Nicole
I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
Plamen Totev
Since I'm a fan of "Heat" I took the time to watch the preliminary material which Michael Mann created after long-lasting struggle to make his dream movie come true. Mann decided that he waited enough for a big-time production and to use this great script for TV release with the intention to continue it to a TV series.But, let's get to the point...1. Pros:1.1 I've read the 1994 revision of the script, which included unrealized shots and dialogue in the 1995's "Heat". The good thing about "L.A. Takedown" is that you have the chance to see some of those good lines and additional storyline, which serves as a bonus to what you already saw in "Heat". 1.2. Directing was very decent, but anyway I wouldn't recognize it that Mann stays behind it if I didn't knew already.1.3 You can see the growth from the original version to the remake as Heat. Comparing LA Takedown to Heat you can recognize the development and decisions which Mann took in order to make "Heat" such a classic that it is.2. Cons: 2.1 Poor Cast & Acting. Since it is TV low budget movie I guess we couldn't expect more but this was some "piece of work". Hanna's character was developed Okay, but that's all. Patrick McLaren (a.k.a. Neil in Heat) was a complete nightmare, it doesn't correspond to the image you can visualize in the script. I know that the benchmark is too high having such a great cast for Heat - comparison is out of the question.. Nevertheless those wanna-be actors on LA Takedown doesn't even deserve to be chosen for a porn movie with a storyline...3. Bottom line: if you are a fan of "Heat" and Michael Mann - see it for the above mentioned pros.. It's like looking at the draft of Mona Lisa or some other masterpiece - so it is kinda of interesting... If you are not a fan - then it is a waste of time.
Andy (film-critic)
As a preliminary draft to "Heat", Mann's made-for-TV crime drama about a gung-ho cop and a professional criminal works. It lays the foundation for the bigger-budget film in which Pacino and De Niro hone their chops, but as a stand alone film – "LA Takedown" (or as I watched it "Made in LA") is a dated, censored look at a bigger picture. Having watched "Heat" first, and several times over, it is difficult not to make comparisons between the two films. It is reminiscent of watching the original "Gaslight" and the remake produced just four years later – while in that case the original is better – one cannot help but compare the differences. That is the case with Mann's TV outing. While it is impressive to see that Mann stuck with his original story, it is the characters that fail to live up to the "Heat" hype. Scott Plank and Alex McArthur are good actors, but they are no icons. Their squabble between each other seems staged, less emotional, and not quite as tense as seen in the later film. McArthur isn't as smart, Plank isn't as gruff, and what makes it work in "Heat" is the back story Mann creates. The world surrounding our characters in "Heat" makes them believable, more than just characters on a page – while in this film, running at just an hour and a half, it is difficult to believe each character's squabbles. Both films are a character driven film, with two intense scenes of action, but without the characters, we couldn't have created the moments. I believe Mann realized that with "LA Takedown", and it is why "Heat" seems to focus more intently on our players.Again, I am not one that likes to say one is obviously better than the other, but when looked out separately, "LA Takedown" would feel dated, tired, and confusing. It isn't a film to be remembered, which is why it probably hasn't been transferred to DVD yet, and perhaps forgotten for good. "Heat" takes every lacking element in this original draft and powerfully re-masters it using stronger actors, other plot lines, and a clear definition of "why".Overall, I liked this original film merely for the idea. The concept that was finally redefined as "Heat" is perhaps not quiet as welcomed in 1989, but "LA Takedown" could not be watched again. In the catalogue of Mann films, it is important to see, but it is not as emotionally powerful or kinetically charged as "Heat". With an unfocused story and minimal character development (with plenty of yelling – a classic 80s answer to building tension), "LA Takedown" doesn't give hope for the early made-for-TV movie, but it does showcase Mann's ideas. As a teacher, I would ask Mann to rewrite and develop further, and with his answer as being "Heat", the project would then be complete.Watch this film once, but upgrade yourself accordingly.Grade: ** out of *****
johancarlmark
This is simply an awesome movie and I saw no reason to make a "remake" of this movie (HEAT). The original is great even though the remake is great to. This has been one of my favorites since it was released in 1989. The Coffey shop seen is just incredible. This is much better than HEAT, even though HEAT by itself is a great movie and has a very impressive shoot out seen. I do not understand why this movie didn't become a huge success and why lead actor Scott Plank didn't end up a star.BTW The Swedish title for this movie was "Made in LA"
halfcolombian
This movie is basically the same movie as HEAT. To say that this movie is garbage and that HEAT is a masterpiece is plain stupid, but that's almost how the IMDB users voted. Last time I checked this movie had an average rating of 5.7 while HEAT had 7.8. Anyway I don't need any Pacino or De Niro to recognize a good movie. HEAT might be a little better but it's not THAT much better. Had I seen this movie first I don't know if I had bothered seing HEAT, but sadly the big remakes get all the attention. Soon the remake of another excellent movie "manhunter" will come up in the theatres, and it will probably make people forget about how good the original is and if there are people that still haven't seen it, they will only see the remake. I don't think you should do remakes of movies that are less than 20 or 30 years old. I think I'm against almost any remake. If the original is good then why do a remake? and if it's bad well even less reason to do it...Anyway both movies are good and I like them both even if I don't like the remake phenomenon.
