This film didn't completely win me over like I was hoping it would, but some solid acting, a good premise, and a few clever scenes made it worthwhile. There was never anything particularly suspenseful about the film, and you pretty much know who will win by the end, but the loathesome Michael Keaton character helped to keep me interested throughout. There were also a few things that especially annoyed me, including the terminally stupid Matthew Modine character, but this movie just has too many positives for me to dwell on the negatives. It's by no means perfect, but it's an effective thriller nonetheless.
139 Reviews
yuppy horror not fun
SnoopyStyle23 April 2016
Drake Goodman (Matthew Modine) and his girlfriend Patty Palmer (Melanie Griffith) are stretching their finances to the limit to buy a San Francisco house. They need to rent the two ground floor apartments to cover the mortgage. They rent one apartment to the nice Watanabes. The other one they rent to Carter Hayes (Michael Keaton). Carter seems to be well-off initially. Things turn quickly. Carter never pays rent. He causes problems. The law is on his side. The couple gets Stephanie MacDonald (Laurie Metcalf) as their lawyer.
Matthew Modine is so angry and so unlikeable that it's hard to root for him. He keeps yelling at everybody and it happens very quickly after the first hurdle. Michael Keaton is a nice creepy villain. It's somewhat a horror. The problem is that it's not a fun horror. The thrills are derived from annoyance. It is very good at being an uncomfortable watch. It's actually a relief when Modine takes a backseat to Griffith. For what it is, this is expertly made.
Matthew Modine is so angry and so unlikeable that it's hard to root for him. He keeps yelling at everybody and it happens very quickly after the first hurdle. Michael Keaton is a nice creepy villain. It's somewhat a horror. The problem is that it's not a fun horror. The thrills are derived from annoyance. It is very good at being an uncomfortable watch. It's actually a relief when Modine takes a backseat to Griffith. For what it is, this is expertly made.
Why Background Checks Are A Good Idea... (spoilers)
vertigo_145 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Pacific Heights is a great movie is you're in the mood for good suspense. It is the tale of two newlyweds (Melanie Griffith as Patty; Matt Modine as Drake), slightly short on reasonable income, who buy a hefty house in Pacific Heights. Being a larger house than they initially intended to buy, they rent out the floors. One goes to a polite Asian couple. The other, to a wealthy man (Michael Keaton as Carter Hayes) who is in the business of real estate scams.
Carter is the worst case scenario of a tenant. Short of murdering the landlords and fellow tenants, he moves in rather quickly and bypasses much of the background checks by telling the impressionable young couple a bunch of lies (actually, it's pretty much Drake's fault for rushing into everything without adequately checking up on Hayes). Then, without every paying up the rent or deposit, he hangs around just long enough to get tenant's rights (or at least a presumption of rights, after which the already tight-budget couple would have to sue to claim misrepresentation and everything) and keep the couple from kicking him out. Gradually, terrorizing them as he had done so many times before. It's all part of his scam.
Michael Keaton is terrific as the elusive and obviously strange and brutally eerie Carter Hayes. He is so creepy, I think that's what makes the movie so suspenseful like the scene when he's hanging out in the basement when the power goes out. Or the final revenge sequence in the hotel (perhaps the finale is one of the greatest revenge sequences ever in a movie!). The guy who's made it his purpose to raise as much hell as possible to get what he wants. But, this may well be the last time Carter gets away with it. Patty and Drake seem to fall apart when their tenant not only refuses to leave, but makes trouble for the other tenants (in a pretty gross way).
Drake doesn't handle the situation too well. The couple immediately feel helpless when even the law fails to rid them of Carter Hayes. The viewer, too, gets on edge about Carter Hayes. How do you make a guy like this get the f*ck out of your home? (That's one of the great elements of suspense, in a way, we feel like the invasion of Patty and Drake's home is like an invasion of our own. That's just how powerful a character like Carter Hayes is). And Drake's form of vigilante justice isn't the smartest way of handling the situation, using fists of fury rather than intellect, which seems to only exacerbate the couple's problems. In fact, Patty is the one responsible for the fantastic events that create one of the best revenge scenes and really give Carter Hayes his own just deserts.
