|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epicurus.com - Untouchables-Dvd
![Untouchables-Dvd]()
|
List Price: N/A
Our Price: $33.84
Availability: N/A
|
Average Customer Rating:  
|
|
Binding: DVD
EAN: 9780792167228
ISBN: 0792167228
Theatrical Release Date: 1987-06-03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
As noted critic Pauline Kael wrote, the 1987 box-office hit The Untouchables is "like an attempt to visualize the public's collective dream of Chicago gangsters." In other words, this lavish reworking of the vintage TV series is a rousing potboiler from a bygone era, so beautifully designed and photographed--and so craftily directed by Brian De Palma--that the historical reality of Prohibition-era Chicago could only pale in comparison. From a script by David Mamet, the movie pits four underdog heroes (the maverick lawmen known as the Untouchables) against a singular villain in Al Capone, played by Robert De Niro as a dapper caesar holding court (and a baseball bat) against any and all challengers. Kevin Costner is the naive federal agent Eliot Ness, whose lack of experience is tempered by the streetwise alliance of a seasoned Chicago cop (Sean Connery, in an Oscar-winning performance), a rookie marksman (Andy Garcia), and an accountant (Charles Martin Smith) who holds the key to Capone's potential downfall. The movie approaches greatness on the strength of its set pieces, such as the siege near the Canadian border, the venal ambush at Connery's apartment, and the train-station shootout partially modeled after the "Odessa steps" sequences of the Russian classic Battleship Potemkin. It's thrilling stuff, fueled by Ennio Morricone's dynamic score, but it's also manipulative and obvious. If you're inclined to be critical, the movie gives you reason to complain. If you'd rather sit back and enjoy a first-rate production with an all-star cast, The Untouchables may very well strike you as a classic. --Jeff Shannon
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: An absurd battle that should never have started
Comment: The film came long after the 1960s series and it was able to improve the discourse a lot from pure police and gangster violence and counter violence and counter counter violence to some kind of calmer and sounder vision of prohibition. The least we can say is the whole case was absurd. Absurd because prohibition was an idiotic policy and in 1931 it was on the very verge of being abrogated, nullified and voided. Absurd because they could never get Al Capone for his crimes since he never did anything himself but only through and via other people. Absurd because even tax evasion was nearly derailed by bribes to the members of the jury, to the judge probably and many other people. But it is also true that this famous case managed to make gangsters and the mafia think twice and start moving to legal operations for their own gangs and abandoning illegal operations to the street gangs, those they did not even try to control. It was also before the time of street gangs, mainly held and controlled by the Blacks and the Latinos, which was supposed to happen after WW2 with heroin and cocaine. The film here shows how fragile and brittle the police is when confronted to that crime. Apart from shooting first they have little moral certainty to hold in front of heavy corruption and hefty bribes. The film shows how these battle are necessarily in public places and they become some kinds of street war and there have to be collateral victims in the public. This is emphasized by the pram and baby scene, a scene borrowed from Eisenstein and transposed in that context with great art, though the meaning is a lot triter than Eisenstein's. On the Soviet side a baby in the middle of a real war act from the political power in place against some demonstrators who have to be eliminated by bleeding them to death. On the US side a baby in the middle of two shooting camps transforming a central station into a shooting gallery with cops on one side and criminals on the other. And what's more in a battle that will come to an end incessantly by political decision. The law was on the side of criminal absurdity. In Eisenstein the law was on the side of anti-historical repression. And in front of the law Eisenstein had romantic revolutionaries who will eventually win a few years later whereas the Untouchables had a band of criminal gangsters whose business was to make money by illegally importing and selling alcohol. In fact the whole value is in the punch line. Roosevelt has won and prohibition is out, what will you do Mr. Ness? I guess I'll get a drink. That's just the point. A battle that should never have come up if the bad policy that brought it up had not been adopted by a bunch of bigots.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
Customer Rating:
Summary: Still Untouchable
Comment: Even after all these years, this film great!! And being remastered to blu-ray is awesome.
Customer Rating:
Summary: A Bloody Prohibition Era Mob Drama by DePalma. I'll Drink to That!
Comment: DePalma's dramatization of the legendary showdown between US treasury agent Elliot Ness and original American Gangster Al Capone is a solid, suspenseful film, even if it draws only loosely from historical facts.
