One might think that this is by far inferior to Heat, the second attempt Mann got at this story, with a larger budget, longer running time and better(and definitely more well-known) actors. Comparisons are impossible to avoid, due to how well-known, popular, and, frankly, excellent the latter of these versions is. And yes, it is greater than this; Michael learned from his experiences making this one, and having watched one of these doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to pursue the other one, no, quite the opposite. And this isn't anywhere near as poor as could be feared or maybe even expected. The performances are nicely done, in a lot of the cases. The male leads do well, and are good casting choices, and that extends beyond those two. Yes, you can tell that this was produced for TV, but it's not as bad as with other movies of that type. The action is pretty decent. This gets some of the drama, and does actually develop characters on both sides of the law. The cinematography and editing are well-done. Pacing is fair. This is only 90 minutes, so about half of what the '95 effort is, and thus can't manage the same level of complexity. Meanwhile, it does well with what it's got. The DVD has biographies and a trailer. I recommend this to anyone who has or is considering watching the famed remake of this. 6/10
29 Reviews
An intelligent and gutsy movie
Dave Godin8 July 2001
L. A. TAKEDOWN is an extremely watchable film, and has a script that is permeated by a kind of grim intelligence. The characters, far from being plastic stereotypes, actually engage on a psychological level. Michael Mann directs with considerable skill, and most tellingly, knows how to use music to maximum effect. In this respect, his ability at times almost reaches the genius level of the Italian director Gillo Pontecorvo. But main honours in this film must go to Alex McArthur who gives an amazing performance of such skill and power that he actually conveys the very thoughts and feelings of his character through body language or facial expression. The scene where the two protagonists (the hoodlum and the cop) have coffee together is almost faultless in conveying the powerful emotions and tensions that are at work between them, as well as the mind-set which motivates each of the characters, and, for once, the various love scenes are convincing and important to the development of the narrative. Interestingly too, (although it perhaps happened by default since it was a film made for television), the actual violence that is a necessary part of the story is rendered perhaps even more powerfully by NOT being shown, or by happening off-camera. But to my mind, the film belongs to Alex McArthur who turns in one of the best acting performances I have seen in a very long time, which is able to make you both loathe and feel pity for his character at one and the same time. No mean feat!
late 80's TV movie, pushing the boundaries with its violence and cynicism
Aylmer14 September 2017
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.
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.
LA Takedown = Mann's blueprint for Heat
SimonL17 November 1998
This is the original version of what we now know as the modern classic Heat. If you watch LA Takedown and Heat, you will see many of the scenes paralleled. LA Takedown is not a great movie, but it does make an interesting companion to its superior counterpart. Worth watching for this reason alone.
Intense, controlled and very enjoyable thriller
LouE1529 April 2008
I recently saw a clip of this Michael Mann 1989 TV movie on a video clips website, and it served to remind me just how much I'd loved owning this film on VHS years back. I'm going to seek it out on DVD, and you can keep "Heat" for which this is the precursor I won't envy you a jot. I don't care how good De Niro and Pacino are, I don't care how interesting (or not) are the lives of the supporting characters, I don't care how much better quality the later film may have been: there's just a zinging energy about "LA Takedown" something really, really taut, pushing and exciting that seems absolutely of its time, absolutely right for the story so much so that it's "Heat" that now seems out of time.
The two leads Scott Plank's fearless cop Vincent and Alex McArthur's isolated career criminal Patrick should be singled out for particular praise in a generally well-cast movie. Some reviewers have said they think the performances are hammy: I disagree. I think they're misunderstanding a sharp, dramatic script which is punchy, spare, to the point much like the two lead characters themselves. Vincent and Patrick's memorable coffee shop meeting is extraordinarily tense and dynamic: their controlled exteriors masking fierce intensity. Their rapid-fire exchanges reveal nothing and everything: Vincent the live wire, excited by the criminality he chases down even as he does so systematically; Patrick the warrior-monk, alone with his rigid samurai code. He speaks slowly and clearly, and to me it isn't ham: it's that he doesn't want a single thing around him to be misunderstood. But even he can't control everything. In many ways this is 1980s film noir - in classic noir style, there must of course be a woman in the background, to affect the course of events.
This is definitely David to the Goliath of "Heat", but I highly recommend it. Don't listen to that other lot "Heat" is bloated and over-long by comparison to this tight project.
