Best Heist Film

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Ahhhh yes, the Heist film. I know ye well. For the usual idiots, the Heist film is a sub-genre of the Crime Film. It usually involves a lone thief or a group of theives who intricatly plan a theft of some kind, the theft itself, and the double-crosses that insue. What are your favorite Heist films?

 

 

Mine are:

 

Reservoir Dogs

Die Hard

The Italian Job

The Great Train Robbery

Payback

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

No way is Die Hard a heist film, man. Just cause there was a heist in it doesn't make it a heist film. Anyway, I pick Reservoir Dogs.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

No way is Die Hard a heist film, man. Just cause there was a heist in it doesn't make it a heist film. Anyway, I pick Reservoir Dogs.

Director John McTiernan called it a heist film it has all the elements:

 

 

- Incredibily detailed and intricate plan.

 

- Robbers simply want whatever their after, no underlying motives

 

- War of wills between thief and justice.

 

 

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

I don't consider it a heist film because the heist is secondary to Bruce Willis being an action star. Don't get me wrong, it's a good movie, one of my favorites, I just wouldn't call it that.

[Guest spiny norman]

I don't understand all the love for Reservoir Dogs. I was so disappointed when I saw that movie. I mean, it was just okay. I thought the premise of the crooks meeting after a heist gone wrong was really interesting, but I don't think it was handled as well as it should have been.

 

But I realise I'm in the minority for this, so that's life. It's not like I hate Tarantino, I really love Pulp Fiction a lot. But Reservoir Dogs did so little for me.

[Guest MrRant]

I liked Oceans 11, Bandits was good as well.

 

And where is the love for Hudson Hawk?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I don't consider it a heist film because the heist is secondary to Bruce Willis being an action star. Don't get me wrong, it's a good movie, one of my favorites, I just wouldn't call it that.

You're looking on the film wrong. The film is about Hans. Everything revolves around Hans. MacClaine is simply another obsticle in Hans' plan. It just so happens Hans can't overcome this obsticle.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I don't understand all the love for Reservoir Dogs. I was so disappointed when I saw that movie. I mean, it was just okay. I thought the premise of the crooks meeting after a heist gone wrong was really interesting, but I don't think it was handled as well as it should have been.

 

But I realise I'm in the minority for this, so that's life. It's not like I hate Tarantino, I really love Pulp Fiction a lot. But Reservoir Dogs did so little for me.

Any reason why you don't like it? See that's what I discussion is kids. We discuss *why* we like or don't like things. We don't just post some half-assed remark about how RD is dissapointing. We give reasons.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

You may be right about that, Zsasz. I have always found the way the film is presented, and how it's marketed to be less than it deserves. It's much more intelligent than just an "action" movie, which is how it's usually described.

 

About Reservoir Dogs, I do see a few mistakes in the way certain things were handled. Like the way the camera pans during the ear severing scene. It seems too manipulative. I'd have just kept it on Vega's back, you still wouldn't see much. I just found that camera move too jarring. But in spite of the few problems with substance, Reservoir Dogs absolutely nailed the style. It's got style out the ass. And that's why it's my favorite heist film.

[Guest godthedog]

the best heist movie i personally have ever seen, by far, is 'bob le flambeur'. everything about that movie just screams elegant coolness (the same kind of coolness tarantino has spent his career trying to duplicate), and the main character is the second-coolest guy i've ever seen in a movie: the eyes, the confident smile, the suits, the way he moves, even the hair. in the gambling scene, i was just awestruck by the coolness of it. the original 'ocean's 11' was more or less a ripoff of it (you know, "ex con brings a group of idiosyncratic but lovable crooks for the heist of a lifetime"), and it served as tarantino's inspiration for 'reservoir dogs'.

 

once again: 'bob le flambeur'=COOL

[Guest spiny norman]

Well, for a start I don't like Harvey Keitel. I think he's really over-rated as an actor. He's nothing too special, in my opinion.

 

I felt some of the actions of the characters were unrealistic and stupid. The story was nowhere near flawless, and there were times when it seemed they just decided to put action and gore in for the sake of it, as with swearing. No reason, just kind of like "Hey, let's try and make this movie with as high a classification as possible.

 

And I didn't like the way they flashbacked. I thought if they had actually focused on the main scene, the movie would've been better. Plus we found out who the mole was, and it could've been better with the audience not knowing until the final moments.

 

Don't get me wrong, the movie is okay. But as I was going in expecting a great cinema classic, I was sorely disappointed.

[Guest godthedog]

i don't have any actual arguments or anything, but...RD was one of my favorites growing up, but when i recently bought the dvd & watched it again, it didn't seem as good as i remembered. it was nothing i could put my finger on, just something that seemed to be missing.