Pacific Heights really is a fantastic thriller. Some might not appreciate Matthew Modine being cast as Drake here. A part like this might've called for someone less dorky, since Drake wasn't really a straggly guy, he was just a guy who wanted to get rid of Carter too fast without really thinking about the smartest way of going about it. However, Melanie Griffith works great in her role as Patty. Nonetheless, it is really good stuff, a thriller that you're sure to enjoy!
Carter is the worst case scenario of a tenant. Short of murdering the landlords and fellow tenants, he moves in rather quickly and bypasses much of the background checks by telling the impressionable young couple a bunch of lies (actually, it's pretty much Drake's fault for rushing into everything without adequately checking up on Hayes). Then, without every paying up the rent or deposit, he hangs around just long enough to get tenant's rights (or at least a presumption of rights, after which the already tight-budget couple would have to sue to claim misrepresentation and everything) and keep the couple from kicking him out. Gradually, terrorizing them as he had done so many times before. It's all part of his scam.
Michael Keaton is terrific as the elusive and obviously strange and brutally eerie Carter Hayes. He is so creepy, I think that's what makes the movie so suspenseful like the scene when he's hanging out in the basement when the power goes out. Or the final revenge sequence in the hotel (perhaps the finale is one of the greatest revenge sequences ever in a movie!). The guy who's made it his purpose to raise as much hell as possible to get what he wants. But, this may well be the last time Carter gets away with it. Patty and Drake seem to fall apart when their tenant not only refuses to leave, but makes trouble for the other tenants (in a pretty gross way).
Drake doesn't handle the situation too well. The couple immediately feel helpless when even the law fails to rid them of Carter Hayes. The viewer, too, gets on edge about Carter Hayes. How do you make a guy like this get the f*ck out of your home? (That's one of the great elements of suspense, in a way, we feel like the invasion of Patty and Drake's home is like an invasion of our own. That's just how powerful a character like Carter Hayes is). And Drake's form of vigilante justice isn't the smartest way of handling the situation, using fists of fury rather than intellect, which seems to only exacerbate the couple's problems. In fact, Patty is the one responsible for the fantastic events that create one of the best revenge scenes and really give Carter Hayes his own just deserts.
Pacific Heights really is a fantastic thriller. Some might not appreciate Matthew Modine being cast as Drake here. A part like this might've called for someone less dorky, since Drake wasn't really a straggly guy, he was just a guy who wanted to get rid of Carter too fast without really thinking about the smartest way of going about it. However, Melanie Griffith works great in her role as Patty. Nonetheless, it is really good stuff, a thriller that you're sure to enjoy!
underrated film
rycarson26 July 2005
I saw this movie again recently, and I have to say that upon reconsideration I think this film is a bit underrated. There are a few deeper sociological issues being explored here that I perceive but are quite subtle in their appearance in the film.
It is a study about the law to some degree, and it has some critical things to say about the ability for one who knows the law and its loopholes and thus exploits others with tools that were originally intended to preserve civil society. Keaton plays a psycho, but one who is highly educated and quite adept at his craft of fraud and deceit.
Further, Modine's character is irrational, befuddled, and ultimately marginalized. I wonder if the director took some liberties with him (as this is a true story, I don't know everything about the real person he portrays) to bring out a few of his close-minded tendencies that may have contributed to the awful situation in which he finds himself. Obviously, there is the closet racism which keeps him from renting to a black man (this is thrown in the viewer's face later and is quite obvious), but there is also the way he perceives a man's role as the solver of problems and his wife as nothing more than a spectator.
That she ends up being the one to calmly and coolly affect a search for and investigate Keaton's character, assaults the traditional notions of a man's role as a protector. Her temperament is ultimately more appropriate for the solution to the problem, and I think it is no accident that the director portrays it in this way.
It is a study about the law to some degree, and it has some critical things to say about the ability for one who knows the law and its loopholes and thus exploits others with tools that were originally intended to preserve civil society. Keaton plays a psycho, but one who is highly educated and quite adept at his craft of fraud and deceit.
Further, Modine's character is irrational, befuddled, and ultimately marginalized. I wonder if the director took some liberties with him (as this is a true story, I don't know everything about the real person he portrays) to bring out a few of his close-minded tendencies that may have contributed to the awful situation in which he finds himself. Obviously, there is the closet racism which keeps him from renting to a black man (this is thrown in the viewer's face later and is quite obvious), but there is also the way he perceives a man's role as the solver of problems and his wife as nothing more than a spectator.
