georgie head off to the courtroom, where they plan to pin tax evasion on Capone, with the help of his not so loyal bookkeeper. The trial commences, and things don't look too good for Capone. But gosh, something's just not right. Why is he smiling? Why is he.yawning?! Do you think...no, it couldn't be. He couldn't POSSIBLY have anything up his sleeve.
Kevy (being the bright boy he is) figures out that something's up. Suddenly, he sees Capone's right-hand man- a guy by the name of Nitti- leaning over to talk to Al. And- gasp - he has a gun. Oh no, what's a boy to do.
Now we get to the REALLY good part. Yes, that's right, the infamous 'Train Station Shootout', where Elliot is attempting to get Al Capone's bookkeeper. At this point, we get to use lots and lots of camera angles, slow motion, and echo-y sounds in order to create, yet again, the 'artistic' effect. Here we go:
The sequence begins with Elliot positioning himself on a platform above the stairs, and Stone going somewhere below him. Soon we get to see the clock. Then Elliot. Then the door. Then Elliot. Then a woman with a baby carriage, trying to go up the stairs below Elliot. Then the clock. Then Elliot.
And so on.
Just as the drama is beginning to get to be TOO MUCH..Elliot decides to be gallant and go help the stupid woman with the baby. So he drags the thing up the stairs (we've still got the slow motion and echo-y sound thing going on) and once he reaches the top, lo an behold, there's the bad guy. He shoots the bad guy. He shoots another bad guy. Stone magically appears and shoots a bad guy that was about to shoot Elliot but just didn't quite get the shot off. Meanwhile.the baby carriage has begun to roll down the stairs (in slow motion, of course). The plot thickens. So.Elliot starts to chase after it. Naturally. Meanwhile, he and Stone continue to nonchalantly mow down all the bad guys, one shot for each. Soon, Elliot has grabbed the baby carriage, but oh dear he's out of bullets. So here comes Stone, tossing him another gun (that he happened to have handy) while sliding- baseball style- in front of the baby carriage, just so it doesn't tip over.
Wow. I don't know about you, but that's sounds like spectacular cinematography to me.
(Let me just put this out in the open: The whole baby carriage nonsense WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED were it not for Elliot's ridiculous need to be a gentlemen at all times. If he had just let the lady struggle, she wouldn't have gotten up the stairs, and the stupid thing wouldn't have started rolling down again. Or better yet, he could have told her to get the hell out of the way..)
Anyways, this whole shenanigan ends with the last remaining bad guy using the sniveling bookkeeper as a body shield, with a gun pressed firmly to his head. `Blah blah blah..if you don't let me get out of here, the bookkeeper dies' and so on. Elliot asks Stone in his most rugged voice, `Have you got him?' and Stone answers, `I got him.'..(a whole three words!!). This, of course, is referring to Stone's impeccable aim, even when he's lying on the floor, twenty yards from his target, leaning back and squinting really, really hard. Soon, the fat, blustery bad guy starts counting, but before he can even get to `Two', Mr. Stone goes, 'Bang!'. (I guess Georgie boy just doesn't have much patience)
Now, instead of just letting the bad guy get his head blown off, or something normal like that, we're expected to believe that- get this- George Stone shot directly into Mr. Bad Guy's MOUTH.not only that, he also managed NOT to hit his lips, teeth, or any of the surrounding area. And as proof of this miraculous feat, we (as viewers) get to see blood come gushing out the fat guy's mouth. Lovely. And so believable, too.
Cut to a close-up of the trembling bookkeeper's face. Yeah, that's right you little twerp, you better not mess with George Stone. He's a badass who can shoot people in the mouth.
Don't you just love Hollywood?
Following this delightful sequence of events, we begin to wrap things up. Dear Elliot and his pal Georgie head off to the courtroom, where they plan to pin tax evasion on Capone, with the help of his not so loyal bookkeeper. The trial commences, and things don't look too good for Capone. But gosh, something's just not right. Why is he smiling? Why is he.yawning?! Do you think...no, it couldn't be. He couldn't POSSIBLY have anything up his sleeve.
Kevy (being the bright boy he is) figures out that something's up. Suddenly, he sees Capone's right-hand man- a guy by the name of Nitti- leaning over to talk to Al. And- gasp - he has a gun. Oh no, what's a boy to do.
Fun Movie, Though Don't Expect A Documentary!
Hancock_the_Superb24 September 2005
When I was 11 or 12, I thought that this was the coolest movie ever made. And why not? It had some great action scenes, extremely good heroes, and extremely nasty villains. On that level, the film is perfect. Now that I'm a bit older, I still enjoy the film a lot, just not as much as I used to. It certainly isn't on my top ten list.