[Guest MrRant]

Where is the Hudson Hawk love?

[Guest Dmann2000]

First I love 'Hudson Hawk'

 

Second, there's a thread about best Heist movie, and no on mentions the film "Heist"

[Guest El Satanico]

Would the James Caan movie Thief be considered a heist movie?

[Guest red_file]

Where is the Hudson Hawk love?

I love Hudson Hawk, but it's a seriously flawed movie. A very enjoyable flawed movie.

 

You're looking on the film wrong. The film is about Hans. Everything revolves around Hans. MacClaine is simply another obsticle in Hans' plan. It just so happens Hans can't overcome this obsticle.

 

I'd have to disagree with this. The movie is clearly about McClane. A temperamental cop who's seperated from his wife (feeling emasculated because of her choosing a career over him) travels across the country -- seemingly against his will -- to go to her company's Christmas party wherein he discovers that she's using her maiden name instead of her married one. He then argues with himself in the mirror, telling himself he needs to control his temper. How does that situation play out in the real world?

 

In this movie world his frustrations are manifested in the form of Hans & co. Is it any wonder that the only two hostages that are killed are the boss and the lecherous coke snorter? McClane is able to phsyically deal with the hositility. He becomes the hero that he wants to be. Holly comes to realize that that's what she loved about John all along (viz. when she smiles and says "Only John could piss someone off that much"). At the end of the film the marriage is saved (we must assume) based on John's cathartic destruction of the manifestation of his hostility; he grows as a character in some small measure. Holly grows a little in realizing to accept something about her husband.

 

Hans has no character growth. He exists in the movie only to be an obstacle for McClane, not the other way around. Which isn't to say that this movie has a deep theme that drives it; it doesn't. It's just that what theme it has and the character arcs that stem from it make it about John.

 

I'm drawing a blank on heist films I enjoyed. I always though Bottle Rocket was a pretty good one. And I liked Ocean's Eleven.

[Guest Mole]

Ocean 11

Payback

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Well, for a start I don't like Harvey Keitel. I think he's really over-rated as an actor. He's nothing too special, in my opinion.

 

I felt some of the actions of the characters were unrealistic and stupid. The story was nowhere near flawless, and there were times when it seemed they just decided to put action and gore in for the sake of it, as with swearing. No reason, just kind of like "Hey, let's try and make this movie with as high a classification as possible.

 

And I didn't like the way they flashbacked. I thought if they had actually focused on the main scene, the movie would've been better. Plus we found out who the mole was, and it could've been better with the audience not knowing until the final moments.

 

Don't get me wrong, the movie is okay. But as I was going in expecting a great cinema classic, I was sorely disappointed.

1. Again, any reason why? Keitel has done marvelous work (Mean Streets, Taxi Driver) since the 70's and has shown himself to be an actor of great depth and style. What do you feel is wrong with him>

 

2. If you felt the characters were unrealistic, then you're a moron. Plain and simple. Unlkie 99.9% of these movies, the characters actually talk about real things, that real people would talk about. Their actions are all clearly defined and well-motivated. These are real characters.

 

3. The film itself is actually a remake of a Chow Yun-Fat film called City on Fire. The swearing was done because, again, these are professional hoods, they don't "darn" and "crap". They say "FUCK!" and "SHIT!". The violence is pretty necessary considering this film is about the criminal underworld which is a nasty, violent place.

 

4. You're wrong about the mole thing. See, it's all in the difference between surprise and suspense. Sure if you surprise them, it's okay. But if you keep the audience guessing over whether or not the thieves will discover the rat you do SO much more for the film than just a surprise ending that will wear off the 3rd time you see it.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

You're looking on the film wrong. The film is about Hans. Everything revolves around Hans. MacClaine is simply another obsticle in Hans' plan. It just so happens Hans can't overcome this obsticle.

 

I'd have to disagree with this. The movie is clearly about McClane. A temperamental cop who's seperated from his wife (feeling emasculated because of her choosing a career over him) travels across the country -- seemingly against his will -- to go to her company's Christmas party wherein he discovers that she's using her maiden name instead of her married one. He then argues with himself in the mirror, telling himself he needs to control his temper. How does that situation play out in the real world?

 

In this movie world his frustrations are manifested in the form of Hans & co. Is it any wonder that the only two hostages that are killed are the boss and the lecherous coke snorter? McClane is able to phsyically deal with the hositility. He becomes the hero that he wants to be. Holly comes to realize that that's what she loved about John all along (viz. when she smiles and says "Only John could piss someone off that much"). At the end of the film the marriage is saved (we must assume) based on John's cathartic destruction of the manifestation of his hostility; he grows as a character in some small measure. Holly grows a little in realizing to accept something about her husband.

