L.A. Takedown (1989)

A different way of telling a story

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Yeah I know every review will inevitably compare this film to its far bigger budget remake. Upon watching the two films back-to-back though I have to say that there are a few things I do enjoy better about this slimmer and more streamlined film than the more bloated HEAT.For one, although I'm a huge fan of De Niro and Pacino, I found Scott Plank and Alex MacArthur much more serious and believable in their roles as far younger up-and-comers with something to prove. MacArthur especially exudes a calm intensity with a little more (albeit tactically restrained) fire under the collar than you'd usually see in a character like this.Secondly, I love the supporting cast here. Instead of the likes of Danny Trejo, Jeremy Piven, and Hank Azaria, we get a little more of a B-crew with some solid work from character actors Juan Fernandez (SALVADOR), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, and FLASH GORDON himself Sam J. Jones as some jerk at the bar. Instead of Wes Studi and Ted Levene, we get Richard Chaves (PREDATOR) and Daniel Baldwin. Perennial "that guy" character actor Xander Berkeley plays Waingrow much more as a sniveling wannabe than an actual tough-guy, but I think it actually works better and gives more menace to the character.Oddly enough this film crosses over a lot with the cheeseball Spanish ABYSS knockoff ENDLESS DESCENT in that both movies feature Ely Pouget (who turns in some great work) as the leading lady and open with a shot of the protagonist coming out of a hangover with one foot sticking out from under the sheets. They were both made the same year too! Go figure.TAKEDOWN sorely misses the violence, class, and action of HEAT but still has some pretty heavy stuff considering the budget and the time in which it was made. Mann handles the bank robbery as well as anything you would have seen on "Crime Story" and doesn't skimp on the weaponry in the big set-piece shootouts. I was actually delighted to see them cut out much of the romance and needless character development that HEAT got so wrapped up in (especially in terms of the cook/getaway driver, here played by an extra as opposed to the distractingly Allstate-ed up Dennis Haysbert).There's a few plot differences, but not many as several scenes are line-by-line the same. The ending's a bit of a delight though and much more of a surprise than what we got in HEAT. My only beef with this film has to do with the bad sound and flat TV cinematography. Worth tracking down if you can find a decent copy.

First off, this was a TV movie that appeared years before HEAT and once again its a TV movie. So it was generally PG type rating. It premiered on a Sunday night. When I saw it was by Michael Mann I recorded it on VHS. It was the 80s, and the drama was intense for TV viewing. Adding cursing and more violent action does not make it better. And the version I viewed online as Crimewave was a reworking of the TV movie. You can't compare a TV movie to a Theatrical remake. The budget was bigger, more grandiose and high profile actors. I like the bank robbery version of the TV version. Two big name actor in the remake doesn't make it better. You can't compare an apple to an orange. It's like comparing Michael Rennie's Cyborg 2087 to the Terminator. Same storyline presented differently. I prefer L.A. Takedown to Heat. The same concept on two different mediums. A TV production with a limited budget and quickly shot to Theatrical version with bigger name actors (not necessarily better actors)larger budget, more well known actors.

Recap: A professional gang of robbers take down an armored car, killing the three guards in the process, in a spectacular way. This gets the attention of Vincent Hanna and his team on Robbery and Homicide. With some luck they get a lead on one of the robbers and soon they have the gang staked out. But they have no evidence and must catch them in the act. The robbers themselves starts to feel the heat, but still decide to do one last bank job, one that would get them enough money to vanish and retire. But Hanna is one their heels and a lethal showdown is held on the streets of LA.Comments: I know, it's not fair to compare movies. Movies should be measured and judged based on themselves. And especially it's not fair to compare a movie with classic and personal favorite Heat (1995). But in this case, it is inevitable. And actually a little interesting to see how the story has evolved since Michael Mann is responsible for both direction and script on both movies. The stories are very similar, not very surprising as Heat is a remake of LA Takedown (LA T).But there are a few key elements that makes Heat into a classic and LA T into "just" a good movie. First off, the actors in LA T are good, but they are not Pacino, De Niro, Kilmer or any of the other stars. As the dialog in many cases is identical it is easy to see that LA T cast can't deliver the same lines with quite the same intensity, suspense and emotion. Still, I want to emphasize that the LA T cast is good, especially the meeting between Hanna and McLaren is good. Another key difference is that the characters are much younger in LA T and hence not having acquired the experience and history and family that enriches Heat. And this is maybe the biggest difference of all. Heat is clearly much more thought through and analyzed, which is natural since it is the second try. Subplots are few in LA T, characters abruptly introduced and forgotten with no or few clues to their connection to the story. Those subplots are much more explored in Heat, and we get a broad complex view. In LA T the scene is simple and sometimes confusing from lack of explanation.Still some scenes are worth a good look. The mentioned meeting above is one. The (in Heat classical) shootout is very good also. But one does miss the depth of the characters, their personal history. Still, in itself a good movie, and very interesting to watch as comparison to Heat.6/10

The only reason why you have heard of this film is that people compare it with HEAT and say its the same. The truth is that the only thing simular to HEAT is the director and the story as in a cop vs bank robber.HEAT was an unbelievable film with the right amount of action and story to keep you at the edge of your seat like Goodfellas. This film on the other hand is complete rubbish, if your lucky you'll forget it the next day.OK! a few scenes are simular to HEAT but wheres the action and exploring of the characters. Thats why HEAT was so good it explored the characters which made you like them all.Another thing about this film is that you notice the location and lighting and its obviou it doesn't go..... i mean the location and lighting for some of the scenes were so bad that it makes you wonder maybe i should have been a director or a camera-man.This film is totally crap and those people who compare it to HEAT are wrong to do so...... HEAT is in another league..... u watch this film ur wastin ur time........ Good job its not as long as HEAT ! HA !