In the 1930's, Prohibition is in full swing, and Chicago mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) rules over his empire with bombs, bribes, and machine guns. Since Prohibition is very unpopular with the American people, who's going to stand up to Capone? Enter straight-laced young Treasury Agent Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner), who wants to do the right thing but realizes that the methods required are much more unorthodox, what with the corrupt police department and all. He enlists the help of an aging beat cop (Sean Connery in an Oscar-winning performance), a nebbish accountant (Charles Martin Smith) and a young police cadet who's a crack shot with a pistol (Andy Garcia) and begins taking down Capone "the Chicago way". After many shootouts, liquor raids, and assassinations, it all comes down to a climactic showdown - on the roof of a crowded courthouse! - between Ness and Capone's chief henchman, Frank Nitti (Billy Drago).
The movie is, as has been pointed out, much more faithful to the original television series with Robert Stack than the historical record, of which it bears virtually no resemblance, not that that is necessarily a problem. In real life, there were up to a dozen "Untouchables", whose success was very limited, and never got into any actual shootouts with Capone (though Capone did try to kill Ness himself on at least two occasions). Capone thought of Ness as a publicity seeking nuisance, nothing more; the two never even met face-to-face. Frank Wilson and the IRS had a LOT more to do with Capone's indictment than Ness and the Untouchables ever did. And of course Frank Nitti lived for over a decade after Capone was jailed.
That being said: who cares? This was intended as a fun, classy action movie, not a historical documentary. The movie is extremely authentic in attention to period detail, and though a bit over-the-top, it succeeds in its primary objective: to entertain. The movie was meant as a cross between a classy gangster film and a good old-fashioned cops'n'robbers shoot-'em-up, and was highly successful at that.
The acting is great all around, with Costner and Connery in particular giving one of their best performances. Costner does a creditable job at making Ness go from a greenhorn do-gooder (the scene where he yells at the corpse of a gangster he's had to kill is one of the movie's few weak moments) to a tough, hard-assed veteran in a little over two hours, no mean feat. Connery does a great job as Malone, the aging, guilt-ridden cop who becomes Ness's mentor (though his death scene is a bit overdone, I must admit I actually cried the first time I saw it!). Garcia and Smith have somewhat less to do, though each have their moments (Smith sipping bootleg whiskey during the bridge ambush, and Garcia's initial confrontation with Ness and Malone). De Niro, who made a career playing gangsters, takes the logical step of playing THE single most famous gangster of all time, Al Capone, and DeNiro, Method actor that he is, does a great job managing to look, sound, and act the part, despite very limited screen time (does ANYONE come away from this film not remembering the infamous baseball scene?). Drago fits the part of a sneering, one-dimensional villain, and manages to make Nitti a menacing and even charismatic character despite having little to work with. Other talented character actors - Richard Bradford, Jack Kehoe, Patricia Clarkson, Brad Sullivan, Del Close, Clifford James - round out the cast.
Where the movie excels, however, are its action sequences. The ambush of Capone's bootleg convoy at the Canadian border is simply exhilarating, and the suspenseful rooftop shootout between Ness and Nitti is extremely memorable as well. But what steals the show is the wonderfully done "Potemkin" homage in Union Station, where Ness and Stone try to apprehend Capone's book keeper, take out his bodyguards, AND save a baby carriage pluming down the stairs. Virtually the whole scene is done in slow motion, and is indescribably intense and even beautiful.
Ennio Morricone provides a wonderful score, and I'm not sure why he dislikes it so much, as he's said in interviews. True, it's not up to par with his works for Sergio Leone's films, but what is? He provides an exhilarating, heroic score which captures the feel and tone of the movie perfectly (though for my money, the heartbreaking "Death Theme", played on solo saxophone, is the best track).
Overall, "The Untouchables" is NOT a great gangster film, like "The Godfather" or "Once Upon A Time In America", nor is it an accurate account of the real-life events it portrays. But it's a fun, extremely stylish, well-made and enjoyable film, and on that score, I can wholeheartedly recommend it.
Score: 8/10.
In the 1930's, Prohibition is in full swing, and Chicago mob boss Al Capone (Robert De Niro) rules over his empire with bombs, bribes, and machine guns. Since Prohibition is very unpopular with the American people, who's going to stand up to Capone? Enter straight-laced young Treasury Agent Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner), who wants to do the right thing but realizes that the methods required are much more unorthodox, what with the corrupt police department and all. He enlists the help of an aging beat cop (Sean Connery in an Oscar-winning performance), a nebbish accountant (Charles Martin Smith) and a young police cadet who's a crack shot with a pistol (Andy Garcia) and begins taking down Capone "the Chicago way". After many shootouts, liquor raids, and assassinations, it all comes down to a climactic showdown - on the roof of a crowded courthouse! - between Ness and Capone's chief henchman, Frank Nitti (Billy Drago).
