We’re all wondering how Michael Mann will pull off his “Heat” sequel. If you’ve read his novel, you would know that there are some peculiar time jumps that happen.
The film adaptation takes place both before and after the original, in the same vein as in The Godfather Part II, largely focusing on Hanna (Al Pacino), Chris Shiherlis (the character played in the film by Val Kilmer) and Neil McCauley (Robert De Niro).
In a recent interview, Mann says that he hasn’t actually thought of casting the film yet since the script isn’t finished (more on that below). He also reveals how he would do the time jumps.
“It’s going to be a combination [of CG and makeup]. And so, it won’t be [Robert De Niro] and Al [Pacino] playing McCauley and Hanna,” explained Mann. “And it actually starts eight years earlier than the movie. It starts in 1988, and then it’s gonna jump to 2000. But I don’t really know who to cast until I’ve actually written the screenplay, but I’m in the middle of writing the screenplay right now. And Warner Bros. have been very patient.”
Mann had previously hinted that Adam Driver would play a younger version of Robert DeNiro’s Neil McCauley character. The other roles had only been rumored, with Al Pacino, Ana de Armas and Austin Butler all being namechecked, by various outlets, as possibilities. Channing Tatum and Jeremy Allen White have also, apparently, made their interest actively known to join the project.
Mann adds that “Heat 2” will have “the same scale as the 1995 film.” So, expect something ranging close to the 3-hour mark.
What we do know is that this will be Mann’s next film. Warner Bros is currently waiting on his final draft of the script and then the whole thing will be a go. Whether this turns out to be a great film is a whole other story as there are still some questions regarding how he can pull of the de-aging process of the stars. Trust in Mann, I guess.
Remember when, back in August, we learned “The Further Mis-Adventures of Cliff Booth” would be playing in only around 350 U.S. theaters, "maybe fewer"? Well, it's fewer. A lot fewer.