That she ends up being the one to calmly and coolly affect a search for and investigate Keaton's character, assaults the traditional notions of a man's role as a protector. Her temperament is ultimately more appropriate for the solution to the problem, and I think it is no accident that the director portrays it in this way.
Michael Keaton Is The Movies Saving Grace
slightlymad224 December 2014
An unusual choice for Michael Keaton to follow up his first "Batman" movie with him going from hero and to outright villain.
Plot In A Paragraph: Drake Goodman (Modine) and Patty Palmer (Griffith)an unmarried couple, purchase an expensive 19th-century house in the exclusive Pacific Heights neighbourhood. They rent one of the building's two first-floor apartments to the Watanabes, a kindly Japanese couple. Not long after, Carter Hayes (Keaton) visits to view the remaining vacant unit and immediately expresses a desire to move in. Hayes drives an expensive Porsche and carries large amounts of cash on him. He convinces Drake to waive the credit check in exchange for a list of personal references and an upfront payment of the first six months' rent, to be paid by wire transfer. Before any of that happens he moves in unannounced and refuses to leave.
Melanie Griffith whilst looking great is awful acting wise, and Matthew Modine had me questioning how this man forged a career as an actor. Some of my main annoyances came from his character, and I had my concerns that he may end up being the real psycho, but his performance really was dire.
It's Keaton as the villain of the piece, who shines and gives the movie it's best scenes. Tippi Hedren and Dan Hedaya have small roles and Beverley D'Angelo has an uncredited role as a former lover/business partner of Carter's. I'm not sure why she is uncredited though.
Plot In A Paragraph: Drake Goodman (Modine) and Patty Palmer (Griffith)an unmarried couple, purchase an expensive 19th-century house in the exclusive Pacific Heights neighbourhood. They rent one of the building's two first-floor apartments to the Watanabes, a kindly Japanese couple. Not long after, Carter Hayes (Keaton) visits to view the remaining vacant unit and immediately expresses a desire to move in. Hayes drives an expensive Porsche and carries large amounts of cash on him. He convinces Drake to waive the credit check in exchange for a list of personal references and an upfront payment of the first six months' rent, to be paid by wire transfer. Before any of that happens he moves in unannounced and refuses to leave.
Melanie Griffith whilst looking great is awful acting wise, and Matthew Modine had me questioning how this man forged a career as an actor. Some of my main annoyances came from his character, and I had my concerns that he may end up being the real psycho, but his performance really was dire.
It's Keaton as the villain of the piece, who shines and gives the movie it's best scenes. Tippi Hedren and Dan Hedaya have small roles and Beverley D'Angelo has an uncredited role as a former lover/business partner of Carter's. I'm not sure why she is uncredited though.
The last 10 minutes
shattenjager77714 September 2004
William Goldman says that the last 15 minutes are the most important of any movie and that's what saves what is otherwise a sometimes fascinating but often dull film in "Pacific Heights."
The plot line is fairly interesting but feels rather drawn out through most of the film, until the fantastic ending pulls out all the stops and turns the film into something good. The writing in general is a bit contrived and the dialogue fairly wooden, but it isn't quite enough to destroy the film even early.
The acting is very uneven, led by a terrible Melanie Griffith and a middling performance by Matthew Modine in terms of screen time, but certainly controlled by the fantastic performance of Michael Keaton, one of the world's greatest actors. Keaton is especially fantastic in the final sequence, from his charming act with the old woman to his harrowing, venemous final scene there is a complete change in who he is and it is all the more frightening and powerful for the juxtaposition.
Schlesinger's direction, besides Keaton's performance, is probably the saving grace of the film. He manages to inject a beautiful dark style to the film that the script rather lacks but seems to want while also keeping us in a blunt reality with the plain, simple outdoor shots. His use of lighting and well-chosen camera angles wonderfully play up the situation.
Overall, "Pacific Heights" is a middling film with a fantastic performance by Michael Keaton and good direction by John Schlesinger that turns into something better with its fantastic, surprising, venemously satisfying ending. If you watch it, though, don't give up on it 'til it's over.
