No offense, but, you guys are too soy for movies like Heat. I assume you'd connect more to anime, cartoons, superheroes, etc. Fantasy realities where archetypes of weak people deploy magical powers in order to avoid constant victimization.

I read and enjoyed Robert Rodriguez's book 'Rebel Without A Crew' years ago when it was first released on the making of the movie, as well as seeing the movie itself in Boston when it was first released. I recall all the publicity Rodriguez received from making movie and how it launched his career but here's my question after reading the book: Whatever happened to Carlos Gallardo, Rodriguez's friend who starred in the original movie and according to Rodriquez, also worked as a location scout? About half way through Rodriquez's book he goes from using the term "We" to using "I" a lot more when discussing the movie. Gallardo, who accompanies Rodriquez to CA to try and sell the film, and apparently helps Rodriquez in several ways, seems to have been dropped completely by his friend Rodriguez about half way through the book's Post Production phase onward. While I understand that it was Rodriquez who wrote and directed the movie my big question is: Did Carlos Gallardo ever get paid for all his work and time and starring in the movie? If it wasn't for him, there would've been no "El Mariachi"!!! Just seems to me that when he didn't need him anymore, and he starts to get studios and agencies and production companies interested in him, and offering him large amounts of $$$$, he drops his 'friend' Carlos like a hot potato!

My take. Cimino said publicly that the father of Angela's baby was Nick. I (wrongly) always thought it was Michael's. When I heard this, my perspective of the whole film changed. There is no "innocence" in the film. Everyone is guilty of something. The entire wedding is a sham and nobody stops it. Angela is lying (even spills the wine on her dress), Nick is lying by not accepting his responsibility, Steven is lying by going along with the charade, Stosh knows and tells Michael, Michael denies it but he knows...the bridesmaids probably know. Steven's mother knows and tries to convince the priest but he doesn't listen and continues to prepare for the ceremony. Eventually, Steven's mother even stops objecting to the marriage and goes along. Betrayal is everywhere with these people. I find the wedding portion to be far more important (although not as dramatic) than the Vietnam portion. The Vietnam piece is intense but overall a distraction to what the movie is really about. There is foreshadowing and symbolism everywhere in this movie. I have seen it many times and each time I discover something new. It is an amazing film.

To say its a trope, this was the first movie to touch on the hurt and healing of 9/11.

This kind of movie fills me with wonder at how mere make-believe stories can be so enthralling.

The answer is yes

I'm glad you guys liked the film. Mark Kermode really hates it, I don't know exactly why and don't agree with him about the performances, I do admit that the portrayal of the Vietnamese soldiers is not positive, but I didn't think the film was trying to get us to hate them, I don't see it as a propaganda film, I just thought the focus was more broadly anti-war in general rather than a specific critique of US operations. If anything I thought it did demonstrate in the scenes in Saigon that the US presence in the country had not given the people anything, that Saigon under US occupation was very corrupt, I didn't come to the conclusion that this was a propaganda film in favour of the war at all. Also I didn't think it was made to raise 'awareness of Russian roulette in Vietnam', that's a very literalist reading of the film. The film for me was about how war destroys lives, that was the central message of the film and I feel like they succeeded at that. I would like to add I am a fan of Mark Kermode as a critic to this day, I just feel this is a film he and I disagree on, so I didn't mean to write this as an anti-Kermode comment.

Parts relate to each other to the point that you get narrative black hole. As parts fold into each other. Ends up being cerebral (although still emotionally focussed by having music etc). Breaking down parts is cerebral. That tension helps to personalise the movie but also set it apart (everyone is everyone but also each story is unique) He gets to listen to Ellen like he wanted from Hazel (can you just tell me what to do). Subjectivity emerging because you get to fill in gaps from complex cerebral movie

Hank dressed up like the cops from the Sabotage video.

My favourite film 🤍

Cool

I've seen this film countless times. And only recently I occurred to me that Marla doesn't exist either. Yet the signs are their all the way through the film. Absolutely brilliant.

Just saw it in theaters a rough watch in the most resonating way possible. Flew by

Nice👍

Why can't I find this movie anywhere I want to watch it

Cc

What made me question is Nick originally found Mike in that Russian Roulette gambling place. What was Mike doing there?

Im 41 now and i still love this movie! when i first saw it i always had this adventurous mindset and love for the great unknown, and i still do til this day! I do however agree about the video game level scene. That took me out of it for a bit lol

Cha-mino

anytime anyone on youtube says “i’ll link ____ in the description” they literally never do

People refer to Point Break in regards to the Fast & the furious, but the Fast & the furious has nearly the exact same plot as No Man's Land from 1987 (with Charlie Sheen, D.B. Sweeney, and other name actors) - though that is less ridiculous, and Porsche-centric. No Man's Land is pretty middle of the road, but I'd take it over any of the Fast & the furious stuff.