The two leads Scott Plank's fearless cop Vincent and Alex McArthur's isolated career criminal Patrick should be singled out for particular praise in a generally well-cast movie. Some reviewers have said they think the performances are hammy: I disagree. I think they're misunderstanding a sharp, dramatic script which is punchy, spare, to the point much like the two lead characters themselves. Vincent and Patrick's memorable coffee shop meeting is extraordinarily tense and dynamic: their controlled exteriors masking fierce intensity. Their rapid-fire exchanges reveal nothing and everything: Vincent the live wire, excited by the criminality he chases down even as he does so systematically; Patrick the warrior-monk, alone with his rigid samurai code. He speaks slowly and clearly, and to me it isn't ham: it's that he doesn't want a single thing around him to be misunderstood. But even he can't control everything. In many ways this is 1980s film noir - in classic noir style, there must of course be a woman in the background, to affect the course of events.
This is definitely David to the Goliath of "Heat", but I highly recommend it. Don't listen to that other lot "Heat" is bloated and over-long by comparison to this tight project.
In some ways superior to "Heat"
ndrejaj196911 March 2003
I finally got a hold of a copy of this (deliberately?) forgotten made-for-TV film. A busted NBC pilot, it was remade by Michael Mann six years later with major studio backing and high-calibre star support. Gotta give Mann some credit,few filmmakers would have the gall to bother with such an effort. "Heat" is a scene-for-scene, frame-by-frame remake, so watching this was a lot of fun. LAT is sort of a scrappier kid brother version to the elegant, but soulless remake. Its far more frenzied/hyper. It has the look and feel of a William Friedkin film. (Mann has got the carreer Freidkin deserves) And it oozes with late 80s styles and fashion. The performances are fine, especially the two leads. At least they're more naturalistic and less self conscious than the DeNiro/Pacino team. Action wise, LAT holds out well to its bloated remake, including the bank shootout. This film even shows a little more concern for the "collateral damage" (i.e cops and civilians) than '95 version. Not a masterpiece, but a very good action flik with heart and moxie.
Is this a remake?
jfgibson7323 August 2021
So there's something to be said for remakes after all...
Kuntos_the_Destroyer8 July 2001
Most people who see L.A. Takedown nowadays will see it for one reason: the fact that director Michael Mann remade this as Heat starring Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino in the Alex McArthur and Scott Plank roles. And that is basically the only reason why you would want to see this, unless you're an avid fan of '80 cop shows (there's even an detective-on-the-prowl-style montage).
When you watch this as I did (after seeing the brilliant Heat) you'll be pretty surprised by how much of L.A. Takedown went into Heat. From the opening heist to that famous coffeebar scene, a lot in both movies is identical, from characters to dialogue to camera angles. Most differences between both films are actually additions (which, of course, make Heat a good hour longer than L.A. Takedown). The Chris Shehirlis character (Val Kilmer in Heat) is basically an extra in L.A. Takedown as is the getaway driver for the bank robbery. Ah yes, the bank robbery. It's present here too, although of course, it doesn't last for nearly fifteen minutes (try three). Then whole subplots from Heat (for instance the one featuring Vincent Hanna's daughter) are absent and the ending is quite different, causing L.A. Takedown to lack the almost epic feel of Heat. Still, a lot of what is L.A. Takedown went on to become Heat.
And that's why L.A. Takedown merits viewing; to see how this film evolved from a cheaply made, averagely entertaining TV pilot show to what may just be the crime movie of the nineties. Many of the differences concerning the script I've already mentioned. The other main differences lie in acting and direction. To say that someone named Scott Plank (yes, plank) is not up there with Al Pacino is hardly surprising. But Plank is really pretty embarassing in this, coming across as someone who's copying crap TV-show acting like that from shows such as Hunter or Miami Vice. Even more embarassing is McArthur, who doesn't succeed in bringing any of his character's complexity to light (his character is actually pretty well developed in the script, which makes McArthur 'performance' even worseand it's the only character whose name was changed for Heat - don't ask me why). The rest of the cast isn't even worthy of comparison with their Heat counterparts.
As for directing, L.A. Takedown actually lookes pretty good, given that's it's a cheap TV movie. As said, some camerawork is very literally repeated in Heat (the opening heist is just one example), but L.A. Takedown is more coloured than Heat. Heat may be very stylised, the reality aspect of it was never looked over. In L.A. Takedown the stylism is present, but the realism takes a back seat, as dark streets and dim lights convey the traditional view of L.A. as a seedy place. But although the technical brilliance of Heat's cinematographer Dante Spinotti is clearly missed, L.A. takedown is visually not that bad.
In short: L.A. Takedown is not a good movie, and by itself not even remarkable. It is however a very interesting companion to Heat and both movies combined show that what you should remake is bad movies with unused potential, not good movies.
