OK so I'd probably have given this a 9 but felt the rating was disproportionately low and no doubt reflects Heat fans deliberately rating this down to show partisan support for their beloved Heat, rather than because they actually disliked this movie that much. Just a hunch! It's amazing to me how easily people will be polarised on a trivial issue. It's the same director FFS! What's the point of blindly hating one and adoring the other. It's not a football match.Forgetting about the bloody remake for a minute, you've got try to imagine this movie framed in the context of 1989. It was re-inventing an extremely tired genre with a brand new style. Rather than lazily re-hashing the hackneyed cops good/crooks evil template, it attempted to give a believable account of how a specialist team of cops and a serious crew of crooks operated on different sides of the same coin. It tries to make you sympathise with both sides which was *incredibly* rare back then. It introduced shockingly believable and cold violence which was even rarer.Whatever you make of this now, you need to at least acknowledge that it would've been ground breaking and original when it came out, and lets face it, that there would have been no Heat if it weren't for this.When I bought this on DVD 10 years or so ago I noticed a couple of things that may have contributed to the bad reviews.First of all there was the appalling quality of the DVD recording - that really takes a lot away from the style of the movie and that's just unfortunate. Maybe down to bad storage or just a cheap pressing of the DVD.Secondly was how dated it looked. OK so Michael Mann's original batch of 80s movies/TV series were never going to age well because they whole-heartedly celebrated 80s fashion, design, architecture, language and style. This worked so well on screen back then. The zeitgeist of the 80s was brutally different to what had preceded it - a bold industrial/chic/sanitised re-imagining of a stale flower power, earthy world. Some rejected it, others embraced it. Among those who embraced it were movie directors like Michael Mann, and John Hughes. Sure, 5 or 6 fashion fads later and it looks dated and ridiculous. Well guess what, that's exactly what those guys made of the 60s/70s fashions that they were rejecting and that's what the next batch will make of fashion now and so on and so on. That's no reason to close the door on art produced in a particular era. You've got to think bigger than that or you're going to miss out on some amazing old movies.There's a hell of a lot in the very well written dialogue which beautifully captures the values of the time it was made, e.g. "I'm a heavy hitter, I travel in circles, you know, like strata, strata at the top see? Cos I have access to some of the most precious commodity on Earth - information, data." If it sounds corny now, well remember it sounded sharp back then.Very few people agree with this but I honestly preferred the original Scott Plank and Alex McArthur as the cop/crook. I thought they were much more believable in those roles than the aging DeNiro and Pacino. DeNiro gave it his best but if I had to guess which out of him and McArthur had been inside serving time, I'd go with McArthur every time - he comes over as a very convincing psychopath who could kick off at any moment. As for Pacino, I think he was having a bit of laugh with his character in Heat to be honest - "...great ass" etc. Scott Plank was actually convincing as an ex marine turned cop capable of sprinting down the street hauling an assault rifle and after a crew that had taken down a bank.I also prefer Vincent Guastaferro to Sizemore as the driver, and Xander Berkeley has to be better as the weaselly, desperate, wannabe tough guy Waingro. The guy in Heat was way too tough and mean looking to play that part.Sure so more money's going to lead to tighter production, better music, better effects etc. No brainer. But in terms of capturing the spirit of the story, the locations, the characters & the interplay between them, LA Takedown wins for me.I do like Heat in its own right, but I will always prefer LA Takedown because it was the original and it is steeped in the time it was intended for. Just like I'll always infinitely prefer the 1964 Ford Mustang to the current remake even though it should always lose on paper. It's about originality, class, and the spirit of the era that went into it.

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.

It makes me want to laugh! By the comments here stating that Heat(1995) is some kind of masterpiece it makes me want to cringe! Between Al Pacino's "Hammy" Acting mimicking Scott Planks lines in L.A Takedown to Robert DeNiro's speaking Alex McArthur's lines very badly!! If L.A Takedown didn't come first Heat would not be the film it was, and the supporting performances in L.A Takedown are also spectacular from Vincent Gustaferro to Peter Dobson, and Michael Rooker and Ely Pouget, with Xander Berkely and Cary Tagawa Don't trash this fine film because you can't find it on home video, just realize that out of your own laziness you don't have a copy because you just don't care!! L.A Takedown(****) Out Of (****) Heat(*) Out Of (****)

This movie has the same basic plot outline as Heat and MOST of the same characters, but is in NO WAY "scene-for-scene the same as Heat." The acting is absolutely atrocious and some of the scenes make no sense without some of the setup Heat has. I can understand why these actors haven't gone on to much beyond this movie -- THEY'RE AWFUL!!!!! Some of the storyline is just implausible and downright silly. I can also fully understand why this isn't available on DVD here in North America (the quality of this film is akin to what you might see on late night local television). However, if you're a die-hard Michael Mann fan, as am I, you should still see this, because it because it shows how much development he puts into a story.