The plot line is fairly interesting but feels rather drawn out through most of the film, until the fantastic ending pulls out all the stops and turns the film into something good. The writing in general is a bit contrived and the dialogue fairly wooden, but it isn't quite enough to destroy the film even early.
The acting is very uneven, led by a terrible Melanie Griffith and a middling performance by Matthew Modine in terms of screen time, but certainly controlled by the fantastic performance of Michael Keaton, one of the world's greatest actors. Keaton is especially fantastic in the final sequence, from his charming act with the old woman to his harrowing, venemous final scene there is a complete change in who he is and it is all the more frightening and powerful for the juxtaposition.
Schlesinger's direction, besides Keaton's performance, is probably the saving grace of the film. He manages to inject a beautiful dark style to the film that the script rather lacks but seems to want while also keeping us in a blunt reality with the plain, simple outdoor shots. His use of lighting and well-chosen camera angles wonderfully play up the situation.
Overall, "Pacific Heights" is a middling film with a fantastic performance by Michael Keaton and good direction by John Schlesinger that turns into something better with its fantastic, surprising, venemously satisfying ending. If you watch it, though, don't give up on it 'til it's over.
Tenants are the curse of the propertied class
DennisLittrell27 August 1999
This is a carefully programmed yuppie nightmare, something to titillate the emotions betwixt the sushi and the creme de mint, something to remind the upwardly mobile that you have to keep your guard up at all times because there are animals out there waiting to take it all away from you.
Clever plot premise: Yuppie couple, stylishly unmarried, possibly for tax purposes, buy a painted lady in the Pacific Heights district of San Francisco, a Victorian fixer upper for $750,000. It's the 1980's and everybody is getting rich in California real estate. They are now in yuppie heaven since there are two rentals on the property which take care of $2300 of the $3700 monthly mortgage, which leaves them responsible for only $1400, which is less then they were paying before, and now they have a huge tax write-off and hopefully an appreciating property. Of course they are margined to the gills, but what can go wrong?
How about the tenant from hell? Forget about your wild parties and your late-with-the-rent dead beats. This guy (Michael Keaton as a slimy, upper crust psycho genius) doesn't even pay the deposit. He just moves in, squats, and our yuppie couple is helpless to get rid of him since by law he now has possession. He changes the locks, cultivates big ugly oriental cockroaches, and pounds away at all hours of the night, and chases off the other tenant. Seems he has done this before. Seems it is an elaborate scam to gain total possession of the entire property. Next to go are the owners.
Naturally the cops and the law seem to work for him, not our adorable couple. (This is a little fictional reality to further excite the passions of the audience, call it poetic license, since we all know that the tenant/landlord laws in California are written by and for the propertied class, as they are anywhere else, as is only right.)
But this is a morality play. Could it be that our yuppies are undeserving of their wealth and are easy prey in the econ jungle because of their naiveté? Could be. But as this is a modern morality tale, you can be sure that the woman, played with worrisome lines under her eyes by the ever adorable Melanie Griffith, will turn the tables and kick some male butt despite the handicap of having a not too bright boyfriend, who is easily manipulated by our villain into some rather stupid male behavior that makes things worse for our heroine. Incidentally, he is played with such annoying exactitude by Matthew Modine that I can hear the rednecks in the audience screaming: "Die yuppie scum!"
It should be noticed that the adversary of the yuppies is not your standard ghetto dweller, but a wayward member of the upper class, a fitting adversary in this yuppie trial by fire.
I'll let you guess who wins.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
Clever plot premise: Yuppie couple, stylishly unmarried, possibly for tax purposes, buy a painted lady in the Pacific Heights district of San Francisco, a Victorian fixer upper for $750,000. It's the 1980's and everybody is getting rich in California real estate. They are now in yuppie heaven since there are two rentals on the property which take care of $2300 of the $3700 monthly mortgage, which leaves them responsible for only $1400, which is less then they were paying before, and now they have a huge tax write-off and hopefully an appreciating property. Of course they are margined to the gills, but what can go wrong?
