The Untouchables

The Untouchables (1987)

Director: Brian De Palma

Writer: David Mamet

Cast: Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Robert De Niro, Andy Garcia, Charles Martin Smith, Patricia Clarkson, Billy Drago, Jack Kehoe, Richard Bradford

Synopsis:

Chicago during the prohibition era is plagued with gang violence stemming from the illegal sale of alcohol. The situation is so bad that a young treasury agent, Eliot Ness (Costner) is tasked with bringing to justice the chief purveyor of that violence, Al Capone (De Niro). After learning that the city's police force is corrupt and determined to prevent him from completing his assignment, Ness decides to create a small team of Untouchables to bring Capone town. Joined by veteran beat cop Jim Malone (Connery), police cadet George Stone (Garcia) and Treasury accountant Oscar Wallace (Martin Smith), Ness starts to bring the fight to Capone to once and for all free Chicago from his clutches. Violence ensues.

First Impressions:

I don't recall how old I was when I first saw this film. I know I missed it in theaters and I'm pretty sure I would have been in my early teens, probably 13 or 14. This was the type of movie that appealed to me at the time because it was gritty, action packed, with some pretty graphic violence for the time (I'm starting to think teenage me was a little messed up). I remember enjoying the film a great deal, particularly Connery performance, which to this day, I continue to quote from. This is not a film that I include in my regular rotation, so it's been a while since I've seen it. Let's see how it fares under review.

Story/Direction:

"You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the Chicago way! And that's how you get Capone."

So, the story in this film is not quite as good as I remember. It's not really bad but it just didn't seem right to me. I can't quite put my finger o what didn't sit well with me but I think that the story didn't flow really well. It seemed to me that instead of having a consistent narrative, the film just kind of skips from one vignette to another with the bare minimum of connection between them. The film also doesn't take too much time developing characters other than Capone and Ness. We know that Ness is a happily married family man but we don't know anything else about him. He has a wife (Clarkson) and daughter but neither are even given names. This made it difficult for me to care when Ness' family is threatened during the second act of the movie because I couldn't really see them as people but merely templates of potential characters to be put in danger simply to advance the story. 

What's really criminal (see what I did there?), though, is the lack of development of the rest of the Untouchables. While Malone gets a bit of time, you don't really know much about him, the audience knows he's been walking the beat for years and never advanced through the ranks. It's implied that it may be due to some sort of event in his past but its never expounded on. It's a shame because Connery really did a good job with the character and it would have been nice to see more of him. The same goes for Stone, who was a cadet at the Police Academy before being recruited by Ness. In order to fit in with his fellow cadets, he hides his Italian heritage, which to me, seemed like a good opportunity to for some interesting character development. In fact, it's really only mentioned once upon first meeting the character and never brought up again. Even after finding out his real name, Giuseppe, the team still calls him Stone.

From a direction standpoint, I think De Palma does a good job. I think this is the only movie of his that I own and one of the few that I've seen (I can't think of another one off the top of my head). He's one of the more lauded directors of the 80s and I think he does pretty well overall, it's just the script that was lacking, I think. I was surprised to learn that David Mamet penned the script for this one, so that's now two movies on my "I Didn't Know David Mamet Wrote This Movie" list. Honestly, this is not his best work.

Acting:

Despite the overall clunkiness of the story, there were still some pretty good performances to be found. Kevin Costner's go as Eliot Ness is quite good. I find he does his best work with certain types of characters, one of which is what I call the earnest do-gooder. Costner has a ton of charisma in front of the camera, which allows him to play these types of characters believably. You see it in other films like Field of Dreams, Dances With Wolves, and Thirteen Days. When he sticks to characters like this, more often than not, he shines. When he plays morally ambiguous characters, or characters with English accents, is when he starts to falter.

Once again De Niro does a fine job in the role of the famous gangster Al Capone. Gangsters are certainly De Niro's forte and he's built a fine career playing them. He plays Capone a inherently brutal and cruel man, hiding his true nature behind a mask of culture and sophistication. There's no better evidence of this than the infamous baseball bat scene, which I won't spoil here for anybody who hasn't seen the film yet.

Of course I can't talk about the performances in The Untouchables without talking about Sean Connery. This is the role that won him an Oscar and I think it's deserved. Despite being underdeveloped as a character, Malone really has the only satisfying arc in the film. He starts out as an old cop walking the beat, seemingly waiting out the clock until retirement. After meeting Ness, however, he's re-invigorated and takes on the role of a mentor character. I think this was really the film where audiences started to see Connery as a proper actor and not just Bond. 

Visuals:

The visual style in this movie is pretty great and does a wonderful job of recreating 1930s Chicago. Of course, it helps that a large portion of the exterior shots were filmed in the city. The costumes were also top-notch and really helped set the era in which the film took place. As a testament to how good the film looks, both the costume design and art direction were nominated for academy awards.

As var as effects go, there's not a whole tone here. Lots of gunfire (natch), a couple of explosions and that's about it. As I've mentioned dozens of times, there's really nothing remarkable about these types of effects regardless of the decade in which the movie was made. However, there was one particular scene which really dated the movie's effects. The scene involves a prominent character being tossed off the roof of a building. I'll space the hyperbole and just say that it didn't look great. If there's one thing that 80s cinema couldn't quite nail, it was the closeup of a character falling from a great height. It was one of the few types of shots across the entire decade of movies that always, ALWAYS looked fake. This was no exception.

Score/Music:

This, this is where the Untouchables shines the brightest. The music in this film, composed by the late Ennio Morricone, was easily the best part of this movie. Morricone was one of the most prolific composers in the movie industry and I think this film is one his best efforts (though granted, I've only seen a few movies in which he's done the score). Whether you agree with that statement or not, it's undeniable that his work on this film is among the best that the 80s had to offer. Even if you have no interest in watching the film, I highly recommend listening to the score if you have the means. I can't say enough god things about it. 

Action:

This is a movie that isn't light on the action and violence. There's lots of firefights to be had and a few fisticuffs as well. There's nothing really remarkable about the action, though. It was done well, but there's nothing here that makes it stand out. Although, one thing I found interesting was that I always considered the violence in the film to be quite graphic back in the day. Watching it 30+ years later, though, I find that the violence is pretty tame compared to movies (or even TV) nowadays. It's interesting how things have changed, eh?

There was one sequence, however, that I found pretty compelling. During the third act there's a showdown between Ness and some of Capone's men in a train station. De Palma used slow motion and muted sounds to really amp up the tension of the scene. It really was well done and a highlight of the film. 

Final Verdict:

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I was disappointed by The Untouchables but it wasn't quite as good as I remember. Still, it was an enjoyable watch due to a few great acting performances and a top-notch musical score. Check it out if you're looking for in the mood for a decent gangster movie.