I watched this on cable the other night and was very pleasantly surprised. It's well done, with solid acting from old pros Madsen and Van Peebles and very tight directing. The documentary style works well, and unlike most cops vs. robbers movies it shows the motivation and thoughts of the bad guys without glorifying them. It's obviously a bit of a PR piece for the LAPD, but it also makes some really good points about the availability of assault weapons and the failings of the justice and political system in keeping crooks from getting them. The locations used in the movie were the actual locations where the shootout took place, and this added immeasurably to the realism of the story. This film is a real cut above most cable fare and is really worth watching.
42 Reviews
Pretty good "based on a true story" story
awatters11 June 2003
I have to admit, I was impressed by the factual accuracy of this TV movie. They filmed at the actual BofA branch that was the location of the robbery, although the logo on the sign is different now (which is forgivable). The camera angles were all correct (i.e. the same as the actual news footage of the robbery). They even showed the key shack being shot up, and they had the right type of blue *shorts* for one of the SWAT officers to wear during the capture of robber #2-- if you're familiar with the North Hollywood Shootout, you know what I'm talking about. Despite a few minor changes to increase dramatic tension (such as the deletion of a motorcycle officer who rescued Mario Van Peebles's character so Michael Madsen's character could rescue him) and a blatant anti- gun comment by one of the officers "I can't believe they let people just buy this stuff" (in the B&B gun shop) this telefilm was very enjoyable. I especially liked the fact that it was filmed in a documentary style, with every person's point of view being shown. Very well done, with some prominent actors. When does the DVD come out!?
One of the Greatest Shoot-Out of the American History
claudio_carvalho4 August 2007
On 28 February 1997, two men heavily armed with AK-47 try to heist the Bank of America of North Hollywood, but their plan fails and they are kept under siege by the LAPD. Along forty-four minutes, Los Angeles witnesses live on television one of the greatest shoot-out of the American history.
Based on a true event, this movie impresses regarding the scenes of intense shoot-out, with the cast having also great performances. However, the statements of the characters, showing the LAPD as a brotherhood or family, do not seem to correspond to the reality showed in other police stories in American movies. Anyway, this film is a surprisingly good and worthwhile entertainment. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "44 Minutes - O Tiroteio de North Hollywood" ("44 Minutes - The North Hollywood Shoot-Out")
Based on a true event, this movie impresses regarding the scenes of intense shoot-out, with the cast having also great performances. However, the statements of the characters, showing the LAPD as a brotherhood or family, do not seem to correspond to the reality showed in other police stories in American movies. Anyway, this film is a surprisingly good and worthwhile entertainment. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "44 Minutes - O Tiroteio de North Hollywood" ("44 Minutes - The North Hollywood Shoot-Out")
The actual events are even more unbelievable.
jhpstrydom26 September 2009
After watching the film then doing the research of what really happened, I didn't know what was more unbelievable the film or the raw footage on you tube, even though the film doesn't stick to all of the facts I still couldn't believe that two guys caused that much chaos.
The film seen as it is is actually pretty good but I think after seeing some of the raw footage this film would've been a lot better if it stayed closer to the facts in order to add to the realism, but like I said the overall film isn't bad at all, the performances were great all around, Micheal Madsen's character was likable especially over what he does at the beginning of the film.
Personally I liked the film but would've honestly proffered a different take on the subject matter, at least this film doesn't glorify the robbers by portraying them as the victim.
The film seen as it is is actually pretty good but I think after seeing some of the raw footage this film would've been a lot better if it stayed closer to the facts in order to add to the realism, but like I said the overall film isn't bad at all, the performances were great all around, Micheal Madsen's character was likable especially over what he does at the beginning of the film.
Personally I liked the film but would've honestly proffered a different take on the subject matter, at least this film doesn't glorify the robbers by portraying them as the victim.
There Was Blood Everywhere.
rmax30482316 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Two masked bandits are discovered holding up a bank. They're dressed in black, wielding automatic weapons, and wearing body armor. They're quickly surrounded by dozens of LAPD and SWAT members. Instead of surrendering they make a stand in the parking lot and spray lead all over the place, wounding police and civilians alike, until they're finally shot down and killed.
In summarizing this 44-minute war, one of the SWAT members being interviewed, Ron Livingston, remarks that in a situation like that, "You either have the fire power or the will power. We had the will power." Is he kidding? The police are all around, taking cover behind cars and other objects, and pumping rounds from their pistols into the two bandits, who casually stroll around and shoot it out, toe to toe, until their deaths. They don't make any serious effort to escape. They'd rather die.
There were really two ways a film of this real-life story might have gone. The writers might have given us plenty of material on the home life of the police officers. It would have tugged at our heart strings. And it would have taken up screen time until the final brief, bloody confrontation on the streets.
Or, they might have judged that the audience for a movie like this really weren't that interested in having the cockles of their hearts warmed. They wanted an action movie "based on a true story." At any rate, that's what they got.