The movie is, as has been pointed out, much more faithful to the original television series with Robert Stack than the historical record, of which it bears virtually no resemblance, not that that is necessarily a problem. In real life, there were up to a dozen "Untouchables", whose success was very limited, and never got into any actual shootouts with Capone (though Capone did try to kill Ness himself on at least two occasions). Capone thought of Ness as a publicity seeking nuisance, nothing more; the two never even met face-to-face. Frank Wilson and the IRS had a LOT more to do with Capone's indictment than Ness and the Untouchables ever did. And of course Frank Nitti lived for over a decade after Capone was jailed.
That being said: who cares? This was intended as a fun, classy action movie, not a historical documentary. The movie is extremely authentic in attention to period detail, and though a bit over-the-top, it succeeds in its primary objective: to entertain. The movie was meant as a cross between a classy gangster film and a good old-fashioned cops'n'robbers shoot-'em-up, and was highly successful at that.
The acting is great all around, with Costner and Connery in particular giving one of their best performances. Costner does a creditable job at making Ness go from a greenhorn do-gooder (the scene where he yells at the corpse of a gangster he's had to kill is one of the movie's few weak moments) to a tough, hard-assed veteran in a little over two hours, no mean feat. Connery does a great job as Malone, the aging, guilt-ridden cop who becomes Ness's mentor (though his death scene is a bit overdone, I must admit I actually cried the first time I saw it!). Garcia and Smith have somewhat less to do, though each have their moments (Smith sipping bootleg whiskey during the bridge ambush, and Garcia's initial confrontation with Ness and Malone). De Niro, who made a career playing gangsters, takes the logical step of playing THE single most famous gangster of all time, Al Capone, and DeNiro, Method actor that he is, does a great job managing to look, sound, and act the part, despite very limited screen time (does ANYONE come away from this film not remembering the infamous baseball scene?). Drago fits the part of a sneering, one-dimensional villain, and manages to make Nitti a menacing and even charismatic character despite having little to work with. Other talented character actors - Richard Bradford, Jack Kehoe, Patricia Clarkson, Brad Sullivan, Del Close, Clifford James - round out the cast.
Where the movie excels, however, are its action sequences. The ambush of Capone's bootleg convoy at the Canadian border is simply exhilarating, and the suspenseful rooftop shootout between Ness and Nitti is extremely memorable as well. But what steals the show is the wonderfully done "Potemkin" homage in Union Station, where Ness and Stone try to apprehend Capone's book keeper, take out his bodyguards, AND save a baby carriage pluming down the stairs. Virtually the whole scene is done in slow motion, and is indescribably intense and even beautiful.
Ennio Morricone provides a wonderful score, and I'm not sure why he dislikes it so much, as he's said in interviews. True, it's not up to par with his works for Sergio Leone's films, but what is? He provides an exhilarating, heroic score which captures the feel and tone of the movie perfectly (though for my money, the heartbreaking "Death Theme", played on solo saxophone, is the best track).
Overall, "The Untouchables" is NOT a great gangster film, like "The Godfather" or "Once Upon A Time In America", nor is it an accurate account of the real-life events it portrays. But it's a fun, extremely stylish, well-made and enjoyable film, and on that score, I can wholeheartedly recommend it.
Score: 8/10.
Great stuff
Gudhjem29 March 1999
An absolute classic. These three words describe this masterpiece. De Palma and his supreme cast give us what we want. An intense drama about good and bad. A towering performance by Connery as an Irish-American cop with a Scottish accent stand out but Costner, De Niro and the rest of the cast, down to the baby in the Potemkin inspired scene at the train station, deliver great performances. Another reason for loving this movie is, that it is full of really bad editing mistakes. The best one being the roof top scene, where Ness helps Niiti to his car. If you haven't seen it I feel sorry for you. Whether you rent it, or buy doesn't matter. But it is a MUST SEE!
Ness, Malone, Wallace & Stone: The Untouchables
Rodrigo_Amaro30 May 2010
"The Untouchables" is one the most complete films of the 1980's and one of the most unforgettable films of Brian De Palma. An Untouchable classic. It has an great ensemble cast, the 1930's period re-enactment is excellent, the magical music by Ennio Morricone and the incredible cinematography and editing. If you didn't see it you must see it now!
