Not 'Untouchable', but still better than many better films ...

Rating: 8/10 (2 September 2011)

Paraphrasing Jimmy Malone, I would say that Brian De Palma's "Untouchables" fulfilled the basic rules of cinematic entertainment. But when a film had so many natural predispositions for greatness, this isn't saying much.
First, the strengths. The costume design and the restitution of the 30's Chicago is so authentic that some beautiful panoramic shots make you feel like traveling back to the prohibition years, on that level, the film is the triumph of meticulous perfectionism and sense of detail conceded even by the most virulent detractors. The direction works, though trying sometimes to impress with unnecessary dizzying shots. De Palma, after all, proved to be a great director for such intense films as "Carrie" or "Scarface", with his unique ability to oscillate between calm and suspenseful moments to extraordinarily effective outburst of bloody violence, conveyed by the beautiful part-thrilling part-haunting score by Ennio Morricone. The movie was handled by professionals who knew their business and had everything to be one of the best.
But it needed one thing: a script, a kick-ass one with the guts and the energy that Oliver Stone masterfully injected in the veins of "Scarface". The movie had the heart but not the passion, the instinct but not the soul. You know something is wrong when you can predict a line or a reaction, when the Mounty Police chief expressed his disagreement, I saw the "You're not from Chicago" coming, and even the last line, a damn good one, had the forced look on that journalist's face as if he was thinking "God, what a bad-ass, that Elliott Ness!" By the way, that journalist had a strange ability to point his nose at any convenient occasion until he became an annoying running gag. Still, despite some embarrassing wastes of good lines, it's easy to put that into perspective.
In fact, the script sinned more on the characterization and storytelling department, it lacked that spicy something that elevates and develops both the characters and the story in a symbiotic manner. Take Elliott Ness, played by Kevin Costner, more than any inner quality, he certainly owes his appeal to his pretty boyish look and his belonging to the right side of the right side of the law at a time where most of Chicago's police officers were on Al Capone's pay-roll, and the scenes involving his wife and daughter didn't even help. His combat against Al Capone lacked this tormenting desire or internal conflict that would enrich Ness' personality and erases this 'civil servant'-type devotion to duty. At the end, he exuded a sort of naive vulnerability and 'boy-scouts' innocence, that I ended up rooting for him. He was like the kid who wanted to be the hero ... but I didn't snob the pleasure to root for him, especially the film made it clear that it didn't intend to be a masterpiece.
Now, to the shadowy guy on the poster's top. The trailer starts with "Robert De Niro is Al Capone", this sentence enough probably helped to guarantee half of the movie's success : one of the most respected and bas-ass actors at the peak of his career, portraying the most iconic gangster. De Niro was the 'AL'ibi for his antagonist's dull-Ness, but the trailer was still misleading. I love De Niro but he was too comical for such a serious film, and I can't think in all seriousness that he really expects us NOW to take this role seriously. I try to repress some aberrations my eyes witnessed, like a villainous grin in his face while reading the news of Ness' first flop. Though every actor is allowed to some mistakes, we can't blame everything on the script. But let's not be so severe, the movie had the villain and the hero it deserved, one over and one under the top, canceling out each other's negative effects through an improbably harmony. Both were interestingly nominated for AFI's Top 100 'Heroes and Villains' list, no need to mention that neither was selected.
But these considerations hardly matter for despite all these technical faults, the movie kind of redeems itself once we mourned the masterpiece it could have been and start enjoying an innate greatness hidden beneath these campy elements. The pillar of "The Untouchables" is without a doubt the scene stealing performance of Sean Connery as Jimmy Malone, and I don't even care of the accent. I'm not supposed to tell between Scottish and Irish accents (well I do, but he could as well have had a Cuban accent), I hate to kill my enjoyment of a film for such superficial and so-called purist issues, especially when it's not significant to the plot. Connery had the best lines, the best scenes, and was the true leader of the group. Honourable mention by the way to the other untouchables : Charles Martin Smith as Oscar Wallace and Andy Garcia as 'George Stone".
The other highlights of the film occur in many unforgettable scenes, one featuring a dinner table and the other, a train station, proving De Palma's directing ability to create suspenseful situations with the patience and talent of a craftsman. The film proved that for the depiction of cinematic violence, De Palma deserves more than a honorable mention. So I guess people went hard on his film because they expected much more, because he had everything to make a masterpiece out of the Prohibition, and avenge "Once Upon a Time in America". I simply hope that those who criticize "The Untouchables" for being over the top, campy or laughable, start looking at "Scarface" with a more serious eye and realize its greatness in comparison.
Anyway, if the movie is victim of the Costner syndrome, as becoming the cool-to-be-hated thing, it also became one of the most famous gangster films ever, despite or thanks to its flaws, who knows? "Miller's Crossing" is certainly better on every level, but I sure will watch "The Untouchables" instead, anytime.