The home life of the police, and their comradeship in the office, are briefly sketched in, just enough to let us know how diverse and yet how normal they are -- a pregnant wife, a black cop who wants to keep kids from becoming gangstas, the stern officer in charge of the SWAT team, the team member who once let a suspect escape only to learn that he later murdered someone during a robbery.
Surprisingly, the bandits are given some material to work with too. They live alone, like slobs; they're ruthless and one is the expectable ugly punk, but at least we're able to tell one from another. And their later circumstances almost generate a bit of sympathy for them. One of them, hopelessly surrounded and with an AK-47 that doesn't seem to work (unusual for such a weapon) shoots himself through the head out of desperation. The other, having survived the impact of innumerable bullets, is barely able to drive the getaway car at the pace of a man walking, while being pursued by fifty men intent on killing him. It's a tense scene, seeing that bullet-riddled car crawl slowly along an empty Los Angeles residential street.
Michael Madsen and Ron Livingston are both quite good in their police roles. They're the ones we get to know best. But the writers have almost succeeded in divesting the characters of all personality. There are so many gun shots and slow-motion cartridges bouncing off the asphalt, so many bullet holes appearing in some many cars, so many shattered windshield turning to lace, so many bodies rushing from place to place, that the people play second fiddle to the gun play. The climactic shoot out in "Heat" was just as electric but more involving because we knew the men involved.
During the first ten minutes I thought the director might pull it off, regardless of which path the script itself took. The introductory scenes were casual and there were some interesting camera angles. But then Yves Simoneau blows it. I understand the need for close ups in a television movie, although it could be argued that we need them less now than we dead when everybody was watching 15-inch screens. But close up follows close up inexorably, invariably, with the devotion of the obsessed. Often it's not a close up of a whole face -- just two inexpressive eyeballs peering out of black woolen ski masks. Slow-motion shots of bodies collapsing was trite two generations ago. There are shocking jump cuts, seriatim, sometimes three in a row, focusing on such important objects as the "Hollywood" sign. The only thing missing is the camera's wobbling as if wielded by a spaz.
Throughout, there is the constant complaint that the bandits are armed with Chinese-made AK-47s, formidable sub machine guns, while the cops only have their little Beretta pistols. It occurred to me while watching this that the audience might neatly be divided into two polarized groups: (1) Those believing that neither the bad guys nor the cops should have AK-47s, and (2) those believe that everybody should have one.
In summarizing this 44-minute war, one of the SWAT members being interviewed, Ron Livingston, remarks that in a situation like that, "You either have the fire power or the will power. We had the will power." Is he kidding? The police are all around, taking cover behind cars and other objects, and pumping rounds from their pistols into the two bandits, who casually stroll around and shoot it out, toe to toe, until their deaths. They don't make any serious effort to escape. They'd rather die.
There were really two ways a film of this real-life story might have gone. The writers might have given us plenty of material on the home life of the police officers. It would have tugged at our heart strings. And it would have taken up screen time until the final brief, bloody confrontation on the streets.
Or, they might have judged that the audience for a movie like this really weren't that interested in having the cockles of their hearts warmed. They wanted an action movie "based on a true story." At any rate, that's what they got.
The home life of the police, and their comradeship in the office, are briefly sketched in, just enough to let us know how diverse and yet how normal they are -- a pregnant wife, a black cop who wants to keep kids from becoming gangstas, the stern officer in charge of the SWAT team, the team member who once let a suspect escape only to learn that he later murdered someone during a robbery.
Surprisingly, the bandits are given some material to work with too. They live alone, like slobs; they're ruthless and one is the expectable ugly punk, but at least we're able to tell one from another. And their later circumstances almost generate a bit of sympathy for them. One of them, hopelessly surrounded and with an AK-47 that doesn't seem to work (unusual for such a weapon) shoots himself through the head out of desperation. The other, having survived the impact of innumerable bullets, is barely able to drive the getaway car at the pace of a man walking, while being pursued by fifty men intent on killing him. It's a tense scene, seeing that bullet-riddled car crawl slowly along an empty Los Angeles residential street.
Michael Madsen and Ron Livingston are both quite good in their police roles. They're the ones we get to know best. But the writers have almost succeeded in divesting the characters of all personality. There are so many gun shots and slow-motion cartridges bouncing off the asphalt, so many bullet holes appearing in some many cars, so many shattered windshield turning to lace, so many bodies rushing from place to place, that the people play second fiddle to the gun play. The climactic shoot out in "Heat" was just as electric but more involving because we knew the men involved.
During the first ten minutes I thought the director might pull it off, regardless of which path the script itself took. The introductory scenes were casual and there were some interesting camera angles. But then Yves Simoneau blows it. I understand the need for close ups in a television movie, although it could be argued that we need them less now than we dead when everybody was watching 15-inch screens. But close up follows close up inexorably, invariably, with the devotion of the obsessed. Often it's not a close up of a whole face -- just two inexpressive eyeballs peering out of black woolen ski masks. Slow-motion shots of bodies collapsing was trite two generations ago. There are shocking jump cuts, seriatim, sometimes three in a row, focusing on such important objects as the "Hollywood" sign. The only thing missing is the camera's wobbling as if wielded by a spaz.