Rating: 4/10 (Heat: 9/10)
When you watch this as I did (after seeing the brilliant Heat) you'll be pretty surprised by how much of L.A. Takedown went into Heat. From the opening heist to that famous coffeebar scene, a lot in both movies is identical, from characters to dialogue to camera angles. Most differences between both films are actually additions (which, of course, make Heat a good hour longer than L.A. Takedown). The Chris Shehirlis character (Val Kilmer in Heat) is basically an extra in L.A. Takedown as is the getaway driver for the bank robbery. Ah yes, the bank robbery. It's present here too, although of course, it doesn't last for nearly fifteen minutes (try three). Then whole subplots from Heat (for instance the one featuring Vincent Hanna's daughter) are absent and the ending is quite different, causing L.A. Takedown to lack the almost epic feel of Heat. Still, a lot of what is L.A. Takedown went on to become Heat.
And that's why L.A. Takedown merits viewing; to see how this film evolved from a cheaply made, averagely entertaining TV pilot show to what may just be the crime movie of the nineties. Many of the differences concerning the script I've already mentioned. The other main differences lie in acting and direction. To say that someone named Scott Plank (yes, plank) is not up there with Al Pacino is hardly surprising. But Plank is really pretty embarassing in this, coming across as someone who's copying crap TV-show acting like that from shows such as Hunter or Miami Vice. Even more embarassing is McArthur, who doesn't succeed in bringing any of his character's complexity to light (his character is actually pretty well developed in the script, which makes McArthur 'performance' even worseand it's the only character whose name was changed for Heat - don't ask me why). The rest of the cast isn't even worthy of comparison with their Heat counterparts.
As for directing, L.A. Takedown actually lookes pretty good, given that's it's a cheap TV movie. As said, some camerawork is very literally repeated in Heat (the opening heist is just one example), but L.A. Takedown is more coloured than Heat. Heat may be very stylised, the reality aspect of it was never looked over. In L.A. Takedown the stylism is present, but the realism takes a back seat, as dark streets and dim lights convey the traditional view of L.A. as a seedy place. But although the technical brilliance of Heat's cinematographer Dante Spinotti is clearly missed, L.A. takedown is visually not that bad.
In short: L.A. Takedown is not a good movie, and by itself not even remarkable. It is however a very interesting companion to Heat and both movies combined show that what you should remake is bad movies with unused potential, not good movies.
Rating: 4/10 (Heat: 9/10)
"Heat" draft
PlamenVT11 January 2009
Since I'm a fan of "Heat" I took the time to watch the preliminary material which Michael Mann created after long-lasting struggle to make his dream movie come true.
Mann decided that he waited enough for a big-time production and to use this great script for TV release with the intention to continue it to a TV series.
But, let's get to the point...
1. Pros:
1.1 I've read the 1994 revision of the script, which included unrealized shots and dialogue in the 1995's "Heat". The good thing about "L.A. Takedown" is that you have the chance to see some of those good lines and additional storyline, which serves as a bonus to what you already saw in "Heat".
1.2. Directing was very decent, but anyway I wouldn't recognize it that Mann stays behind it if I didn't knew already.
1.3 You can see the growth from the original version to the remake as Heat. Comparing LA Takedown to Heat you can recognize the development and decisions which Mann took in order to make "Heat" such a classic that it is.
2. Cons:
2.1 Poor Cast & Acting. Since it is TV low budget movie I guess we couldn't expect more but this was some "piece of work". Hanna's character was developed Okay, but that's all. Patrick McLaren (a.k.a. Neil in Heat) was a complete nightmare, it doesn't correspond to the image you can visualize in the script. I know that the benchmark is too high having such a great cast for Heat - comparison is out of the question.. Nevertheless those wanna-be actors on LA Takedown doesn't even deserve to be chosen for a porn movie with a storyline...
3. Bottom line: if you are a fan of "Heat" and Michael Mann - see it for the above mentioned pros.. It's like looking at the draft of Mona Lisa or some other masterpiece - so it is kinda of interesting... If you are not a fan - then it is a waste of time.
Mann decided that he waited enough for a big-time production and to use this great script for TV release with the intention to continue it to a TV series.
But, let's get to the point...
1. Pros:
1.1 I've read the 1994 revision of the script, which included unrealized shots and dialogue in the 1995's "Heat". The good thing about "L.A. Takedown" is that you have the chance to see some of those good lines and additional storyline, which serves as a bonus to what you already saw in "Heat".
1.2. Directing was very decent, but anyway I wouldn't recognize it that Mann stays behind it if I didn't knew already.
1.3 You can see the growth from the original version to the remake as Heat. Comparing LA Takedown to Heat you can recognize the development and decisions which Mann took in order to make "Heat" such a classic that it is.
2. Cons:
2.1 Poor Cast & Acting. Since it is TV low budget movie I guess we couldn't expect more but this was some "piece of work". Hanna's character was developed Okay, but that's all. Patrick McLaren (a.k.a. Neil in Heat) was a complete nightmare, it doesn't correspond to the image you can visualize in the script. I know that the benchmark is too high having such a great cast for Heat - comparison is out of the question.. Nevertheless those wanna-be actors on LA Takedown doesn't even deserve to be chosen for a porn movie with a storyline...
