Sei solo, agente Vincent

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.

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

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!

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.

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)