Movie Review #4: The Untouchables

The Untouchables (1987)
Director: Brian de Palma
Writer(s): David Mamet
Starring: Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Robert De Niro

I will be blunt: I love mobster movies. The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, White Heat - I love them all. (Granted, some are better than others, but I have a soft spot for the genre in general.) That being said, I also have standards, both moral and critical. A good mobster film never glamorizes the mafia or endorses the warped, twisted morals of organized crime. A good mobster film is also a good film; simply following the tropes of the genre is not conducive to an enjoyable experience. Sadly for me, The Untouchables manages to satisfy neither of these criteria. Though it depicts those who fought against the Chicago Outfit and parades them as heroes, The Untouchables is little more than a violence-glorifying, plot hole-ridden, poorly acted mess parading itself as one of the premier gangster films of its era. How could a movie based on an autobiography make me this angry? Let's find out.

Elliot Ness, played by boredom incarnate, Kevin Costner, is an agent from the Department of the Treasury sent to take down the criminal empire of Al Capone (Robert de Niro). Due to Capone's wide-reaching influence and government corruption, Ness is unable to pull off even a single sting operation. He soon turns to beat cop Jimmy Malone (Sean Connery) and a small cadre of other incorruptible, "untouchable" agents to help him take down Capone's empire. Capone, however, is one tough cookie, using his top assassin, Frank Nitti (Billy Drago) to thin the ranks of the Untouchables before they can put him behind bars. Can Ness and his men catch the most notorious gangster of all time? The answer: read your history books.

I guess I'll begin with the positives; otherwise, this review would become less of a structured critique and more of a sycophantic rant. Sean Connery won an Oscar for his portrayal of Jim Malone, and he certainly does a good job. Malone is the only character in this film that has three-dimensions. He's able to show us his experience, his fury, and his wisdom tactfully. I'm not sure if the role deserved the Oscar - I still need to watch the other nominees - but it's a good performance, nonetheless. Robert de Niro is also quite fun as Capone, playing the role with some comedic flair. This matches the real life Al Capone quite well, a man notorious for loving the spotlight. The setpieces are very nice, and one does feel transported back to the era. And, as always, Ennio Morricone gives us a great soundtrack.

If only Kevin Costner matched any of these elements. I don't know if The Untouchables is the film where he first gained his reputation as the blandest man in movies, but I wouldn't doubt it if someone told me it was. Ness is one of the most boring protagonists I've ever seen. He has no identifiable characteristics, no quirks, no weaknesses to be exploited, no strengths to be displayed. Making matters worse is the film's own recognition of Costner's weakness. Half the plot elements surrounding Ness exist only to give the audience a faint cognizance of his humanity. He has a loving family, but the family is given just enough screen time to make us "feel" for Ness rather than develop in its own right. He develops a rivalry with mob boss Frank Nitti, so to give him an identifiable mono y mono rival for the film's climax. The rivalry is forced and awkward, not helped by Drago's hammy performance. These relationships and elements are clearly shoehorned in.

There are no side characters in this movie. There are plenty of side caricatures in this movie. Andy Garcia plays the guy who can shoot, Charles Martin Smith is the nerd, and Richard Bradford plays the crooked cop. None of these characters has anything interesting to say or do. Garcia talks smack for a good five minutes of screen time, with us never getting insight as to his reasons for wanting to be a cop.  It's played for laughs, but the joke isn't funny. Smith does fare somewhat better, getting one funny scene with him wielding a Tommy gun. But worst of all is Billy Drago as Frank Nitti. This Nitti is no more than a mook, relishing every murder he commits. He's not enjoyably evil, though. In fact, the performance seems to assassinate the character of the actual Frank Nitti: sure, the real life Nitti was a despicable murderer, but he wasn't as stupid and outright obvious as Drago's Nitti.

The plot and pacing aren't much better than the characters. The Untouchables is primarily based on a television series. It shows; the plot feels as if the exciting moments of various TV episodes were spliced together with no thought or care as to their arrangement. The "untouchables" hop from location to location, gathering bits of evidence that can be used against Capone, in a fashion more akin to a poorly made movie-licensed first person shooter than an actual motion picture. The action is also more reminiscent of a video game cover system than an actual movie. Bullets stop dead whenever they hit cars (a mobster and action movie cliché that has long since been debunked), gangsters pop out just long enough for a policeman to shoot them down, and the final gangster/boss takes more effort to kill than the men before him. There is one fun sequence in which Ness and one of the other cops fight men on a staircase in slow motion, but, even here, the fight seems somewhat manipulative.

Normally, I could shelve all these criticisms if the film managed to add up to something. That's not the case. As a critical thinker, I believe I ought to take something away from every movie I see. If The Untouchables had something of value to say, I'd enjoy it. Unfortunately, the true message behind The Untouchables is one of the most disgusting to which I've ever borne witness.

The Untouchables doesn't believe in American rights.

All throughout the film, our main characters constantly flout the necessities of any legal system in order to establish their perverse sense of "justice." Storming into people's private homes and businesses without a warrant to gather evidence? A-OK by The Untouchables' standards. Killing some mobsters in order to extort information from others? Two thumbs up. Cruel and unusual punishment? Fine. Cold blooded murder for sake of revenge? Go right ahead. As long as you are on the right side, you can use whatever means necessary to get what you want. WHAT. THE. HELL.

By no means is The Untouchables incompetent, but it manages to be all the more infuriating for wasting all its potential. This could have been a fun romp with a dynamic cast and a nuanced understanding of what methods are necessary to take down the world's deadliest criminals. Instead, it's a film almost hateful in its apathy and lack of effort. It's the most hollow movie-going experience I've had this month, a movie I will never willingly revisit.

Recommendation: If you are a die-hard mob movie fan who wants to see all the "classics" in the genre, I guess there's no stopping you watching this film. I say it's not worth two hours of anyone's life.

I give The Untouchables 2.1 stars out of 10.