 

Hans has no character growth. He exists in the movie only to be an obstacle for McClane, not the other way around. Which isn't to say that this movie has a deep theme that drives it; it doesn't. It's just that what theme it has and the character arcs that stem from it make it about John.

 

I'm drawing a blank on heist films I enjoyed. I always though Bottle Rocket was a pretty good one. And I liked Ocean's Eleven.

No doubt the film itself is about MacClaine. The point I was making is simple. Once the "terrorists" take it over, it's a caper film. The movie becomes entirely about Hans' plan, and the revelation of said plan. MacClaine's marital issues are a sub-plot.

 

I consider it a caper film, just not one in the truest sense of the word. (For the reasons red file described)

[Guest red_file]

Once the "terrorists" take it over, it's a caper film. The movie becomes entirely about Hans' plan, and the revelation of said plan.

 

I suppose you could it as such, but typically in caper/heist films the protagonist/hero is the one who's looking to pull off the caper/heist; the antagonist is usually the police/security/baron/etc who is trying to stop the caper/heist from happened. Ideally the audience is hoping that the caper/heist will come off and the protagonist/hero will get away. Garnering empathy for Hans & co. doesn't seem to be a priority for the film makers.

 

Still, I can certainly see why you'd consider it a non-traditional caper film. Perhaps I'll have to watch it again with that in mind.

 

The film itself is actually a remake of a Chow Yun-Fat film called City on Fire.

 

With a lovely homage to The Taking of Pelham One Two Three.

[Guest cabbageboy]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Killing in any of this. The cheesy narration prevents it from being my favorite heist movie though. Or from the same time period...the Ladykillers.

 

If there is an aspect of Reservoir Dogs that makes one never quite connect with it, it would be that the robbery itself is never shown. Therefore, it's difficult to totally get into a film where the major event isn't shown. I know that little plot device was Tarantino's way of being arty, but as my high school creative writing teacher said "Show us, don't tell us."

 

Great movie aside from that though.

[Guest godthedog]

If there is an aspect of Reservoir Dogs that makes one never quite connect with it, it would be that the robbery itself is never shown. Therefore, it's difficult to totally get into a film where the major event isn't shown. I know that little plot device was Tarantino's way of being arty, but as my high school creative writing teacher said "Show us, don't tell us."

i totally disagree with that. it leaves more to the imagination and makes the audience an active participant that has to piece the robbery together. "show us, don't tell us" doesn't always apply. it's akin to saying tarantino should've shown us what was in the briefcase in 'pulp fiction', or saying they should've shown us the villain in 'the blair witch project': the whole thing works because we DON'T see it.

[Guest red_file]

More importantly, that we don't see what goes wrong during the heist means we can't be sure who's version of what happens is correct. It's less important what happen than what the characters believe happened. We learn things about the various characters by how they relate and respond to what happened.

[Guest dreamer420]

Jackie Brown. Tarantino made an amazing heist film there and it is vastly underrated IMO. Pam Grier and Samuel L. Jackson put in amazing performances,

[Guest godthedog]

i thought 'jackie brown' was entertaining, but it was too long and leisurely. RD was tightly structured, fast & intense, like there was a powder keg in the warehouse that could go off at any second. the characters in 'jackie brown' seem to be a lot smarter (and most of the enjoyment of the movie comes from watching them outsmart each other), but there isn't the same sense of urgency. i think tarantino played for laughs a little too much and not enough for suspense.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Killing in any of this. The cheesy narration prevents it from being my favorite heist movie though. Or from the same time period...the Ladykillers.

 

If there is an aspect of Reservoir Dogs that makes one never quite connect with it, it would be that the robbery itself is never shown. Therefore, it's difficult to totally get into a film where the major event isn't shown. I know that little plot device was Tarantino's way of being arty, but as my high school creative writing teacher said "Show us, don't tell us."

 

Great movie aside from that though.

I agree with what's been said so far. Never seeing the robbery is a cool idea that's probobly done ouyt of necessity because of the small budget. If you really MUST know, the robbery in City on Fire seems to coincide with what Pink and Blue said about Blonde.

[Guest razazteca]

I nominate these films:

 

Usual Suspects

Ronin

The Score

Pulp Fiction

[Guest Lethargic]

I second the Killing. One of my favorite movies of all time.

 

On Tarantino. I prefer Reservoir Dogs but I like Jackie Brown a lot too. I prefer it over Pulp Fiction by a mile.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

Ok, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that Pulp Fiction was not a heist film, unless you count the diner robbery.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

People, I am deeply disturbed. Where the fuck is Heat on any of your lists? That Michael Mann, doomed to be constantly overlooked. Heat is sheer genius and contains the last great De Niro performance. Its a cracker.