1930. Chicago. During the Prphibition Al Capone (Robert De Niro) is flying high, making a lot of money with the bootleg of vast amounts of alcohol and of course the law is on his side (buying judges and corrupted officers). If you're against Capone get ready to run because he's implacable and kills those who betray him even bashing with a baseball bat the head of an colleague who failed in his duties. It's also the time of Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) an honest man working as Treasure Agent and he's in charge of putting Capone behind bars. Capone is untouchable, dishonest and got the most dangerous crew on his side. Ness has a chance?
Well, now he has three good souls on his side and things can be very different and Chicago might be another good place to live again. Ness's companies includes Malone (Sean Connery), an old and smart street officer who's up for anything, sometimes following rules and other times creating his own rules; Wallace (Charles Martin Smith) an accountant that wants to arrest Capone for not paying his taxes; and Stone (Andy Garcia) the best shooter of the police force. These are The Untouchables and with them there isn't things that they cannot solve it, no one can buy them, and those who are at the wrong side of the law are going to be killed or arrested.
Writer David Mamet opted for not writing the real story of the events or even make a film version of the series of the 1950's. Instead he opted for an original work about four simple guys fighting against injustice and facing mortal threats. And to tell a story like that in the 1980's was a completely risk of failure in the box-office if one considers that the movies of that decade that were real commercial success were muscular heroes like Rambo or Terminator and many others. But with Brian De Palma directing, a great story developed and a amazing ensemble cast "The Untouchables" turned out to be one of the most remarkable movies of that decade and Sean Connery proved to be a actor even more talented than he is, and earn a Oscar in the following year.
De Palma is known for his technique on editing, planning movies almost like Hitchcock (his idol) and here everything is done marvelously well. In the most climatic moment of the movie (the Stairway Shootout) he made a fantastic homage to "The Battleship Potemkin" (Sergei Eisenstein's film). Here Stone and Ness are in a shooting against Capone's thugs and in the middle of this shooting are Capone's accountant (Jack Kehoe), a woman and his baby in a baby carriage that runs out of control in the stairs. Unforgettable! And of course Ennio Morricone's memorable musical themes. He was robbed an Oscar and a Golden Globe in 1988. He has a tremendous job here, setting the music in the cold and dark Chicago atmosphere, and he knows how to use the variation of instruments in a same theme for different scenes (For instance: the "Death theme" is used twice, two different scenes, but if you notice Ennio makes little changes with instruments). Brilliant!
It's a mystery to me that there are people who simply just don't care about this film calling it superficial, or saying that everything was weak. I Disagree. I never get tired of watching this movie and see a great cast performing incredibly well, it has a good story (way better than some today's movies) and it's one of the best films of the 1980's. De Palma's top of that decade along with "Scarface", "Blown Out", "Body Double", "Dressed to Kill" and "Casualties of War" A must see film! 10/10
1930. Chicago. During the Prphibition Al Capone (Robert De Niro) is flying high, making a lot of money with the bootleg of vast amounts of alcohol and of course the law is on his side (buying judges and corrupted officers). If you're against Capone get ready to run because he's implacable and kills those who betray him even bashing with a baseball bat the head of an colleague who failed in his duties. It's also the time of Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) an honest man working as Treasure Agent and he's in charge of putting Capone behind bars. Capone is untouchable, dishonest and got the most dangerous crew on his side. Ness has a chance?
Well, now he has three good souls on his side and things can be very different and Chicago might be another good place to live again. Ness's companies includes Malone (Sean Connery), an old and smart street officer who's up for anything, sometimes following rules and other times creating his own rules; Wallace (Charles Martin Smith) an accountant that wants to arrest Capone for not paying his taxes; and Stone (Andy Garcia) the best shooter of the police force. These are The Untouchables and with them there isn't things that they cannot solve it, no one can buy them, and those who are at the wrong side of the law are going to be killed or arrested.
Writer David Mamet opted for not writing the real story of the events or even make a film version of the series of the 1950's. Instead he opted for an original work about four simple guys fighting against injustice and facing mortal threats. And to tell a story like that in the 1980's was a completely risk of failure in the box-office if one considers that the movies of that decade that were real commercial success were muscular heroes like Rambo or Terminator and many others. But with Brian De Palma directing, a great story developed and a amazing ensemble cast "The Untouchables" turned out to be one of the most remarkable movies of that decade and Sean Connery proved to be a actor even more talented than he is, and earn a Oscar in the following year.