Throughout, there is the constant complaint that the bandits are armed with Chinese-made AK-47s, formidable sub machine guns, while the cops only have their little Beretta pistols. It occurred to me while watching this that the audience might neatly be divided into two polarized groups: (1) Those believing that neither the bad guys nor the cops should have AK-47s, and (2) those believe that everybody should have one.
Cliched dialogue cannot blunt the impact of the violence
AlabamaWorley197124 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
**Spoiler: Some small aspects of the plot may be revealed below**
I'm all in favor of films that applaud the dangerous life of cops, and so I thought I would like this. The dialogue is the worst collection of cliches ("This is the job, and when you gotta go, you gotta do it", etc.). Except for Mario Van Peebles' character, who has some heartfelt moments where you feel like you're watching a documentary with a real cop. Where the film excels though is making the violence seem realistic and devastating. I thought I was pretty desensitized to movie violence, but every shot from the automatic weapons resonates and is terrifying. Scenes where a dentist's office across the STREET is riddled with bullet holes really drives home the point. And it makes the cops seem even braver for facing two armed men with Kevlar and machine guns without automatic weapons of their own. Mute the dialogue, and you'll be OK.
I'm all in favor of films that applaud the dangerous life of cops, and so I thought I would like this. The dialogue is the worst collection of cliches ("This is the job, and when you gotta go, you gotta do it", etc.). Except for Mario Van Peebles' character, who has some heartfelt moments where you feel like you're watching a documentary with a real cop. Where the film excels though is making the violence seem realistic and devastating. I thought I was pretty desensitized to movie violence, but every shot from the automatic weapons resonates and is terrifying. Scenes where a dentist's office across the STREET is riddled with bullet holes really drives home the point. And it makes the cops seem even braver for facing two armed men with Kevlar and machine guns without automatic weapons of their own. Mute the dialogue, and you'll be OK.
Good movie tarnished by anti-gun, anti Second Amendment propaganda
FloridaFred29 September 2018
What a shame that the producers pushed this movie as an anti-gun propaganda film. The term "AK-47" is mentioned again and again, implying that Guns are the problem. One police officer in a gun shop laments, "I can't believe they let people just buy these!" HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?!!!
On the contrary, this movie shows why every American needs to be armed. The only guys with guns in this movie are the bad guys. Not one single citizen has a gun to defend themselves and others against the bank robbers.
Americans exercising their Constitutional God-given Second Amendment rights can use guns to stop murdering criminals, and save innocent lives. The old saying, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is proved by the events portrayed in this movie.
*Also, with respect to LAPD: are you serious that NONE of your cops could score a head shot with a 9MM handgun? The bad guys were not wearing bullet-proof helmets! I hope that things have improved for your officers, since the tragic events of this bank robbery gone awry.
On the contrary, this movie shows why every American needs to be armed. The only guys with guns in this movie are the bad guys. Not one single citizen has a gun to defend themselves and others against the bank robbers.
Americans exercising their Constitutional God-given Second Amendment rights can use guns to stop murdering criminals, and save innocent lives. The old saying, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is proved by the events portrayed in this movie.
*Also, with respect to LAPD: are you serious that NONE of your cops could score a head shot with a 9MM handgun? The bad guys were not wearing bullet-proof helmets! I hope that things have improved for your officers, since the tragic events of this bank robbery gone awry.
Does this movie deserve this high rating?
sinco10 December 2004
Contrary to my principles, let me first come up with a conclusion, because I have just seen this piece of "art", and still am under strong impressions. The reader is asked to excuse my stronger vocabulary.
Well, this movie is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother to write a single word about it, if it were not for the fact that "44 Minutes" made me sick to death, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for that does not exactly makes me feel better, as well as the fact the movie deserved the high user rating here.
So what is wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - "44 Minutes". One first thinks about "15 Minutes", which is by the way a much better movie, but still bad in my book, and indeed the two can be compared to some extent. But, as luck would have it, the things they share are their worst characteristics. They both feature Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the Cold War mind. Ah, do we miss the good old times. Now, I don't imply that he is a bad actor, I am yet to judge his true performance, but he is simply not a true individual here, he is more like an archetype. How anyone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognize modern American xenophobia here. The point in the movie when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is truly laughable. Are we to assume that the greatest desire of the wretched duo is to become "true" Americans?
Then, there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that the most of what we learn comes from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the presumed 44 minutes. Instead he bores us with interviews throughout the movie like in a cheap TV show, trying to reinvent the wheel. In 15 Minutes the issue of media is the central one.The point is presented in a way a teacher addresses an obtuse student, but that deserves a separate comment, we are focusing on 44 Minutes now. So, I have been trying to identify the purpose of this movie. What is it? To provide good time for the audience? To glorify weapons? To glorify police? Portray violence? Oh yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage delinquent. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I only know I didn't enjoy any of this.
