Several problems...

Rating: 1/10 (22 September 2004)

Spoiler Alert Okay, I am baffled at the amount of the people who are in awe of this film. I, personally, think it's a decent film. That's me... not you. You probably love it (or hate it).. whatever. But, I don't care for it. And here's why:
1. When a film is complete fiction and based off of pure bull$hit, like Heat, then I expect an ending that correlates. For example, when I watch a documentary, I don't expect a happy ending, because I expect a documentary to be about a serious topic. When I watch The Godfather, I don't expect a happy ending, because The Godfather is supposed to be serious and in some ways realistic. But with Heat, the writer makes up a bunch of unbelievable crap and then ends the movie pretending to be serious. It's like the writer threw a bunch of bull$hit at you, then was like, "okay, time to take the film seriously!" Here's what I mean: There are several really unbelievable Hollywoodish things that happen. First, a big cop/criminal fight takes place that kills off a whole squad of police. Second, police work is back to normal the next day. Third, DeNiro's character and his buddy who *somehow* manages to survive an entire fleet of L.A.P.D officers (and slaughter them all) get away! Okay, that coooould happen... in a blue moon. But, further, somehow this DeNiro character decides to stick around town to finish old business - right - so these are professional criminals ("the Best!" right?) and they decide to stick around town and settle old business? Yeah right. In reality, those guys would take their money and run if they were "professionals." Fourth, somehow by some odd chance in a million, Pacino's character stumbles in a random hotel room with his stepdaughter... okay, I guess it's just his lucky week. Fifth, after DeNiro's character finishes off that psycho killer guy in his hotel room, he walks outside the room and shuts the door at which point an L.A.P.D officer holds a gun to his head and admonishes him to place his hands in the air... oh, but not this tough criminals. Somehow, this guy manages to backup into the cop's gun then make a 180 turn and knock the gun out of his hand and beat him! Sorry people, but that wouldn't ever happen unless that cop wasn't trained. Cops are trained to shoot when an armed criminal even brushes against them. DeNiro's character would have been dead the moment he touched that cop's gun barrel. But... this is all cool - I don't mind suspension belief when watching a film. What really pisses me off though is that the film has no moral compass. Essentially, two of the bad guys get away. That's bad! If a film is going to pull me through all this bull$hit and make me pretend to believe, then I better have an ending which makes it worth my while. This brings me to problem number 2.
2. Two bad guys got away. What kind of message is this film sending? Basically, the writer of this script is allowing justification for a criminal's actions. And for some reason everyone thinks that's cool. So, let me get this straight. Val Kilmer's character manages to kill several cops, destroy an L.A. street block, kill several innocent civilians, rob a bunch of banks and... and... by the end of the film, his skank girl friend (excuse the language) covers for him and he goes free. What's worse, the film tries to act like this is justice. As if we the audience should be smiling and happy that his morally backward girl friend would let this murderer go. What she did was selfish in regard to her son and immoral in regard to the people who this character killed. So, where the hell is the moral justice here? But that's not all. We have Pacino's character feeling sorry for DeNiro's character - how touching. So, this guy kills a bunch of people, but... but... it's his nature, so give him a break. WTF? Where's the justice in that? Basically, we have a film with a bad cop, a bunch of bad guys and no justice. But it seems no one gives a damn about justice at the end of films. People just want to see all of this completely unrealistic action, DeNiro and Pacino holding hands, and a bunch of criminals getting off at the end.
I agree, this film probably isn't about justice. It's neither about morals nor ethics. But, don't even try to tell me it's about realism! Heat is NOT realistic. So, what's that leave us with? An unrealistic film that pretends to be real.
Why do people like this film? Where's the good ending? Why does Mann write bad guys going free? Wouldn't it have been a lot nicer if Kilmer's character's girl friend would have actually obeyed the law and ratted him out? For God's sake, he killed a bunch of people and her child was on the line. C'mon people.