I liked the movie, but just because of the direction. The colours, the pulse of the city, the texture of the buldings and the car, the ligh, gorgeous. The story though was nothing special, boring at times and, most important, felt like one of dozen's movies I've seen. All in all, I prefer Heat by far.
shareMediocre script, huh? Sorry, but the script is brilliant on all levels. What you call "boring" I call a surprising amount of character exposition for the crime sub-genre. HEAT is a good movie, but I think you'll find that most smart filmgoers hold THIEF in considerably higher regard. I know I do.
shareYeah, THIEF is Michael Mann's best film (by far) and one of the best features in one of the best years in American movie history: 1981. That's the year that also gave us arguably the greatest pure adventure movie of the last half century, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, a near-perfect American comedy, ARTHUR, the great and gritty Arthurian fantasy EXCALIBUR, and Warren Beatty's brilliant romantic epic, REDS.
Far as I'm concerned, nothing on the big or small screen today can match the quality of those five movies.
I find it the opposite: mediocre direction and pretty good script. Mann's use of soundtrack music was overly loud and overused. A good movie doesn't need background music.
The diner scene was way too long. It was like Mann went from being Brian DePalma to John Cassavettes. It would have worked much better if he just placed the camera in one spot capturing both characters and let them ad lib.
http://www.youtube.com/user/themisfitsmessiah?feature=mhee
"A good movie doesn't need background music."
What about movies that were conceived with the intent of having background music, like all of Mann's films? Yes, there have been many great films that didn't have ambient music (e.g. THE PANIC IN NEEDLE PARK, THE CHINA SYNDROME), but some require it because they were always meant to have it. THIEF is one such film. Clearly.
"The diner scene was way too long. It was like Mann went from being Brian DePalma to John Cassavettes."
The diner scene is one of my favorite scenes in the film. In fact, it's one of the most expertly written and acted scenes in the whole of Hollywood's 1980s output, where I'm concerned. I was so happy to see the film slow down (WAY down) and force the viewer to drink in that tough, beautiful and ultra-realistic exchange between two flawed, lonely, aging people in the midst of an otherwise kinetic crime thriller. Regarding your Cassavetes remark (that's spelled with one "T"), what's wrong with paying tribute to Cassavetes? You're right, as Mann is highly influenced by John's work (there's a bit near the end of THIEF in which the camera rack-focuses from Caan's face to the muzzle of his gun and back to Caan's face again, which is a direct homage to Cassavetes' THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE).
By the way, I'm not sure why you think the diner scene would have worked better as one shot with improv acting. That statement is in direct conflict with your assertion that the scene was "way too long". Huh? Then again, you said the film has "mediocre direction", so I probably shouldn't expect too much in the way of rational thought.
I really enjoy Cassavetes work(there I spelled it correctly!) hence if the scene was done in one shot and improvised would have captured his unique style.
Your passion for the diner scene is well noted. I may go back and even re-watch it now. However we can argue to the death about the background music for this film. It is jarring and detracts from the story. It may work well in other films but not here. It is like a nice suit but worn from someone who is one size too small.
http://www.youtube.com/user/themisfitsmessiah?feature=mhee
A good movie doesn't need background music.
Amazing direction? Really?
share