Ah, Michael Madsen. I admit, I am a big fan. I hoped he would be a bright point, but I was wrong. It's not his fault though.
As the final note, comparing "firepower" to "willpower" at the end of the movie was one of the worst lines I have ever heard.
To summarize, on the scale 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1.
Well, this movie is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother to write a single word about it, if it were not for the fact that "44 Minutes" made me sick to death, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for that does not exactly makes me feel better, as well as the fact the movie deserved the high user rating here.
So what is wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - "44 Minutes". One first thinks about "15 Minutes", which is by the way a much better movie, but still bad in my book, and indeed the two can be compared to some extent. But, as luck would have it, the things they share are their worst characteristics. They both feature Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the Cold War mind. Ah, do we miss the good old times. Now, I don't imply that he is a bad actor, I am yet to judge his true performance, but he is simply not a true individual here, he is more like an archetype. How anyone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognize modern American xenophobia here. The point in the movie when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is truly laughable. Are we to assume that the greatest desire of the wretched duo is to become "true" Americans?
Then, there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that the most of what we learn comes from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the presumed 44 minutes. Instead he bores us with interviews throughout the movie like in a cheap TV show, trying to reinvent the wheel. In 15 Minutes the issue of media is the central one.The point is presented in a way a teacher addresses an obtuse student, but that deserves a separate comment, we are focusing on 44 Minutes now. So, I have been trying to identify the purpose of this movie. What is it? To provide good time for the audience? To glorify weapons? To glorify police? Portray violence? Oh yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage delinquent. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I only know I didn't enjoy any of this.
Ah, Michael Madsen. I admit, I am a big fan. I hoped he would be a bright point, but I was wrong. It's not his fault though.
As the final note, comparing "firepower" to "willpower" at the end of the movie was one of the worst lines I have ever heard.
To summarize, on the scale 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1.
Great rental - As good as SWAT was bad.
robertbrantz30 December 2003
Rented the DVD and enjoyed it immensely. The story is well told and scripted. This is by far the best police drama/action movie of the year. Unbelievable how this was released directly to DVD, while garbage like SWAT received millions of revenue during a major theater release. The only thing this movie lacks is star power. Everything else is good. I vaguely remembered reading about the true story the movie is based on, but although I knew the result (the movie is true to the facts) I was highly entertained and excited watching this flick at home. Dear studio bosses: fire whoever made SWAT and get Simoneau for your next police drama.
A "Shot" Above
refinedsugar4 September 2023
'44 Minutes' is a compelling half reality, half fiction look at the infamous 'Bank of America' robbery in '97. Two masked suspects wielding fully automatic weapons and full body armor went head to head with the LAPD when the bank job went south. This made for tv movie hits a lot of the right notes, features a good cast, but general melodrama is inserted to pad the runtime and supplement the known facts, event.
You might remember when this crazy moment happened as it was larger than life. The violence spilling out into the streets, TV news copters circling around getting us closer to the insanity. Heavily outgunned, miraculously the only people who lost their lives that day were the bad guys. The first half establishes the band of characters, dives into some real life history of the suspects. The rest is the actual event played out and the lasting effects from a semi-fictionalized account.
Big real life tough guys Andrew Bryniarski & Oleg Taktarov play the fictionalized accounts of the real life suspects. Establishes faces (Michael Madsen, Mario Van Peebles) play heavily featured but fictional cops. Ron Livingston plays his real-life SWAT counterpart. Throughout the entire movie there's personal tv news interviews with them. Talking about being cops and offering their thoughts on the ordeal. Some of the dialog is crisp & well delivered, but it's also 100% unabatingly pro police. LAPD certainly felt alienated from the public at this time, but it's not like it was all unwarranted.
'44 Minutes: The North Hollywood Shoot-Out' was a winner for the FX network when it aired in 2003. It was decent then and still is today. It does a good job capturing the atmosphere, reenacting the brutal moments of the event in good detail. Solid acting & entertaining bits of action. The only thing that brings this 81 min movie down is the dramatic padding and the commercial break "moments" due to it's made-for-tv origins.
You might remember when this crazy moment happened as it was larger than life. The violence spilling out into the streets, TV news copters circling around getting us closer to the insanity. Heavily outgunned, miraculously the only people who lost their lives that day were the bad guys. The first half establishes the band of characters, dives into some real life history of the suspects. The rest is the actual event played out and the lasting effects from a semi-fictionalized account.
Big real life tough guys Andrew Bryniarski & Oleg Taktarov play the fictionalized accounts of the real life suspects. Establishes faces (Michael Madsen, Mario Van Peebles) play heavily featured but fictional cops. Ron Livingston plays his real-life SWAT counterpart. Throughout the entire movie there's personal tv news interviews with them. Talking about being cops and offering their thoughts on the ordeal. Some of the dialog is crisp & well delivered, but it's also 100% unabatingly pro police. LAPD certainly felt alienated from the public at this time, but it's not like it was all unwarranted.