De Palma is known for his technique on editing, planning movies almost like Hitchcock (his idol) and here everything is done marvelously well. In the most climatic moment of the movie (the Stairway Shootout) he made a fantastic homage to "The Battleship Potemkin" (Sergei Eisenstein's film). Here Stone and Ness are in a shooting against Capone's thugs and in the middle of this shooting are Capone's accountant (Jack Kehoe), a woman and his baby in a baby carriage that runs out of control in the stairs. Unforgettable! And of course Ennio Morricone's memorable musical themes. He was robbed an Oscar and a Golden Globe in 1988. He has a tremendous job here, setting the music in the cold and dark Chicago atmosphere, and he knows how to use the variation of instruments in a same theme for different scenes (For instance: the "Death theme" is used twice, two different scenes, but if you notice Ennio makes little changes with instruments). Brilliant!
It's a mystery to me that there are people who simply just don't care about this film calling it superficial, or saying that everything was weak. I Disagree. I never get tired of watching this movie and see a great cast performing incredibly well, it has a good story (way better than some today's movies) and it's one of the best films of the 1980's. De Palma's top of that decade along with "Scarface", "Blown Out", "Body Double", "Dressed to Kill" and "Casualties of War" A must see film! 10/10
Cool mobster movie based on a true story
Xophianic2 February 2000
I watched the Untouchables know a little about Elliot Ness and Al Capone. I wasn't watching the Untouchables for the educations part, though. I was just hoping for an entertaining movie. That is what I got. I thought the Untouchables movie was very interesting with some great gunfights and a good story.
For the most part, the acting was very good in this movie. Robert DeNiro was frighteningly good as Al Capone, and Kevin Costner did a great job as Elliot Ness. I believe, however, that Sean Connery stole the show as Jim Malone, the tough old cop who knew in order to beat the crime you had to resort to their level.
The story is simple. Elliot Ness, a "cop" from the treasury department of the FBI is sent to make sure that Al Capone is brought to justice, but has trouble doing so. He seeks the help of Jim Malone, a worn-out beat cop, and a few others to take Capone out. They realize they have to stoop down to the level of the criminals in order to stop them, which of course leads to some cool gun fights and an interesting trial.
For a Kevin Costner movie, it's not very long. I'd recommend you go out and rent this movie. I found it to be very good.
For the most part, the acting was very good in this movie. Robert DeNiro was frighteningly good as Al Capone, and Kevin Costner did a great job as Elliot Ness. I believe, however, that Sean Connery stole the show as Jim Malone, the tough old cop who knew in order to beat the crime you had to resort to their level.
The story is simple. Elliot Ness, a "cop" from the treasury department of the FBI is sent to make sure that Al Capone is brought to justice, but has trouble doing so. He seeks the help of Jim Malone, a worn-out beat cop, and a few others to take Capone out. They realize they have to stoop down to the level of the criminals in order to stop them, which of course leads to some cool gun fights and an interesting trial.
For a Kevin Costner movie, it's not very long. I'd recommend you go out and rent this movie. I found it to be very good.
"I just happened to be there when the wheel went round."
The_Movie_Cat13 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The Untouchables has aged very badly... so badly, in fact, that Sean Connery as an Irishman is now the least chucklesome thing about it.
Containing one of the most jarringly inappropriate soundtracks ever, the incredibly 80s incidental music stands out against the 1930s-set plot. DePalma's best film is obviously Scarface, perhaps closely followed by the cult Phantom of the Paradise. But while Scarface introduced the world to a shouty version of Al Pacino that never went away thereafter, here "full scale" performances are replaced by pure ham, DeNiro included. Astonishingly Ennio Morricone was behind the music, suggesting that everyone involved had a bad day.
Oddly, there's never really any sense of danger in amongst the glib humour and very sanitised, Hollywood vision of the prohibition wars. Kevin Costner's Eliot Ness never really seems in any particular danger, and any detective work seems done via the easiest route possible. Ness wants to make some arrests, or shoot the bad guys? He does it, then on to the next scene. There's no real setbacks (other than the deaths of two of the Untouchables, obviously, though it's a little hard to take those parts seriously when Connery lives on for several minutes after being shot at least a dozen times by a machine gun).
Writer David Mamet was involved with three other movies starring DeNiro, with We're No Angels, Wag The Dog and Ronin on his ledger, all of which range from mediocre to pretty good. This was also DeNiro's fourth film with DePalma, after three little-seen movies in the late 60s/early 70s. Both had better collaborations elsewhere.
It's obvious that DePalma was stylistically trying to evoke westerns and noir, but having a stylistic conceit doesn't make it workable, whether intended or not... or maybe it's just that it's hard to take a gangster movie seriously when there's a wailing 80s sax behind it. A film like this needed to be gritty and realistic, not glossy homages to Eisenstein while what sounds like the theme tune to My Two Dads plays in the background.