How about the tenant from hell? Forget about your wild parties and your late-with-the-rent dead beats. This guy (Michael Keaton as a slimy, upper crust psycho genius) doesn't even pay the deposit. He just moves in, squats, and our yuppie couple is helpless to get rid of him since by law he now has possession. He changes the locks, cultivates big ugly oriental cockroaches, and pounds away at all hours of the night, and chases off the other tenant. Seems he has done this before. Seems it is an elaborate scam to gain total possession of the entire property. Next to go are the owners.
Naturally the cops and the law seem to work for him, not our adorable couple. (This is a little fictional reality to further excite the passions of the audience, call it poetic license, since we all know that the tenant/landlord laws in California are written by and for the propertied class, as they are anywhere else, as is only right.)
But this is a morality play. Could it be that our yuppies are undeserving of their wealth and are easy prey in the econ jungle because of their naiveté? Could be. But as this is a modern morality tale, you can be sure that the woman, played with worrisome lines under her eyes by the ever adorable Melanie Griffith, will turn the tables and kick some male butt despite the handicap of having a not too bright boyfriend, who is easily manipulated by our villain into some rather stupid male behavior that makes things worse for our heroine. Incidentally, he is played with such annoying exactitude by Matthew Modine that I can hear the rednecks in the audience screaming: "Die yuppie scum!"
It should be noticed that the adversary of the yuppies is not your standard ghetto dweller, but a wayward member of the upper class, a fitting adversary in this yuppie trial by fire.
I'll let you guess who wins.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
Featuring a Dark and Sinister Villain
Uriah4310 December 2016
This movie begins with a man named "Carter Hays" (Michael Keaton) in bed with a woman when suddenly the door bursts open and two men enter and proceed to beat him with a baseball bat. The film then shifts to a man by the name of "Drake Goodman" (Matthew Modine) and his girlfriend "Patty Parker" (Melanie Griffith) buying a large Victorian house with the intent on renting some of the rooms out in order to help pay off their sizeable mortgage. Unfortunately, one of the first people to apply for a rent is Carter who convinces Drake to forgo the usual procedures and disregard the normal paperwork. Big mistake--as from that point on Drake's life quickly spirals out-of-control due to Carter's evil manipulations. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this is the type of film that is was an interesting movie for the most part which included a good performance by Michael Keaton as the dark and sinister villain. On the other hand, the repeated violent outbursts of Drake got a bit old after the first time or two and ruined any sympathy I might have had for him. Even so, although this isn't a film that I would want to see more than once or twice, it was good enough for the time spent and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.
Pacific Heights is Educational
rinkedo7 January 2005
Pacific Heights is required viewing in all Apartment Management courses in San Diego County. It is a chilling tale of decent but uneducated and unprepared new owners with a dream unknowingly up against a seasoned player in the professional renter game. This viewing requirement is one of the tools used to introduce starry-eyed management newcomers to the harsh and not-so-easily apparent world of the sick, the dangerous and the sue-happy portion of the rental market who will try to get the management stripped of all their personal assets and possessions, fired and possibly jailed, who work diligently to get the owner's property away from him/her, and who have no objection to going down as long as they can take others with them. Great movie.
Coulda been way better......but coulda been worse.
ksdilauri17 November 2018
This may be one of those older thrillers you never got around to seeing, and wonder if it's worth a watch. That was me--and truthfully, a couple of times during the movie, I wondered too. Made in 1990, under John Schlesinger's direction, I'd expected something better. This young couple was undeniably victimized by their resident psycho--it's Keaton who really deserves the acting credit--their reactions didn't elicit much sympathy. (I was more concerned about the cat.) But I wanted to stick it out to see what happens at the end. This reviewer suggests: if you like the cast (besides Griffith, Keaton, and Modine, the players include Laurie Metcalf, Dorian Harewood, Mako, and Tippi Hedren) do give it a viewing. It's a star or two better than many similar efforts.
Surprisingly dull effort from the guy behind "Marathon Man"
Mr-Fusion21 October 2016
I was looking forward to Michael Keaton playing the heavy, but "Pacific Heights" is the wrong vehicle for that. He's playing the tenant from Hell, terrorizing couple-of-the-year Melanie Griffith and Matthew Modine, but I can only describe this is a real estate thriller - which is just as exciting as it sounds. Keaton goes from mustache-twirling to psychological manipulator, but the writing doesn't offer much to go on. His motivations are specious, while Modine's mood swings leave Griffith as the only character to root for. That's no secret, and it's why she's the one to get revenge.