3. Bottom line: if you are a fan of "Heat" and Michael Mann - see it for the above mentioned pros.. It's like looking at the draft of Mona Lisa or some other masterpiece - so it is kinda of interesting... If you are not a fan - then it is a waste of time.
HEAT mk I
kevin c4 September 2001
Mann is one of the best directors around, so it's interesting to catch some of his early 'Miami Vice' phase work. The film is virtually scene-for-scene the same as it's Mann re-make "Heat". It also comes with a more user-friendly running time than it's remake. Ultimately it's a TV movie, and the fact that not one of the actors went onto international acclaim won't come as a surprise.
Misjudged Genre Changer
Jerominator3 July 2013
OK so I'd probably have given this a 9 but felt the rating was disproportionately low and no doubt reflects Heat fans deliberately rating this down to show partisan support for their beloved Heat, rather than because they actually disliked this movie that much. Just a hunch! It's amazing to me how easily people will be polarised on a trivial issue. It's the same director FFS! What's the point of blindly hating one and adoring the other. It's not a football match.
Forgetting about the bloody remake for a minute, you've got try to imagine this movie framed in the context of 1989. It was re-inventing an extremely tired genre with a brand new style. Rather than lazily re-hashing the hackneyed cops good/crooks evil template, it attempted to give a believable account of how a specialist team of cops and a serious crew of crooks operated on different sides of the same coin. It tries to make you sympathise with both sides which was *incredibly* rare back then. It introduced shockingly believable and cold violence which was even rarer.
Whatever you make of this now, you need to at least acknowledge that it would've been ground breaking and original when it came out, and lets face it, that there would have been no Heat if it weren't for this.
When I bought this on DVD 10 years or so ago I noticed a couple of things that may have contributed to the bad reviews.
First of all there was the appalling quality of the DVD recording - that really takes a lot away from the style of the movie and that's just unfortunate. Maybe down to bad storage or just a cheap pressing of the DVD.
Secondly was how dated it looked. OK so Michael Mann's original batch of 80s movies/TV series were never going to age well because they whole-heartedly celebrated 80s fashion, design, architecture, language and style. This worked so well on screen back then. The zeitgeist of the 80s was brutally different to what had preceded it - a bold industrial/chic/sanitised re-imagining of a stale flower power, earthy world. Some rejected it, others embraced it. Among those who embraced it were movie directors like Michael Mann, and John Hughes. Sure, 5 or 6 fashion fads later and it looks dated and ridiculous. Well guess what, that's exactly what those guys made of the 60s/70s fashions that they were rejecting and that's what the next batch will make of fashion now and so on and so on. That's no reason to close the door on art produced in a particular era. You've got to think bigger than that or you're going to miss out on some amazing old movies.
There's a hell of a lot in the very well written dialogue which beautifully captures the values of the time it was made, e.g. "I'm a heavy hitter, I travel in circles, you know, like strata, strata at the top see? Cos I have access to some of the most precious commodity on Earth - information, data." If it sounds corny now, well remember it sounded sharp back then.
Very few people agree with this but I honestly preferred the original Scott Plank and Alex McArthur as the cop/crook. I thought they were much more believable in those roles than the aging DeNiro and Pacino. DeNiro gave it his best but if I had to guess which out of him and McArthur had been inside serving time, I'd go with McArthur every time - he comes over as a very convincing psychopath who could kick off at any moment. As for Pacino, I think he was having a bit of laugh with his character in Heat to be honest - "...great ass" etc. Scott Plank was actually convincing as an ex marine turned cop capable of sprinting down the street hauling an assault rifle and after a crew that had taken down a bank.
I also prefer Vincent Guastaferro to Sizemore as the driver, and Xander Berkeley has to be better as the weaselly, desperate, wannabe tough guy Waingro. The guy in Heat was way too tough and mean looking to play that part.
Sure so more money's going to lead to tighter production, better music, better effects etc. No brainer. But in terms of capturing the spirit of the story, the locations, the characters & the interplay between them, LA Takedown wins for me.
I do like Heat in its own right, but I will always prefer LA Takedown because it was the original and it is steeped in the time it was intended for. Just like I'll always infinitely prefer the 1964 Ford Mustang to the current remake even though it should always lose on paper. It's about originality, class, and the spirit of the era that went into it.
Forgetting about the bloody remake for a minute, you've got try to imagine this movie framed in the context of 1989. It was re-inventing an extremely tired genre with a brand new style. Rather than lazily re-hashing the hackneyed cops good/crooks evil template, it attempted to give a believable account of how a specialist team of cops and a serious crew of crooks operated on different sides of the same coin. It tries to make you sympathise with both sides which was *incredibly* rare back then. It introduced shockingly believable and cold violence which was even rarer.