The Untouchables, largely based on a series of fabricated situations, isn't a BAD film. But neither is it a particularly good one, either.
Containing one of the most jarringly inappropriate soundtracks ever, the incredibly 80s incidental music stands out against the 1930s-set plot. DePalma's best film is obviously Scarface, perhaps closely followed by the cult Phantom of the Paradise. But while Scarface introduced the world to a shouty version of Al Pacino that never went away thereafter, here "full scale" performances are replaced by pure ham, DeNiro included. Astonishingly Ennio Morricone was behind the music, suggesting that everyone involved had a bad day.
Oddly, there's never really any sense of danger in amongst the glib humour and very sanitised, Hollywood vision of the prohibition wars. Kevin Costner's Eliot Ness never really seems in any particular danger, and any detective work seems done via the easiest route possible. Ness wants to make some arrests, or shoot the bad guys? He does it, then on to the next scene. There's no real setbacks (other than the deaths of two of the Untouchables, obviously, though it's a little hard to take those parts seriously when Connery lives on for several minutes after being shot at least a dozen times by a machine gun).
Writer David Mamet was involved with three other movies starring DeNiro, with We're No Angels, Wag The Dog and Ronin on his ledger, all of which range from mediocre to pretty good. This was also DeNiro's fourth film with DePalma, after three little-seen movies in the late 60s/early 70s. Both had better collaborations elsewhere.
It's obvious that DePalma was stylistically trying to evoke westerns and noir, but having a stylistic conceit doesn't make it workable, whether intended or not... or maybe it's just that it's hard to take a gangster movie seriously when there's a wailing 80s sax behind it. A film like this needed to be gritty and realistic, not glossy homages to Eisenstein while what sounds like the theme tune to My Two Dads plays in the background.
The Untouchables, largely based on a series of fabricated situations, isn't a BAD film. But neither is it a particularly good one, either.
Mamets finest
chelsealegend19 November 2021
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.
"If Capone Puts One Of Your's In The Hospital, You Put One Of His In The Morgue"
bkoganbing22 January 2009
Not that I'm complaining mind you because The Untouchables is a quality motion picture that got Sean Connery an Oscar for a lifetime of work, but one fine day we just might get the real story of Eliot Ness and his Untouchable squad of Treasury agents. For those who are fans of Brian DePalma's film it's no more accurate than the famous Untouchable series in the Fifties or its counterpart in the Nineties.
The plain truth is that Eliot Ness's operations against Al Capone's liquor supply did hurt him economically somewhat, but hardly slowed down his operation in Chicago. As for the income tax conviction that eventually did land Capone in Alcatraz, it was accomplished by the hard working accountants in US Attorney George W. Johnson's office. In the film that is the Clifton James character and Ness and his squad did work for him, but Charles Martin Smith's character would not have been an Untouchable.
Whatever else Ness was, he was a master of generating good publicity for his work, the same way J. Edgar Hoover was, or Thomas E. Dewey, right down to Rudolph Giuliani in our time. That is in fact, part of a good crime fighter's job, the more people know of your successful good work, the more cooperation you get from the public. When Ness who went on to become the Chief of Police in Cleveland and then unsuccessful Republican candidate for Mayor of same, his career and finances took a nose dive. Just before he died he worked with writer Oscar Fraley on a memoir of his work and this became the cornerstone of The Untouchables franchise. Very much like what Wyatt Earp did just before he died, giving interviews for an authorized biography by Stuart Lake which became the basis for all the Wyatt Earp films done since the Thirties.
Unlike the original TV series The Untouchables, Eliot Ness's Scandinavian background as versus the Italian Al Capone is made much of in this film. Kevin Costner is your basic good guy and Robert DeNiro joins a great list of actors like Rod Steiger, Neville Brand, and Jason Robards, Jr. in interpreting the volatile crime boss of Chicago who has come down in legend himself.
Costner's a Boy Scout in this business and as Sean Connery says to him, those kind of rules are out the window in dealing with people like Al Capone. His bit of philosophy given to Costner when Costner recruits him for The Untouchables is the title of the review. Connery plays an honest patrolman of Irish descent who hates dishonesty, but also don't think a little prejudice against the Italian Capone isn't involved in his thinking as well. Jimmy Malone is a broad and expansive part that Sean Connery can work wonders with.