'44 Minutes: The North Hollywood Shoot-Out' was a winner for the FX network when it aired in 2003. It was decent then and still is today. It does a good job capturing the atmosphere, reenacting the brutal moments of the event in good detail. Solid acting & entertaining bits of action. The only thing that brings this 81 min movie down is the dramatic padding and the commercial break "moments" due to it's made-for-tv origins.
How big should a guy's head be to hit it?
CineCritic251721 September 2006
This movie was based on actual fact? I sincerely hope not!
We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?
This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.
And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.
Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.
3/10 for the fine editing.
We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?
This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.
And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.
Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.
3/10 for the fine editing.
Interesting twist on a documentary/action style movie
rcslyman18 April 2004
Plays off as a "day in the life of" at first, which was a pretty good move, I thought. Kind of "Cops"ish, with periodic interjections from the officers involved in the shootout, which does well to give the viewer the mindset of the people. I had a problem with some of the scenes of the two gunmen alone, making comments back and forth, which we don't really know what they were thinking, or saying, since it isn't like they are available anymore to tell us. But, dramatic license and all, it's hardly anything that Fox can't be forgiven for doing. They did an exceptional job with the firefight. You really get a sense of the sheer chaos that was happening then. The freeze frame cuts for commercial breaks were a nice touch as well, giving you a snapshot of the moment, which as I understand, happens in the mind of people in these types of situations sometimes.
The movie was credible, and nicely done. You don't get the full effect by just watching the action in the last hour. The narrations given, and the scenes from the first hour, help set the tone for what started out as an average work day in Los Angeles, but then sank an entire area into a heated war zone before lunchtime had even come around. Wouldn't have been one I'd have paid money to see, but for a made-for-TV-movie, I've seen a whole lot worse, but more importantly, not many better.
The movie was credible, and nicely done. You don't get the full effect by just watching the action in the last hour. The narrations given, and the scenes from the first hour, help set the tone for what started out as an average work day in Los Angeles, but then sank an entire area into a heated war zone before lunchtime had even come around. Wouldn't have been one I'd have paid money to see, but for a made-for-TV-movie, I've seen a whole lot worse, but more importantly, not many better.
Commercial Spot
laertesdd10 October 2005
Yeah, Madsen's character - whilst talking to the woman from the TV station - is right: the LAPD IS a corrupt, violent and racist police. And this movie changes nothing about it. Okay, here are the good cops, the moral cops, even a black one, whow, a Christian, a martyr. But this is a fairy tale, admit it. Reality is not like that. And most important for the action fans: The shoot out is boring. It's just shooting and shooting and shooting. Nothing more. Play Counter Strike, then you will at least have something to do. The only moral of this film is: The LAPD is good now. No more bad cops in it. If you like uncritical, euphemistic commercials for police and military service, watch this movie. It's the longest commercial I've ever seen. (2 Points for camera and editing).
44 Minutes: The North Hollywood Shoot-Out
I_John_Barrymore_I16 March 2009
It tells the story of the infamous 1997 North Hollywood shootout, where two bank robbers, wearing body armour and carrying AK-47s unleashed an unprecedented wave of gunfire at dozens of LAPD officers as they tried to make their getaway.
The incredible footage of this incident, broadcast live from TV news helicopters is unlike anything you've seen before. It's fascinated me for years, seeing such events, straight out of Michael Mann's Heat, played out for real.
So I was looking forward to this one but it was a disappointment and makes me wonder if the story could ever be done justice in a fictional movie. In the hands of director Yves Simoneau it's little more than a bloodier version of the countless Discovery and History channel reconstruction documentaries of the incident. Indeed the film's documentary-style approach, complete with talking heads, just reminds viewers of the fact that it's been done better previously. Instead of real people recounting the events we have mediocre actors. Instead of hard facts we have small inaccuracies and timelines altered for (understandable) dramatic purposes. Instead of the horrifying real footage we have poorly-edited action sequences.
I'd recommend watching one of those aforementioned TV documentaries, or the raw footage on YouTube, to get a better idea of what happened that day. That said, the drama inherent in the story means 44 Minutes can't help but be a moderately exciting film.
The incredible footage of this incident, broadcast live from TV news helicopters is unlike anything you've seen before. It's fascinated me for years, seeing such events, straight out of Michael Mann's Heat, played out for real.
So I was looking forward to this one but it was a disappointment and makes me wonder if the story could ever be done justice in a fictional movie. In the hands of director Yves Simoneau it's little more than a bloodier version of the countless Discovery and History channel reconstruction documentaries of the incident. Indeed the film's documentary-style approach, complete with talking heads, just reminds viewers of the fact that it's been done better previously. Instead of real people recounting the events we have mediocre actors. Instead of hard facts we have small inaccuracies and timelines altered for (understandable) dramatic purposes. Instead of the horrifying real footage we have poorly-edited action sequences.