Whatever you make of this now, you need to at least acknowledge that it would've been ground breaking and original when it came out, and lets face it, that there would have been no Heat if it weren't for this.
When I bought this on DVD 10 years or so ago I noticed a couple of things that may have contributed to the bad reviews.
First of all there was the appalling quality of the DVD recording - that really takes a lot away from the style of the movie and that's just unfortunate. Maybe down to bad storage or just a cheap pressing of the DVD.
Secondly was how dated it looked. OK so Michael Mann's original batch of 80s movies/TV series were never going to age well because they whole-heartedly celebrated 80s fashion, design, architecture, language and style. This worked so well on screen back then. The zeitgeist of the 80s was brutally different to what had preceded it - a bold industrial/chic/sanitised re-imagining of a stale flower power, earthy world. Some rejected it, others embraced it. Among those who embraced it were movie directors like Michael Mann, and John Hughes. Sure, 5 or 6 fashion fads later and it looks dated and ridiculous. Well guess what, that's exactly what those guys made of the 60s/70s fashions that they were rejecting and that's what the next batch will make of fashion now and so on and so on. That's no reason to close the door on art produced in a particular era. You've got to think bigger than that or you're going to miss out on some amazing old movies.
There's a hell of a lot in the very well written dialogue which beautifully captures the values of the time it was made, e.g. "I'm a heavy hitter, I travel in circles, you know, like strata, strata at the top see? Cos I have access to some of the most precious commodity on Earth - information, data." If it sounds corny now, well remember it sounded sharp back then.
Very few people agree with this but I honestly preferred the original Scott Plank and Alex McArthur as the cop/crook. I thought they were much more believable in those roles than the aging DeNiro and Pacino. DeNiro gave it his best but if I had to guess which out of him and McArthur had been inside serving time, I'd go with McArthur every time - he comes over as a very convincing psychopath who could kick off at any moment. As for Pacino, I think he was having a bit of laugh with his character in Heat to be honest - "...great ass" etc. Scott Plank was actually convincing as an ex marine turned cop capable of sprinting down the street hauling an assault rifle and after a crew that had taken down a bank.
I also prefer Vincent Guastaferro to Sizemore as the driver, and Xander Berkeley has to be better as the weaselly, desperate, wannabe tough guy Waingro. The guy in Heat was way too tough and mean looking to play that part.
Sure so more money's going to lead to tighter production, better music, better effects etc. No brainer. But in terms of capturing the spirit of the story, the locations, the characters & the interplay between them, LA Takedown wins for me.
I do like Heat in its own right, but I will always prefer LA Takedown because it was the original and it is steeped in the time it was intended for. Just like I'll always infinitely prefer the 1964 Ford Mustang to the current remake even though it should always lose on paper. It's about originality, class, and the spirit of the era that went into it.
Perhaps Mann should take me out to breakfast.
film-critic21 December 2008
As a preliminary draft to "Heat", Mann's made-for-TV crime drama about a gung-ho cop and a professional criminal works. It lays the foundation for the bigger-budget film in which Pacino and De Niro hone their chops, but as a stand alone film "LA Takedown" (or as I watched it "Made in LA") is a dated, censored look at a bigger picture. Having watched "Heat" first, and several times over, it is difficult not to make comparisons between the two films. It is reminiscent of watching the original "Gaslight" and the remake produced just four years later while in that case the original is better one cannot help but compare the differences. That is the case with Mann's TV outing. While it is impressive to see that Mann stuck with his original story, it is the characters that fail to live up to the "Heat" hype. Scott Plank and Alex McArthur are good actors, but they are no icons. Their squabble between each other seems staged, less emotional, and not quite as tense as seen in the later film. McArthur isn't as smart, Plank isn't as gruff, and what makes it work in "Heat" is the back story Mann creates. The world surrounding our characters in "Heat" makes them believable, more than just characters on a page while in this film, running at just an hour and a half, it is difficult to believe each character's squabbles. Both films are a character driven film, with two intense scenes of action, but without the characters, we couldn't have created the moments. I believe Mann realized that with "LA Takedown", and it is why "Heat" seems to focus more intently on our players.
Again, I am not one that likes to say one is obviously better than the other, but when looked out separately, "LA Takedown" would feel dated, tired, and confusing. It isn't a film to be remembered, which is why it probably hasn't been transferred to DVD yet, and perhaps forgotten for good. "Heat" takes every lacking element in this original draft and powerfully re-masters it using stronger actors, other plot lines, and a clear definition of "why".