To be honest I don't think The Untouchables is Connery's best work, one friend has told me The Name of The Rose is his favorite, another has said Woman Of Straw is his favorite. My personal favorite among Sean Connery's performances is the incredibly neglected The Molly Maguires. But like John Wayne's True Grit, Sean Connery's Oscar is for the work of a lifetime for a man who may be the most well known international film star we've ever had.
Now Billy Drago's Frank Nitti is a performance that will leave you chilled for days and susceptible to pneumonia. That it's far from the real Frank Nitti and that Nitti did not end the way Drago does in the film is irrelevant. But that's just another inaccuracy of the film.
Brian DePalma wasn't trying for accuracy, he was trying to make an entertaining film. In that he succeeded.
The plain truth is that Eliot Ness's operations against Al Capone's liquor supply did hurt him economically somewhat, but hardly slowed down his operation in Chicago. As for the income tax conviction that eventually did land Capone in Alcatraz, it was accomplished by the hard working accountants in US Attorney George W. Johnson's office. In the film that is the Clifton James character and Ness and his squad did work for him, but Charles Martin Smith's character would not have been an Untouchable.
Whatever else Ness was, he was a master of generating good publicity for his work, the same way J. Edgar Hoover was, or Thomas E. Dewey, right down to Rudolph Giuliani in our time. That is in fact, part of a good crime fighter's job, the more people know of your successful good work, the more cooperation you get from the public. When Ness who went on to become the Chief of Police in Cleveland and then unsuccessful Republican candidate for Mayor of same, his career and finances took a nose dive. Just before he died he worked with writer Oscar Fraley on a memoir of his work and this became the cornerstone of The Untouchables franchise. Very much like what Wyatt Earp did just before he died, giving interviews for an authorized biography by Stuart Lake which became the basis for all the Wyatt Earp films done since the Thirties.
Unlike the original TV series The Untouchables, Eliot Ness's Scandinavian background as versus the Italian Al Capone is made much of in this film. Kevin Costner is your basic good guy and Robert DeNiro joins a great list of actors like Rod Steiger, Neville Brand, and Jason Robards, Jr. in interpreting the volatile crime boss of Chicago who has come down in legend himself.
Costner's a Boy Scout in this business and as Sean Connery says to him, those kind of rules are out the window in dealing with people like Al Capone. His bit of philosophy given to Costner when Costner recruits him for The Untouchables is the title of the review. Connery plays an honest patrolman of Irish descent who hates dishonesty, but also don't think a little prejudice against the Italian Capone isn't involved in his thinking as well. Jimmy Malone is a broad and expansive part that Sean Connery can work wonders with.
To be honest I don't think The Untouchables is Connery's best work, one friend has told me The Name of The Rose is his favorite, another has said Woman Of Straw is his favorite. My personal favorite among Sean Connery's performances is the incredibly neglected The Molly Maguires. But like John Wayne's True Grit, Sean Connery's Oscar is for the work of a lifetime for a man who may be the most well known international film star we've ever had.
Now Billy Drago's Frank Nitti is a performance that will leave you chilled for days and susceptible to pneumonia. That it's far from the real Frank Nitti and that Nitti did not end the way Drago does in the film is irrelevant. But that's just another inaccuracy of the film.
Brian DePalma wasn't trying for accuracy, he was trying to make an entertaining film. In that he succeeded.
The Brutality of Tyranny and The Power of Righteousness
nazembay-5003430 March 2021
This movie shows us very cruel side of gangsters, bullies. And there are honest people who are fighting against them. "The Untouchables" is truly a masterpiece. Acting and directing is just perfect. De Niro, Connery, Costner... They are amazing in the movie. Action scenes are absolutely satisfying for action lovers. Oh and one more thing. Ennio Morricone's soundtracks makes the movie even better.
Great Movie Marred by Problematic Soundtrack
ctgriffith-8772220 July 2023
I would echo what many other reviewers have said: it's a wonderful American story, portrayed by some excellent actors at the height of their talents. Sean Connery, for one, is very impressive and believable as an aging, jaded policeman, still walking the beat, who rises to the challenge of bringing down the Chicago Moonshine Mafia. Kevin Costner is also very good as the slightly naive, but pure and steadfast, representative of the US Treasury-though he nearly always comes up just a hair short as a leading man, due to his slightly annoying voice (a characteristic much improved in recent years, thanks to the gravitas of age). Bob De Niro in any role is always a terrific pleasure: nuff said.
What keeps this film from being a truly great period piece is the amazingly bad soundtrack that plagues it from start to finish. I don't know if this musical disaster felt relevant and interesting back in the '90s, but it's very difficult to imagine a decade where Ennio Morricone's schizophrenic, incoherent approach was appealing or understandable to anyone! How unfortunate...