I'd recommend watching one of those aforementioned TV documentaries, or the raw footage on YouTube, to get a better idea of what happened that day. That said, the drama inherent in the story means 44 Minutes can't help but be a moderately exciting film.
What the hell?
Sandcooler7 December 2008
The funniest scene of this movie is probably when our saviours get their medals and plaques and whatnot. So the basic idea is, the police outnumbers these gangsters by like a million to one, but they're powerless because the villains' guns are just a bit bigger. I guess police ammo just kinda bounces of. They decided to shoot this movie in documentary style with fake interviews and all and seriously, what is wrong with these guys? They're talking like they were armed with rolled-up newspapers. Okay I admit, it's probably still dangerous to be in the line of the fire, even when the situation is so much to your advantage, but don't go nuts. And why the hell did it take 44 minutes to solve everything anyway? I'd say that's a very long time when you have them surrounded and you're allowed to shoot. They're like ten ft. away, they hit absolutely nothing. Then they go and buy bigger guns themselves to increase their heroism. And then yeah, there you have it, one of the cops actually hits someone. Bullet was probably diverted by a lamp post or something. I had a good laugh I guess.
Amazing
Liquidon_Snake9 March 2005
This film hit home in all ways. From the faithful Henry Jones, to the testament of true police nature by Madsen and Livingston, "44 Minutes" presented us with a display of the true meaning of the duty of the American Police Officer. This film brings out the definition of the real-life hero, the real-life villain, and the real-life story that binds them. The actors are true to their characters, and can undoubtedly bring great honor and respect to the real men and women who experienced the crisis. As for the villains, well, they deserve the shame they get from the people who see this film, because, in my belief, Taktarov and Bryniarski portrayed the true criminals accurately down to the finest detail. Even though I feel that the respects to the true men and women shown in the end were no less than morally mandatory, I am duly impressed by the fact that such respect was shown in full, and it is exactly what the true people deserve. This film deserves an 11, but since it can't get one, a 10 will do it justice.
Oh come on...
ofjeworstlust30 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Men, do I love police movies filled with action, shooting, chases etcetera.
Boy, was I let down after watching this short and unsatisfying movie. We've seen it all before, the hostages, the bank, the surrounding... Yet, 2 bad guys that shoot down multiple officers and innocent people who simply stay in the line of fire - without getting hit due to some Kevlar.
Not just a few shots, no, hundreds of shots. Going back into the bank, where the dumb hostages didn't lock the safe or doors when the bad guys went out. How stupid did the director think we'd be.
Okay, the shots in between that fake a documentary were good, but after seeing the film I only got the thought: why didn't the police get a decent shooting course? And why where there so many cops and was SWAT on a real long break. Truly bad.
Boy, was I let down after watching this short and unsatisfying movie. We've seen it all before, the hostages, the bank, the surrounding... Yet, 2 bad guys that shoot down multiple officers and innocent people who simply stay in the line of fire - without getting hit due to some Kevlar.
Not just a few shots, no, hundreds of shots. Going back into the bank, where the dumb hostages didn't lock the safe or doors when the bad guys went out. How stupid did the director think we'd be.
Okay, the shots in between that fake a documentary were good, but after seeing the film I only got the thought: why didn't the police get a decent shooting course? And why where there so many cops and was SWAT on a real long break. Truly bad.
Pretty Good Movie
Filmguy62 June 2003
Since I was only about two miles away from the real shootout and saw the footage on the news about 100 times, I was quite interested in seeing the movie to see how accurately it would depict the real event. The film was not only accurate (with very few exceptions) but it was also riveting (with the shootout edited together with documentary-style testimonials from the policemen characters) and peppered with some FX-style swearing and graphic moments. Of the actors, Michael Madsen and Mario Van Peebles were the best (and most well known) and Ron Livingston was good too, but seemed a bit out of place as a hard-edged, SWAT team member. Interesting tidbits were that the gunmen's full names were never mentioned (one was referred to as Larry a few times, but nothing else) and the gunmen characters looked nothing like the real gunmen (the wrong one had long hair and one of the real guys was about 100 pounds heavier than the other). Also, Michael Madsen, who is often confused with Tom Sizemore, who was in the 1995 film Heat, brings up Al Pacino's character from Heat in one of his testimonials. Heat is often mentioned in the same breath as the real North Hollywood incident, because of the similar shootouts and the fact that the real gunmen used the movie as an informal training video for robbing banks. The real gunmen also were nicknamed the 'High Incident Bandits' and the shootout was also the basis for the final episode of the 1996-97 ABC cop show 'High Incident' starring Blair Underwood. Good film.