Overall, I liked this original film merely for the idea. The concept that was finally redefined as "Heat" is perhaps not quiet as welcomed in 1989, but "LA Takedown" could not be watched again. In the catalogue of Mann films, it is important to see, but it is not as emotionally powerful or kinetically charged as "Heat". With an unfocused story and minimal character development (with plenty of yelling a classic 80s answer to building tension), "LA Takedown" doesn't give hope for the early made-for-TV movie, but it does showcase Mann's ideas. As a teacher, I would ask Mann to rewrite and develop further, and with his answer as being "Heat", the project would then be complete.
Watch this film once, but upgrade yourself accordingly.
Grade: ** out of *****
Again, I am not one that likes to say one is obviously better than the other, but when looked out separately, "LA Takedown" would feel dated, tired, and confusing. It isn't a film to be remembered, which is why it probably hasn't been transferred to DVD yet, and perhaps forgotten for good. "Heat" takes every lacking element in this original draft and powerfully re-masters it using stronger actors, other plot lines, and a clear definition of "why".
Overall, I liked this original film merely for the idea. The concept that was finally redefined as "Heat" is perhaps not quiet as welcomed in 1989, but "LA Takedown" could not be watched again. In the catalogue of Mann films, it is important to see, but it is not as emotionally powerful or kinetically charged as "Heat". With an unfocused story and minimal character development (with plenty of yelling a classic 80s answer to building tension), "LA Takedown" doesn't give hope for the early made-for-TV movie, but it does showcase Mann's ideas. As a teacher, I would ask Mann to rewrite and develop further, and with his answer as being "Heat", the project would then be complete.
Watch this film once, but upgrade yourself accordingly.
Grade: ** out of *****
Earlier version of Heat.
mariabowman-6675625 July 2018
It is great to see a low budget version of a great film. Michael Mann's 1995 masterpiece Heat was actually conceived way back in the 80s by the director Michael Mann. He decided to make it then with the limited budget he had. The scenes and even dialogues are verbatim but it is great to see what a bigger budget can get- from better thespians of the class of Pacino and Deniro to some amazing locations. This is a good film for film students to sit and analyze.
This is watching Da Vinci sketch out the Mona Lisa...
dylanpemberton1 February 2020
Ok so standalone you may be underwhelmed by this flick but considering it's a low budget quick turnaround straight to TV movie that's basically an extended pilot for a never made series then it is it's a huge cut above the normal. You can see how Mann took The Thief to an idea for a Miami Vice style TV show that subsequently got mashed into a TV movie and from there you can see how Heat then developed from there in line with his career - it's fascinating. It's like when they find paintings under the paintings of art masterpieces - this was the blueprint. Although Mann's usual blue palette is ironically absent. So much of the script and set pieces are the same, it's incredible to watch this and then Heat immediately after, it's like having an aparetif. Standalone it's a 3 out of 10. As part of a development, a sketch, a chance to see effectively a rough cut of a masterpiece then it's a 10. Acting is very poor in parts, I like what he later added to the themes and characters in Heat when he had the budget. It largely doesn't feel like a Mann movie to be honest, so much of his usual trademarking is missing but of course he nailed it with the remake and that was such a Mann film. All I can say is this is the perfect film to watch before Heat, it won't spoil it, it will enhance it tremendously. You can see how smart Mann was in taking all the things that were right with this - from character names to certain scenes done better/bigger to weaving in huge character arcs to otherwise lesser or even absent characters. Score was mostly terrible but even some of that is faintly recognisable in Heat as he simply developed it (shootout scene for example). Basically it's the sketch of the work of art so you get what you pay for. Michaels character by the way was probably the stand out in this film.
For what it is, it's really not bad.
Jeremy_Urquhart27 December 2023
If you're a fan of Heat and can engage with a movie in a certain kind of analytical or more distant way, I feel like L. A. Takedown is possible to recommend. If the idea of seeing a warm-up/dress rehearsal for Heat sounds interesting, L. A. Takedown is just that. It has many similarities when it comes to the main premise and the characters, though I think there were a couple of characters who only appeared in the nearly twice-as-long Heat, or were only in L. A. Takedown for a matter of seconds; not long enough to have them make an impact.
What's different is how much better the 1995 film looks and sounds, as well as how much better the acting is. There are a couple of good performances in L. A. Takedown, some that are passable by TV movie standards, and some that really aren't very good (my ears couldn't believe some of the line deliveries here and there).
The ending is also so much better in Heat, and maybe the one narrative element that's significantly different. Other sequences are almost identical; maybe a little shortened, given L. A. Takedown is only 90-ish minutes long. Seeing the rough proof-of-concept of one the best crime epics of all time is absolutely fascinating, it has to be said, and though L. A. Takedown isn't super high-quality and certainly has numerous shortcomings, I think it's surprisingly engaging when approached from this specific angle. Also, as far as TV movies from the 1980s go, I've definitely seen some that are choppier and more amateurish.