It's not terrible, but I did get frustrated with these characters far more than anyone should.
5/10
It's not terrible, but I did get frustrated with these characters far more than anyone should.
5/10
Keaton shines as the villain!
SmileysWorld15 January 2005
Prior to this film,we only saw Michael Keaton in comedic,and good guy roles.In Pacific Heights,he proves to us that he is not afraid to turn on us and be the bad guy.Keaton is excellent as Carter Hayes,the worst kind of no account,as he knows how to stay just out of reach of the law. The character is very similar to that of Max Cady in Cape Fear,though Cady is the far more memorable of the two.Carter Hayes is a nightmarish tenant wreaking havoc on the lives of his helpless landlords,wonderfully played by Melanie Griffith and Matthew Modine.I consider this film to be an overlooked classic that never really got the attention it deserved,perhaps because no one wanted to see Keaton,particularly after his Batman success,as a villain.Those looking for a modern day "Hitchcock-esque" thriller will find a winner here.Thumbs up!
Art Imitates Life
view_and_review22 March 2020
Sometimes art imitates life and truth is stranger than fiction. I say that because last year four homeless women in Oakland, California squatted in a vacant house and refused to leave. They called themselves Moms4Housing and they made a mini-movement out of their theft. Instead of being summarily evicted from the house, the matter had to go to court. Their claim was that housing is a human right and since this home was vacant they had a right to it. The whole ordeal took about five months or so to be settled with the court ruling in favor of the company that owned the home. In this case, the owner of the home was a business that could afford to go to court and wasn't pressed for an immediate need of the house.
Which brings us to "Pacific Heights." A man by the name of Carson Hayes (Michael Keaton) simply moved into a vacant unit in a Victorian home in San Francisco without paying money and without permission. Due to the tenant-favoring laws, Drake (Matthew Modine) and Patty (Melanie Griffith) could not simply kick Carson out. They had to go through a lengthy and costly process to remove him which cost them all their savings and nearly their lives.
Carson wasn't a rent paying tenant whose rent just got jacked up by 50%, nor was he a rent paying tenant that was being evicted for some arbitrary reason, he was a slick con man that found a loophole in the system that protected his conniving con.
This was a tense movie in which you hoped to learn what Carson's motives were and what was his end game. The onion was peeled back a little, but I was never really satisfied with the explanation.
Michael Keaton was strong as the antagonist. This was back when he was crushing it on screen with movies like "BeetleJuice" and "Batman." Matthew Modine and Melanie Griffith were weak castings. I must admit, I think Melanie is a weak casting in anything, but she was an especially weak casting in this movie.
The story itself and the pacing was good. I liked it as a suspense thriller, but whatever the intent of the writer was, I don't think the cities in the S.F. Bay Area heard him.
Which brings us to "Pacific Heights." A man by the name of Carson Hayes (Michael Keaton) simply moved into a vacant unit in a Victorian home in San Francisco without paying money and without permission. Due to the tenant-favoring laws, Drake (Matthew Modine) and Patty (Melanie Griffith) could not simply kick Carson out. They had to go through a lengthy and costly process to remove him which cost them all their savings and nearly their lives.
Carson wasn't a rent paying tenant whose rent just got jacked up by 50%, nor was he a rent paying tenant that was being evicted for some arbitrary reason, he was a slick con man that found a loophole in the system that protected his conniving con.
This was a tense movie in which you hoped to learn what Carson's motives were and what was his end game. The onion was peeled back a little, but I was never really satisfied with the explanation.
Michael Keaton was strong as the antagonist. This was back when he was crushing it on screen with movies like "BeetleJuice" and "Batman." Matthew Modine and Melanie Griffith were weak castings. I must admit, I think Melanie is a weak casting in anything, but she was an especially weak casting in this movie.
The story itself and the pacing was good. I liked it as a suspense thriller, but whatever the intent of the writer was, I don't think the cities in the S.F. Bay Area heard him.
Mild-mannered thriller
jacobnunnally21 August 2022
Great premise for this film -- gives it a nice element of realism. It's relatable. Filmed in pretty San Francisco neighborhood which ads to the local charm/context.
