"Heat" should've been called "Lukewarm" (**ONE SPOILER AHEAD**)

Rating: Null/10 (1 June 2002)

I saw this movie when it first came out because I, like most people, couldn't wait to see Pacino and DeNiro finally act, FACE TO FACE, in a movie together. And I also figured that the story was probably poignant and powerful if it was able to attract those 2 heavyweight actors. So my expectations going in were very high; when the closing credits were scrolling up the screen, I said to myself "Hmm, well, okay, it was good, but was that the best Michael Mann could do???"
You see, any movie starring PACINO and DENIRO can't just be good--it has to be freakin' AMAZING, EXCELLENT, RIVETING. And this movie was none of those things. Let's face it, "Heat" is really just a cops-and-robbers TV show padded up with fancy, swirling cinematography, a high-wattage cast (also including Voight, Kilmer, Judd, Portman, Levine, etc.), a big budget, and epic treatment. How many times have we seen movies about an obsessive cop going after a hardened, seen-it-all bank robber??
Mann tries to disguise his trite, cliched story by trying to have us believe his version is somehow "different" or deeper by providing subplots involving Pacino's unfulfilled wife, DeNiro's tentative relationship with Amy Brenneman (whose character is the least interesting and most thankless of all the roles), Kilmer's hot/cold marriage, and other little subplots that seem to exist for no reason other than to create filler so that this simple cops-and-robbers story can seem Epic, Grand. The problem with these subplots is that each and every one of them are not particularly compelling or original: Pacino's wife wants him to spend more time with her, DeNiro wants to settle down with Brenneman but not before one last score, Kilmer's wife decides not to rat on him because...gasp...she loves him so much.
Don't get me wrong--I liked this movie more than I disliked it, but I'm being very hard on it because I feel that Mann didn't take full advantage of the opportunity he had. I feel like he was given the ingredients for a cake, and instead he gave us a cookie. And to add insult to injury, there's only ONE substantial scene between Pacino and DeNiro. Hey, that would've been fine if the movie was 1 hour and 40 minutes long, but the movie is 3 HOURS LONG, and the best Mann could do was give us a 5-MINUTE scene with two of the most legendary actors of our time???
There are at least half a dozen writer/directors who could've done the Pacino-DeNiro union better justice than Mann, especially in regard to the writing. (In fact, Mann went the lazy route and simply dusted off an old script he wrote years ago--"LA Takedown"--and updated it. How dare he!!) Mann's script is full of cliches and wooden dialogue. Can you imagine what a more talented writer/director like Tarantino could've done with a Pacino-DeNiro pairing?
So once again, I'll say: the movie was good, but not the "masterpiece" that a lot of people have proclaimed. For me, what makes this movie watchable is not the story, but the performances of the two leads. Some people have said that DeNiro's performance is better than Pacino's, but I think that both performances are equally worthy. Yes, Pacino's acting does get a little weird in a couple of places, but his character was the harder character to portray. Actors rarely admit this, but playing the Villain is easier than playing the Good Guy. Good Guys are boring...unless you try to give them texture and added dimensions to make them just as eye-catching as the Villains.
All I can do at this point is hope that Pacino and DeNiro agree to act together again in another, better movie.