Also pleased to announce that like Heat, the big bank robbery/shootout is the highlight of L. A. Takedown - it's a cut above most of the other scenes in the film, with how it's shot and assembled, and proves surprisingly thrilling.
What's different is how much better the 1995 film looks and sounds, as well as how much better the acting is. There are a couple of good performances in L. A. Takedown, some that are passable by TV movie standards, and some that really aren't very good (my ears couldn't believe some of the line deliveries here and there).
The ending is also so much better in Heat, and maybe the one narrative element that's significantly different. Other sequences are almost identical; maybe a little shortened, given L. A. Takedown is only 90-ish minutes long. Seeing the rough proof-of-concept of one the best crime epics of all time is absolutely fascinating, it has to be said, and though L. A. Takedown isn't super high-quality and certainly has numerous shortcomings, I think it's surprisingly engaging when approached from this specific angle. Also, as far as TV movies from the 1980s go, I've definitely seen some that are choppier and more amateurish.
Also pleased to announce that like Heat, the big bank robbery/shootout is the highlight of L. A. Takedown - it's a cut above most of the other scenes in the film, with how it's shot and assembled, and proves surprisingly thrilling.
Just another low budget film!
Imay_3728 April 2006
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 !
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 !
Nothing wrong with this movie
halfcolombian5 September 2002
This movie is basically the same movie as HEAT. To say that this movie is garbage and that HEAT is a masterpiece is plain stupid, but that's almost how the IMDB users voted. Last time I checked this movie had an average rating of 5.7 while HEAT had 7.8. Anyway I don't need any Pacino or De Niro to recognize a good movie. HEAT might be a little better but it's not THAT much better. Had I seen this movie first I don't know if I had bothered seing HEAT, but sadly the big remakes get all the attention. Soon the remake of another excellent movie "manhunter" will come up in the theatres, and it will probably make people forget about how good the original is and if there are people that still haven't seen it, they will only see the remake. I don't think you should do remakes of movies that are less than 20 or 30 years old. I think I'm against almost any remake. If the original is good then why do a remake? and if it's bad well even less reason to do it...Anyway both movies are good and I like them both even if I don't like the remake phenomenon.
Magic Mike again delivers, taking you downtown
videorama-759-85939111 March 2014
I must say, this original 'Heat' where the remake was more universal with bigger name actors and went into more of the character's lives, whatever, still didn't disappoint. It actually went higher than my expectations, and this being a Michael Mann film too, I should of known better, leading me to wonder that this lower profile 'Heat' pic surely didn't deserve the obscurity it must of had, sitting on the video shelves for years. The two leads are excellent, which again, had me underestimating it, especially McCarthur's performance of our A1 solid professional thief/robber, who he plays straight serious right down the line. I enjoyed him much more than seeing De Niro doing it to be frank. When seeing Pacino do hot shot dick, Hanna, in the remake, Plank, an actor who sadly isn't with us anymore, where I had seen him in some other stuff is far different, from Pacino, his interpretation here I found, mystifyingly exciting, where he brought something with it too. He's definitely someone you don't toy with, as by example in a few scenes, one I thought was hilariously cool like it's leads. I'd rather opt to watch these two than the actor duo in the 96 remake. From the word go, it's typical Michael Mannish, his signature all over this pic, those cool music scores, I never get sick of. That infamous café scene with the antagonist and protagonist, engaged me so much, especially McCarthur again, that same dialogue exchange between the two was beautiful interaction. But what was more engaging, was the pre moment to this scene where outside the coffee house, both parties, who happen to cross paths, are about to draw their guns. Plank smooths the waters, by offering to buy him coffee. The bank shootout/botched job scene was loudly intense, those deafening AK's bringing back the glimpse of a horrid memory, also from 96. Okay, if you've seen Heat like me first, you might be thinking, "Yeah so"? where there's a lot, I mean a lot of identic stuff in this, but remember, this is the original, that inspired the mega hit. Still, this comes off as a success, an underestimated surprise, with a few small differences, what have you, which is remake law, except for 'Funny Games'. Don't let this one slip by, folks, for the two cool leads, and that wonderful Mann direction, which in some ways is unsurpassable, always involving us, where we're part of film too, thanks to this master.
NOT "scene-for-scene the same as Heat"
Okie_Engineer29 June 2004
This movie has the same basic plot outline as Heat and MOST of the same characters, but is in NO WAY "scene-for-scene the same as Heat." The acting is absolutely atrocious and some of the scenes make no sense without some of the setup Heat has. I can understand why these actors haven't gone on to much beyond this movie -- THEY'RE AWFUL!!!!! Some of the storyline is just implausible and downright silly. I can also fully understand why this isn't available on DVD here in North America (the quality of this film is akin to what you might see on late night local television). However, if you're a die-hard Michael Mann fan, as am I, you should still see this, because it because it shows how much development he puts into a story.