Awful
martoskirov8 March 2012
This is definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The acting was mediocre , the plot was terrible, it was extremely unrealistic mainly due to the fact that 2 guys (and i don't care if they were wearing body armor) were able to start an open shoot-out with a 100 cops and almost win. My favorite part was in the end when one of the SWAT guys was heavily armored except for the waist downwards he was wearing shorts and some sneakers. I've heard that they have to react extremely quickly but this is ridiculous. I laughed my ass of at that point. If it were meant to be a comedy I'd give the movie a 10 but sadly that is not the case.
That Really Was A Great Gunfight.
BigHardcoreRed28 January 2005
This movie is surrounding the events of February 28, 1997 in Los Angeles. More specifically, a bank robbery gone wrong. Although I have heard of many inaccuracies in this movie, it was still an enjoyable action flick, despite the fact it was based on a true story.
The shootout between the two bank robbers, Larry and Emil, and what seemed to be just about the entire LAPD lasted 44 minutes. This is a huge amount of time in real life and is probably the longest gunfight I have seen in the movies as well. I can't think of a longer one right now anyways. So after getting to know the characters just a little bit, it's on with the action, and it was gripping. The sight of the robbers, decked out in armor and standing in the line of fire and just taking hits and keeping it going was awesome. It reminded me of video games where you just keep shooting the bad guys but they never die. In fact, if I had one complaint about the movie, it would be that all the officers on the scene either could not figure out to shoot at their heads or were not capable. I guess the overwhelming firepower on the thieves behalf was just too much for them to think straight.
Standouts in the cast are, of course, Michael Madsen, who can make anything fun to watch, even though his role here was limited. Mario Van Peebles played the deeply religious officer who tried to straighten up kids before it was too late. His character was very likable. Andrew Bryniarski and Oleg Taktarov were great villains, as always, but not much to them. Ron Livingston did good for his role but I don't know if it's just me, and thought he was a bit miscast, or am I just never going to get Peter Gibbons from Office Space out of my head. That's one of my favorite comedies and going from that to a hard nosed SWAT team cop wasn't doing it for me.
Good movie, none the less. If nothing else, I can recommend it for the gunfight. 8/10
The shootout between the two bank robbers, Larry and Emil, and what seemed to be just about the entire LAPD lasted 44 minutes. This is a huge amount of time in real life and is probably the longest gunfight I have seen in the movies as well. I can't think of a longer one right now anyways. So after getting to know the characters just a little bit, it's on with the action, and it was gripping. The sight of the robbers, decked out in armor and standing in the line of fire and just taking hits and keeping it going was awesome. It reminded me of video games where you just keep shooting the bad guys but they never die. In fact, if I had one complaint about the movie, it would be that all the officers on the scene either could not figure out to shoot at their heads or were not capable. I guess the overwhelming firepower on the thieves behalf was just too much for them to think straight.
Standouts in the cast are, of course, Michael Madsen, who can make anything fun to watch, even though his role here was limited. Mario Van Peebles played the deeply religious officer who tried to straighten up kids before it was too late. His character was very likable. Andrew Bryniarski and Oleg Taktarov were great villains, as always, but not much to them. Ron Livingston did good for his role but I don't know if it's just me, and thought he was a bit miscast, or am I just never going to get Peter Gibbons from Office Space out of my head. That's one of my favorite comedies and going from that to a hard nosed SWAT team cop wasn't doing it for me.
Good movie, none the less. If nothing else, I can recommend it for the gunfight. 8/10
Very poor even for 2003
joshuabenhaggai24 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I saw the real news footage at the time this all happened and i can tell you that this movie in my opinion is a waste of time. A complete senseless drama with over dramatized acting. One word about this movie that keeps coming to mind is STUPID. To sum up this version of the story as it is portrayed in this movie: think of Days of our lives on steroids, and that's it. That's what this is. What i still can not believe is that 100 LA cops and not a single one can or even thought of shooting at the head or legs till the very end. Even then our swat team hero who was late ("I'm 10 min out"-"There in 2 min"-"I'm on the scene") and went on about being a hero and how he came to be a hero and what it's like to be a hero didn't really do much to the last single bank robber who was down to his handgun because his AK-47 got jammed. Another word just come to mind: PATHETIC. I hate this movie.
excellent crime drama
deanofrpps27 March 2005
i reserve 10s for movies with a message but 44 minutes is more story than message. pit a hand full of street cops with six shooters against two professional hoods with enough arms to supply the us army. up the ante with hostages held in a bank vault. leave the well-trained swat team waylaid in LA area traffic and you have a shoot out and tense moments that rival any tales the wild west could have ever imagined.
many commentators didn't like the evangelical Christian in uniform. too pat, too much good guy bad guy, so they said. frankly Christianity does seem to catch on in police departments and in the military; surprisingly hazardous life and death occupations lend themselves to bible reading; on the other hand, in normal circumstances, bank robbers generally don't carry bibles. i wonder why.
watch the flick. you won't be able to turn it off.
many commentators didn't like the evangelical Christian in uniform. too pat, too much good guy bad guy, so they said. frankly Christianity does seem to catch on in police departments and in the military; surprisingly hazardous life and death occupations lend themselves to bible reading; on the other hand, in normal circumstances, bank robbers generally don't carry bibles. i wonder why.
watch the flick. you won't be able to turn it off.
