I must confess that I watched The Untouchables at the time I was getting really engrossed and interested in all things film. The first frame I saw was the explosion that blows up the little child. I liked the film an awful lot then, just like I still do these days. Not because of its quality nor in admiration, but as one of the first films I watched as a young, bonafide "critic" and not as a mere film goer. I am still affectionately fond of it and it remains one of the films I still want to watch over and over again.
Many things that I didn’t know then, I know now - especially things like the famous and still riveting staircase shootout - this was Brian de Palma’s "tribute" of sorts, to Sergei Eisenstein’s The Battleship Potemkin; also that this is one of the more controlled and less gory de Palmas. The first time ever I heard about Eliot Ness was in the film; Al Capone, of course, I had heard about, thanks to Mario Puzo’s The Godfather. The first time I ever saw Kevin Costner was in this film.
I especially loved the opening title sequences, "The Untouchables", backlit with shadow in black and white. I liked the flawless recreation of Chicago in the Depression - right down to scalpel-sharp accurate wardrobe. It’s a handsome, handsome film, mounted attractively on a grand scale. Ennio Morricone’s unforgettable score creates a good counterpoint to the story. Add to this, two absolutely first-rate and memorable scenes - the first being the time Malone (Sean Connery) and Ness (Kevin Costner) meet at night, on the lonely bridge, and the second, of course, being the famous staircase shootout.
This famous scene plays to the gallery and grandstands predictably - the use of slow motion etc. It is definitely a far, far cry from the famous Eisenstein film that inspired it, but I don’t expect the moon from de Palma so I’m okay with it. Sean Connery almost pockets the film’s acting honours (which, alas, are not too considerable). de Niro is his usual Martin Scorcese self as Capone - I always wonder if de Niro really does any other kind of role in any film he is in. Costner does quietly and solidly, as does a young Andy Garcia.
Now on to the bad stuff - The Untouchables, alas, is almost entirely fictitious - this is definitely how we would have LIKED things to happen, not how things actually happened in history. de Palma has taken a lot of liberty with historical accuracy to support his needlessly flashy direction. Mostly, it doesn’t work, never more than that sorry scene with Frank Nitti and Ness at the courthouse. But we go with it because there’s plenty else to keep our attention. The script is one-dimensional and glib, even though it’s written by experienced David Mamet, except for a few lines that I consider worth the effort:
Malone : Are you okay, pal?
Ness : I just had a rough day on the job.
Malone : Are you going home now?
Ness : I was about to.
Malone : Well, then, you just fulfilled the first rule of law enforcement. Make sure when your shift is over, you go home alive. Here endeth the lesson.
Every script writer sometimes has to make do with just a few stellar lines in an entire screenplay; Mamet’s earned his stripes with those lines right there:) The rest of it can be summarily tucked away as ordinary.
It’s a bit of a goody-goody good versus evil kind of a look that de Palma imparts to the film; mostly, it’s tiresome. The cumulative effect may be good, but we know from history that Ness himself was no goody-two-shoes, and the character of Costner in the film very feebly resembles the aggressive Ness of history. It’s an over-simplification and lessens the film considerably.
Never mind. I’d recommend you watch the film anyway - if nothing else, it will teach you a bit of history (Eliot Ness and his Untouchables team) and stoke an interest in you to find out what REALLY happened. And there’s plenty else to keep you interested and enthralled. But don’t ever believe it happened like it does in the film!!!