I honestly don't get it.

Rating: 3/10 (24 March 2012)

Brian De Palma made his name working in films that scared and thrilled, primarily in the vein of Hitchcock, before trying to expand himself into new territory. One of those new territories was the gangster epic, which he jumped into with 1987's The Untouchables, written by David Mamet. He took the job primarily as a way to make a big studio movie that would turn a quick profit (after his last few pictures were financial failures) and allow him to make more movies that he wanted to. His lack of genuine passion is evident early on, resulting in a film that doesn't have much spark. It's a shame really, because the script could have allowed for a much stronger picture if better talent had been involved.
De Palma has long been a hit-or-miss director for me and this one misses the mark completely. There are some wonderfully staged sequences that entertain and properly build suspense, but for every bridge shootout there's an unintentionally hilarious moment like the baby rolling down the stairs. De Palma once again pours on his fetish for slow motion shots and once again it results in more hilarity than anything else, often feeling as if it's a parody that the audience isn't allowed in on. Mamet's script had the potential for a lot of punch, but beyond De Palma's poor work here is a cast that screams to be replaced.
Headlining the ensemble is Kevin Costner, the head of the titular squad of men organized to bring down legendary gangster Al Capone, and they really couldn't have found a more inappropriate lead if they tried. I'm not entirely sure how a lot of these scenes were able to make it past the editing room, but Costner trying to deliver Mamet dialogue is like Rob Schneider trying to read Shakespeare. There are so many scenes where you can see the passion and the rage that must have been on the script, but when Costner tries to bring it out of his mouth it comes off so forced, flat and borderline hilarious. Moments of damaged frustration have no meaning when the man portraying it sounds exactly the same as he always does. Costner is probably the worst thing about this picture, but the rest of the cast often leaves something to be desired as well.
Sean Connery inexplicably won an Oscar for his role here, and I can't say I'm entirely certain as to why he did. His character serves as a mentor to Costner's and there's a lot of the standard moments that come with that dynamic but after the film was over I felt nothing that resonated with his performance. I wouldn't say it's particularly bad as Costner was, but I felt nothing for the character, there was nothing there that allowed me to take him as a believable human being. Taking on the role of Capone is Robert De Niro in a performance that feels almost as wrong here as Costner's. De Niro is often over-the-top, hamming it up to a dreadful extreme, but even when he's not, the performance still stinks of self-awareness. There's never a moment where this guy is actually Capone, it's just Robert De Niro putting on some makeup.
The film isn't all bad, though. Like I said, there are some marvelously done sequences that are good enough to feel like they belong in a much better picture. Along with that, you can tell that Mamet's script itself could have been a quality work if it had been taken under the wing of a better group of actors or a director that cared more. I also thought that the film was shot incredibly well, with many scenes that left me impressed with their visual flare. Even when the film overall can fall into ruin, De Palma has always been a master at creating a memorable, unique and impressive style. I just deeply wish that it had been serviced by a better overall product.