Better than the remake!!!
roger-hepburn5 April 2008
this is a far better film than its rating suggests, in point of fact it is superior in many ways to the remake HEAT. The movie rests solely on the performances of the actors and the writer/director rather than on any star attractions or hype (pacino and De Nero have both made far better films and put in far better performances). There are a few good set pieces in here and a myriad of fine acting performances from both the leads and the supporting cast. The fact that the re-make was relatively faithful to the original is in itself a bit of a homage and where the two films really differ is in the action sequences that overtake the story in the remake, if you want to watch a more intelligent and somewhat darker crime thriller then I recommend this before HEAT every time this should be given the credit it deserves as it was pieces like this that have allowed Mann to make a lot of the mainstream pulp films he is famous for.
Should have been a big cinema picture!
johancarlmark17 December 2003
This is simply an awesome movie and I saw no reason to make a "remake" of this movie (HEAT). The original is great even though the remake is great to. This has been one of my favorites since it was released in 1989. The Coffey shop seen is just incredible. This is much better than HEAT, even though HEAT by itself is a great movie and has a very impressive shoot out seen. I do not understand why this movie didn't become a huge success and why lead actor Scott Plank didn't end up a star.
BTW The Swedish title for this movie was "Made in LA"
BTW The Swedish title for this movie was "Made in LA"
An impressive made-for-TV crime thriller
Tweekums4 April 2018
Patrick McLaren leads a crew of professional thieves whose latest job is an armoured car robbery in Los Angeles. All goes according to plan until a recent recruit to his team shoots and kills one of the three guards. In the chaos that follows another guard fights back and knocks the mask of one of the gang before he is shot and killed; not wanting to leave anybody who can identify them the thieves kill the final guard. Afterwards the man responsible is kicked off the team and told to stay away from them.
As soon a news breaks about the raid LAPD Sgt Vincent Hanna sets about trying to identify the team; eventually they get a lead and start tracking McLaren and his crew. They later realise they have been identified but decide to continue with their planned 'one last big job'. Before the job goes down Hanna confronts McLaren over a cup of coffee; it is clear that neither man intends to back down.
This TV movie is famous as the 'film that was remade as 'Heat''; I won't be comparing them though as it is quite a while since I saw that film. This film is a lot better than might expect from a TV movie; the only real hints that this wasn't made for the cinema is the lack of swearing and a lower level of gore when characters are shot... something I'm sure many viewers will see as a plus. There is plenty of impressive action but really this is about the characters; specifically about Hanna and McLaren. Scott Plank and Alex McArthur impress in these roles. The supporting cast is pretty solid too. As one would expect from director Michael Mann there is lots of style and a great atmosphere. Overall I'd certainly recommend this film for fans of the genre; don't be put off by its 'TV movie' status.
As soon a news breaks about the raid LAPD Sgt Vincent Hanna sets about trying to identify the team; eventually they get a lead and start tracking McLaren and his crew. They later realise they have been identified but decide to continue with their planned 'one last big job'. Before the job goes down Hanna confronts McLaren over a cup of coffee; it is clear that neither man intends to back down.
This TV movie is famous as the 'film that was remade as 'Heat''; I won't be comparing them though as it is quite a while since I saw that film. This film is a lot better than might expect from a TV movie; the only real hints that this wasn't made for the cinema is the lack of swearing and a lower level of gore when characters are shot... something I'm sure many viewers will see as a plus. There is plenty of impressive action but really this is about the characters; specifically about Hanna and McLaren. Scott Plank and Alex McArthur impress in these roles. The supporting cast is pretty solid too. As one would expect from director Michael Mann there is lots of style and a great atmosphere. Overall I'd certainly recommend this film for fans of the genre; don't be put off by its 'TV movie' status.
Better than HEAT
badbri1312 September 2002
This is the exact same story as the movie HEAT staring Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, and Val Kilmer. The primary difference between LA Takedown and HEAT is the fact that LA Takedown doesn't drag on for 172 minutes. Even though it was a made for TV movie, it had a great plot, the actors did a great job, and it was much more fast paced when compared to HEAT. I still have it on video from when I videotaped it the first time it was on TV. I own HEAT on DVD, but if given the choice I would rather watch LA Takedown. I highly recommend it if you have an opportunity to watch it.
Brilliant - better than Heat
jamie_lee_not12 November 1999
I saw L.A. Takedown before I saw Heat. Heat is not a scratch on L.A. Takedown. Alex McArthur was brilliant as Patrick. There was hardly any foul language in L.A. Takedown, but with Deniro and Pacino, it was every other word. Heat is a third rate film, L.A. Takedown is a first rate film. I'm hunting to find L.A. Takedown on Video, if I come across a copy of Heat, I'll use it for packaging. It was rubbish.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