What keeps this film from being a truly great period piece is the amazingly bad soundtrack that plagues it from start to finish. I don't know if this musical disaster felt relevant and interesting back in the '90s, but it's very difficult to imagine a decade where Ennio Morricone's schizophrenic, incoherent approach was appealing or understandable to anyone! How unfortunate...
Almost No Redeeming Qualities
Streetballa17 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I was not expecting this movie to be this bad. With Depalma, De Niro, and what looked to be a huge budget with a story that is already compelling enough in real life, there's no reason to make a film this absent of quality.
You can tell within the first ten minutes of the movie that the score is going to ruin the movie. The music was either cliché (smooth touching melodies in every single last moment of vulnerability in the movie) or "action music" that feels like it belongs in homeward bound, not a crime movie. Music was even put into places where it make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Indeed, it sets the tone for the movie itself, which is a tone of farce more than grit.
This movie just reeks of farce, from the accountant mowing down people with a shotgun with the nerdy grin symbolizing his transformation from mild mannered nerd to empowered bad-ass to the completely arbitrary scene of Robert DeNiro hitting a guy with a baseball bat (no back story,no plot movement, seemingly no reason for it to be in the movie whatsoever)to Sean Connery getting blasted with seemingly dozens of machine gun bullets, bleeding enough to have died three times over, and yet still having the power to gasp a few more words just as Elliot Ness gets there before finally dying. This movie is filled with enough corny commercial movie tricks and clichés that it just cannot be taken seriously. This is not a bad thing if you're making a Disney movie, but when you're making a crime drama, (especially one based on real life) realism is probably the way you want to go.
This is not even to take into consideration the awful acting throughout the movie. This actually may be why the movie so heavily relies on cheesy music. The actor's performances were so weak that it required cheesy music to make them look better. Kevin Costner is just not a great actor and none of the supporting cast is exactly Daniel-Day Lewis. Sean Connery won an academy award for his performance somehow. I suppose his acting may have not been particularly bad, but his character seemed so manufactured and out of step with reality that he simply couldn't be taken seriously. Maybe in a completely fictitious story it would have worked, but again, not in a story based on real people and real events.
If you want to see a farce that tries to be serious, every movie cliché in the book (this is no exaggeration, just look for them) an out of place and overdone score, and substandard acting, then this is the movie for you. I somehow doubt, though, that the target audience for this movie were movie watchers who enjoyed this type of film. Take out the violence and this movie belongs next to Pete's Dragon on the movie shelf. It's a disgrace to Al Capone and Elliot Ness both and to anyone who likes good movies.
You can tell within the first ten minutes of the movie that the score is going to ruin the movie. The music was either cliché (smooth touching melodies in every single last moment of vulnerability in the movie) or "action music" that feels like it belongs in homeward bound, not a crime movie. Music was even put into places where it make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Indeed, it sets the tone for the movie itself, which is a tone of farce more than grit.
This movie just reeks of farce, from the accountant mowing down people with a shotgun with the nerdy grin symbolizing his transformation from mild mannered nerd to empowered bad-ass to the completely arbitrary scene of Robert DeNiro hitting a guy with a baseball bat (no back story,no plot movement, seemingly no reason for it to be in the movie whatsoever)to Sean Connery getting blasted with seemingly dozens of machine gun bullets, bleeding enough to have died three times over, and yet still having the power to gasp a few more words just as Elliot Ness gets there before finally dying. This movie is filled with enough corny commercial movie tricks and clichés that it just cannot be taken seriously. This is not a bad thing if you're making a Disney movie, but when you're making a crime drama, (especially one based on real life) realism is probably the way you want to go.
This is not even to take into consideration the awful acting throughout the movie. This actually may be why the movie so heavily relies on cheesy music. The actor's performances were so weak that it required cheesy music to make them look better. Kevin Costner is just not a great actor and none of the supporting cast is exactly Daniel-Day Lewis. Sean Connery won an academy award for his performance somehow. I suppose his acting may have not been particularly bad, but his character seemed so manufactured and out of step with reality that he simply couldn't be taken seriously. Maybe in a completely fictitious story it would have worked, but again, not in a story based on real people and real events.
If you want to see a farce that tries to be serious, every movie cliché in the book (this is no exaggeration, just look for them) an out of place and overdone score, and substandard acting, then this is the movie for you. I somehow doubt, though, that the target audience for this movie were movie watchers who enjoyed this type of film. Take out the violence and this movie belongs next to Pete's Dragon on the movie shelf. It's a disgrace to Al Capone and Elliot Ness both and to anyone who likes good movies.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
