MovieChat Forums > The Untouchables (1987) Discussion > 40 mins or so was enough for me.

40 mins or so was enough for me.

posted 12 years ago by gordongeeko
10 replies | jump to latest

I have had this movie on VHS for many years and I have tried to watch it all in one sitting several times. I wanted to like it, I really did, but last night was my final effort. It's in the bin now. Why? My biggest issue with it is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. It's certainly not a biographical work. It tries and fails to be a comedy in parts (the whisky slurping accountant a.k.a cinema's most implausible G-Man during the bridge scene). The baseball bat scene notwithstanding, it's also not a gangster film per se which stands favourable comparison with any of the acknowledged standards i.e. Godfather/ Once Upon a Time in America/ Goodfellas etc. De Niro coming across as this Penguinesque style pantomine villain kills the film for me, as does Costner's total inability to accurately portray the hard man. Witness his attempt at verbal anger against the (also unconvincing) hood offering him the bribe. Risible. He was the same in Robin Hood; check out his lightweight reaction upon discovering the murder of his father. He just cannot convincingly convey this emotion. The bridge scene where Ness ends up under the car uninjured and somehow avoiding being shot by one of the escaping occupants pushes credibility to the limit. The later scene in the shack where Ness shoots the villain and then angsts over the necessity (talking to the corpse for pity's sake?) and the whole lovey-dovey family thing going on in the background just sealed it for me. No more. This films IMDB rating and Sean Connery's Oscar aside,I have to say that for me it's a stinker.

[–] cockeye991 12 years ago

Well, it certainly made you stop watching and directly visit it's board and create a new topic about it so i guess that counts for something, right ??

" See, the thing about the old days.....they the old days. "

[–] realart 12 years ago

As cockeye991 said "Well, it certainly made you stop watching and directly visit it's board and create a new topic".

And I agree. You directly visited and posted here with the dreaded "wall of text". Ever hear of the Enter Key or a Paragraph?

[–] gordongeeko 12 years ago

Thank you both for your replies, but aside from taking the view that even a negative reaction is better than none and being critical of how I laid out my post, do either of you have anything to say about the film itself?

[–] dadte 12 years ago

I agree with you.

This movie is all over the place. I tried watching it on Netflix couldn't finish it.

The baseball bat scene was tense but then we go into these hokey gunfights and god awful dialogue. It has no idea how to keep it's tempo.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dyahrmarkt 11 years ago

I'd like to read a nonfiction account, so as to be totally free of any Ness bias. Know of any good ones?

***Someone on these boards also pointed out that a jury switch did, in a certain aspect, actually happen. Not like it was shown in the film, but I was surprised, if I can believe the poster's info.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Burning_Sosobra 11 years ago

This movie is far from being historically accurate. For instance, Ness and Capone never met face to face, Frank Nitti was not killed by Ness, etc. It's well acted by Connery and most the cast, so I personally enjoy it. I've always been interested in that time period, I just look past the inaccuracies because it's a Hollywood film, not a documentary. I can see how this wouldn't be every bodies cup of tea. I didn't really appreciate this movie until the second viewing. To each their own.

I haven't been fu(ked like that since grade school.

[–] ogjmc96 11 years ago

I couldn't agree more. I have no idea why people love this film. It's utterly formulaic and tedious. Most of the cast seem to be cut from cardboard (aside from de Niro's Capone, which is good).

Sean Connery is not in the least convincing and his role is painfully cheesy. It all seems rather preposterous and over-the-top. Having said that, I've never been a huge Brian De Palma fan anyway.

Still, I don't see why this gangster "classic" is so highly-rated.

[–] axxonnn 11 years ago

I gave it a 7 because it's got the usual thumping kick of a De Palma picture, but you're quite right that the film seems to be confused in which direction to go in thematically. It's a bit silly and cheesy in places, and then paradoxically heavy in others.