One of the better TV movies made recently. FX did a good job.
johnnyblueprints2 June 2003
This was a better than average movie I thought, for it being on cable. I had expected something along the lines of cheesy melodrama and bad special effects seen in such classics as Christmas Rush or First Daughter/Target/Shot, etc.
The cast was well chosen...I especially liked Ron Livingston as the hard pressed SWAT Commander. It's good to see him revisiting the same material he had so much fortune with in Band of Brothers. The producers and designers had done their homework because all the scenes and shots looked like they did on that day back in 1997.
So, if you get a chance to see this film, and I am sure you will since FX reruns everything 50 times...take 2 hours and enjoy it.
The cast was well chosen...I especially liked Ron Livingston as the hard pressed SWAT Commander. It's good to see him revisiting the same material he had so much fortune with in Band of Brothers. The producers and designers had done their homework because all the scenes and shots looked like they did on that day back in 1997.
So, if you get a chance to see this film, and I am sure you will since FX reruns everything 50 times...take 2 hours and enjoy it.
Wow!
tom_sullivan12 June 2003
I was impressed by this made for FX movie. It was heavy on action, yet it also portrayed the human side of the event. It's a sobering reminder of the tough jobs that police officers have and how they "put it on the line" for us everyday.
Helluva lot of BRASS
d.rust17 February 2018
So, there I was, dozing off in bed, about to turn off the TV when this movie starts up, Michael Madsen's eyes on the screen, giving the first monologue about how 90% of cops wind up never shooting their weapon. I was hooked right there.
The first act gives us a summary of a normal week-day's early morning preparation, getting ready for a day on the job, putting on your work clothes, making sure your name tag is straight, revising your weapon: all the things that define you.
The second act is the violence. While the robbers sit in their car outside of a Bank of America waiting for their initial target, the other primary actors are doing their jobs of law enforcement. When the target arrives, it doesn't go where the heavily-armed thieves have thought it would: confused, they decide to rob the bank. Everyday people see them enter and call in the emergency. Chaos ensues. When the duo emerges from the bank, they are met by dozens of police officers. The shootout begins with bullets flying everywhere from AK47 machine guns. The police figure out the two men are wearing body armour as they seem impervious to the return fire. Endless volleys and blood spattering moments as projectiles rip through vehicles, buildings, making targets of anyone and anything. Eventually, the bank robbers are stopped by sheer determination on the part of the LAPD.
The third act is the aftermath: destruction of public property, picking up the used brass casings, a review of the injuries, recognition of the heroism under extreme fire. And a denouément that shows how life just goes back to "normal" afterwards: the bank reopens the day after, life affirmation and dedication. We see in the final scenes a close up again of Michael Madsen describing the events and his reaction, and the camera pulls out to reveal that it is part of a sequence being worked on in an editing bay of one of the television stations that covered the shootout.
This made-for-TV production is absolutely gripping. It is almost a documentary re-enactment, but for small embellishments that hold interest by making the participants human and are dramatization. You may find yourself unable to take your eyes off the screen as it plays out. Madsen, Livingston and van Peebles give us good performances.
The first act gives us a summary of a normal week-day's early morning preparation, getting ready for a day on the job, putting on your work clothes, making sure your name tag is straight, revising your weapon: all the things that define you.
The second act is the violence. While the robbers sit in their car outside of a Bank of America waiting for their initial target, the other primary actors are doing their jobs of law enforcement. When the target arrives, it doesn't go where the heavily-armed thieves have thought it would: confused, they decide to rob the bank. Everyday people see them enter and call in the emergency. Chaos ensues. When the duo emerges from the bank, they are met by dozens of police officers. The shootout begins with bullets flying everywhere from AK47 machine guns. The police figure out the two men are wearing body armour as they seem impervious to the return fire. Endless volleys and blood spattering moments as projectiles rip through vehicles, buildings, making targets of anyone and anything. Eventually, the bank robbers are stopped by sheer determination on the part of the LAPD.
The third act is the aftermath: destruction of public property, picking up the used brass casings, a review of the injuries, recognition of the heroism under extreme fire. And a denouément that shows how life just goes back to "normal" afterwards: the bank reopens the day after, life affirmation and dedication. We see in the final scenes a close up again of Michael Madsen describing the events and his reaction, and the camera pulls out to reveal that it is part of a sequence being worked on in an editing bay of one of the television stations that covered the shootout.
This made-for-TV production is absolutely gripping. It is almost a documentary re-enactment, but for small embellishments that hold interest by making the participants human and are dramatization. You may find yourself unable to take your eyes off the screen as it plays out. Madsen, Livingston and van Peebles give us good performances.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