Prohibition allows Capone (DeNiro) to build-up an extensive and lucrative criminal empire. In a bid to bring Capone down, the US Treasury sends Elliot Ness (Kostner) to uncover hard evidence of Capone's illicit income in order to charge him with tax evasion. Ness leads an unlikely team consisting of a Gruff beat-cop (Connery) an aloof rookie (Garcia) and a bookish accountant (Smith) on a mission to bring down not just Capone, but ultimately the entire corrupt system which protects him.
The film makes it clear that the 'Untouchables', as Ness's team came to be called, are not high-minded idealists who truly believe in the value of prohibition. It is not the 'evils' of alcohol that persuade them to face down Capone and their own corrupt colleagues in the government, but rather a faith in the rule of law and an unwillingness to see justice undermined by greed. This concept is only subtly suggested in the film, but it adds a layer of depth to what is essentially a cops vs. robbers movie.
DePalma, who directed 1983's "Scarface", lets the blood flow as often as possible in Untouchables, with mixed results. The brutality and violence is often effective (see Capones 'baseball' speech) but sometimes is so over-the-top that it's unintentionally funny (one character takes about 20 bullets to the chest and stays on his feet).
Aside from leading man Kostner, who's attempt to portray Ness as icily reserved comes off as wooden, the actors do a great job. Connery and DeNiro both offer commanding, if eccentric, performances and steal every scene they're in. Set pieces and costumes convey period authenticity and appear to be done with care. A film I can recommend and which is good for repeated viewings.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Not quite untouchable...
Comment: `The Untouchables', from a distance, looks wonderful. I mean in all seriousness it is a beautifully shot film that is rich with some stellar performances, some thrilling action sequences and a moral that will have you fighting for justice. But when one takes a closer look at the film it starts to fall apart a bit. It's missing something, and that small something makes the film feel less than great.
The film tells the story of lawman Eliot Ness who waged an all out war against Al Capone. He rallied behind him a few men, a Chicago cop named Jim Malone, an accountant named Oscar Wallace and a rookie marksman named George (real name Giuseppe).
The film soars when exploring the seedy underground and back alleys that permeate most of the films running time. When following the screen as it filters through each detailed set piece one is enthralled by each passing scene. The performances, for the most part, are equally rich with character and appropriate mood. The action sequences are also wonderfully shot, scenes littered with abrupt violence (that baseball bat scene in particular) or sustained suspense (that whole scene within Malone's apartment) and these scenes, and many others, help carry the film to its conclusion.
Sadly though, when all is said and done, `The Untouchables' feels rather empty.
I don't know if this has to do with Costner, who just seems to green for the role. He comes off out of place amidst the rest of the cast. I just think that the role was too big for him. He would have been better suited for the role of Oscar Wallace, a smaller supporting role. Costner can be blamed for part of the films failure (I hate calling it that because the film is not a failure by any means) but he can't be blamed for everything.
I think maybe that you wind up expecting more when you know the subject matter. This is Al Capone, so this should really be good. The film doesn't feel dirty enough for starters. Sure, the set pieces are fantastic and depict that rawness needed, but the script doesn't build on its foundation. Second, Robert De Niro is sadly underused. He gives, by far, the best performance in the entire film and yet he is rarely seen. His few scenes are fantastic (I just love the way he makes Capone almost cartoon like without ever stripping away his ferocity) but they are too few. The lack of grit makes `The Untouchables' come off rather clean, like an episode of `Law & Order' set back a few years.
Sean Connery does a fine job adding some comic relief to the film, and his steely dedication to his character (and that apartment scene, I'm telling you) sealed his Oscar win, even if I would have went with De Niro over Connery. Andy Garcia delivers a nice performance, but the film seems somewhat uninterested with anyone aside from Costner and Connery. That may be another area in which the film could have been better, or added more depth. I never got the feeling that they were bearing all so-to-speak. I would have loved to have walked away from the film knowing who these men were and what they stood for. Instead we get the feeling that they were enforcing the law, end of story.
If you just want to sit back and enjoy a crime thriller than `The Untouchables' is your film. It is entertaining and exciting for the most part and is never boring, but if you want something that feels a little more important and gratifying then you might want to look elsewhere. It's a beautifully shot, nicely handled film that never exceeds the limitations pressed upon it by the simple script.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Great then, and even better now on Blu-ray
Comment: With the passage of time, regard for THE UNTOUCHABLES continues to rise. What can I say that hasn't been said by every critic about this movie? It's a classic, and beautifully filmed. Blu-ray makes it even better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