Maybe I am "spoiled" by the quality of modern films but seriously - this movie is really bad. "Italian Job" from 2003 has supergood plot, acting, action, humour and so on. Original movie is pretty much like a failed joke. Acting is awful ....overplayed or underplayed. I admit, that there are a few very good action scenes, but compared to 2003 movie its nothing. Plot is stupid. In 2003 movie there are ingenious plans to steal the gold, but in original there is simply a neanderthalean plot. Go and use bats. And probably the most awful thing is humour. There is not a single joke in this movie that made me laugh. It tries hard to be funny, but just isn't. They even casted Benny Hill in this thing to be funnier, but even Benny Hill Show is funnier than this catastrophy and that is an achievement. And then I see people saying that this thing is better than the 2003 version. People are you fucking serious?????????????

Amelie is my all time favourite film, and the first film I saw as a work of art, as opposed to pure entertainment. Quite simply, it's perfect...

Jonny Deep is the worst in the movie.

It's a good review, but you guys make the classic error. You just assume that this is an ordinary drama about four different characters: Abby, Bill, the Farmer, and the little girl, Linda. But it's not an ordinary drama, and it's not about four different characters. It's about one character, one person: Abby. The whole film takes place in Abby's soul. Once you see this, it's like looking at one of those 3D fractal posters and finally focusing your eyes correctly. The image pops out into three dimensions. You can't UN-see it any more. This is what we mean by Malick's "transcendental style." There's nothing else like it in cinema!

Oh yes the narrator as a film noir trope. Haha yeah a buddy cop!

My favorite boxing movie

I remember watching this many years ago, and I really enjoyed it. I'd have to watch it again to fully grasp the criticisms, but I think it was quite good, and both Cheadle and Sandler were outstanding.

Instead of comparing movies or stories enjoy them and they're uniqueness. The Coen Brothers are a rare breed of filmmaking. Everyone is entitled to they're own opinions

Is there an English version of this video? And thanks for giving away the ending to everyone.

It is a jumble mess, big jumble mess

I wouldn't recommend the deer hunter to anyone, there's very little value in it. Imagine being an American invader, a grapist, a m✓rd€r3®, a baby killer, and then make a movie about how you had shell shock and poor you. The vietnamese soldier was fighting for their land and their independence for 20 years against France and the UK when the u.s. got in and their teeth knocked out by a soldier they considered inferior. This movie is a shameful depiction of how the baby boomers justify their depravity.

Is ok 🎉

Ive loved Scoot since the first movie I encountered him in - 'In Search of a Midnight Kiss'. Only stumbled across it by accident a couple of years after its release. Ive also spent a lil bit of time in Central and South America, which gave me such great opportunities for documentary photography - meaning the character of Caulker was easy to relate to. Edwards worked REAL miracles with this, especially with the CGI (Id never have guessed some of the military vehicles seen interspersed in traffic were CGI). Kudos, too for touring Mexico with expensive equipment and minimal protection. This is why I love movies that take a more backseat, slow and documentary route through a narrative: when done with skill, it can be utterly immersive.

I passionately disagree with you guys. To me its a massively underrated movie, and it really sounds like you guys missed the point. Too bad.

Saw this in a movie theater in Manhattan back in the day. Its just an ass kicking movie with a mild 'dont be an asshole' message.

It's Cinematically stunning and enjoyable.

Just good fun.

Doesnt work for me.

Totally like your take, first half great, second half lacking in a lot , especially budget and production value.

This a one time only viewing film, for me. Never went back for another bite

Proto Goodfellas.

Watched this movie prob 3 or so times, thoroughly enjoyable. All actors superb.

Great epi, Sci Fi great genre. How about AI replaces Her, Altered States replaces Upstream, keep Interstellar, Martian replaces Sam Rockwell film, Close Encounters replaces Arrival, BladeRunner ( yes, yes, yes), Planet of the Apes replaces Sunshine, 2001 ( the gold standard), keep Star Wars. Honorable Mention being first Alien movie.

The BSs makes Peaky Blinders sound like Shakespeare.

CR , all thrill , no Fill.

Michael Caine is a Badass. Check out the 'Man who would be King', MC co-stars with Sean Connery. More ass kicking.

I consider this a minor gem, based on character development.

Barry Lyndon. Masterpiece.

Watched TDH prob 40 plus times as a teen, we really gobbled it up. That said, a criticism could be the contrived story line in Vietnam. It's a magnificent film. Check out 1978s 'The Boys in Company C' that covers similar ground, lots to absorb and enjoy.