But there just isn't enough on the line for this to be a top-notch thriller -- all that could happen is they get foreclosed on. Sure that sucks but at the end of day that's all that's gonna happen. Things get more to the point - more for what I'm looking for - in the film's final scenes but it's too late; that stuff needs to start building much much earlier on to get the audience on board and keep them there.
Tension is built fairly nicely but I just wanted things to be more extreme/go further. Seems like all the ideas are there for this picture to be good and having Keaton in the baddie role is a goldmine. But the writer/director just don't do enough/go far enough in my opinion. Great ideas but only mediocre execution.
But there just isn't enough on the line for this to be a top-notch thriller -- all that could happen is they get foreclosed on. Sure that sucks but at the end of day that's all that's gonna happen. Things get more to the point - more for what I'm looking for - in the film's final scenes but it's too late; that stuff needs to start building much much earlier on to get the audience on board and keep them there.
Tension is built fairly nicely but I just wanted things to be more extreme/go further. Seems like all the ideas are there for this picture to be good and having Keaton in the baddie role is a goldmine. But the writer/director just don't do enough/go far enough in my opinion. Great ideas but only mediocre execution.
Great thriller from 1990.
junomartin25 September 2018
Pacific Heights works because of Michael Keaton. Pacific Heights is an underrated movie and has Michael Keaton playing a sinister role as the tenant from hell. Melanie Griffith and Mathew Modine play a yuppie San Francisco couple who rent out their sublet to others. Unfortunately Michael Keaton- a rich but shady customer enters the fray and immediately convinces them to let him stay. It's a psychological thriller with a nice setting. I suggest you go in with an open mind.
Starts out promising, slowly deteriorates towards the end. Still a reasonably enjoyable Hollywood formula picture, which feeds on creepy gut feelings.
imseeg25 November 2019
When I watch a thriller I have to believe that what I am seeing could (remotely) happen in real life. Otherwise I wont be scared at all. This movie starts out creepy and promising, but towards the end the story doesnt make much sense any more, which deflates the suspense that was there at the beginning. Therefore the thrill of this movie stops halfway through.
The good: it's creepy and mysterious (at the beginning). This movie is also quite effective in evoking gut reactions about creepy guys, who are terrorising innocent families. Dont expect greatness though and you'll have a fun time watching it.
The bad: it's nowhere near realistic or really scary anymore at the end. It's best suited for when there is nothing else better to watch.
The story: an evil creepy guy terrorizes an idyllic young couple in their new house. Will the creep get away with his terror rampage?
The good: it's creepy and mysterious (at the beginning). This movie is also quite effective in evoking gut reactions about creepy guys, who are terrorising innocent families. Dont expect greatness though and you'll have a fun time watching it.
The bad: it's nowhere near realistic or really scary anymore at the end. It's best suited for when there is nothing else better to watch.
The story: an evil creepy guy terrorizes an idyllic young couple in their new house. Will the creep get away with his terror rampage?
UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS ANGST...WATCHABLE BUT UNDERWHELMING...DEADLY DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE
LeonLouisRicci18 August 2021
Good Acting from the Trio of Matthew Modine, Michael Keaton, and Melanie Griffith Stealing the Show.
She Balances a Love-Affair, an Attempt at Lucrative Home Ownership, and a Life Threatening "Home Invasion" by an Unhinged "White Collar" Tenant.
Michael Keaton Underplays His Socio-Pathic Behavior with a Smug In-Control Domination of Events.
He Totally Overtakes a Newly Purchase Townhouse by Modine and Griffith who are in Over Their Heads, both Financially and Emotionally.
Modine Routinely Responds to Keaton's Outrageous and Criminal Assault on Them and the Domicile, with Rage and Out of Control "Payback".
He is Out-Classed by Keaton who is an Experienced Manipulator of the "System" Knows the Buttons to Push on Modine and the Law.
Between the Lines of this Moderately Successful Horror-Tale are Themes about Capitalism and Justice.
Lopsided on Both Accounts against the "Little-Guy" and What it Takes to come out a "Winner"
Fairness and Justice have Little to Do with "Right or Wrong".
Morality is mostly Absent when Unbridled Capitalism and Law Enforcement Run Amok.
Contrivances and "Suspension of Disbelief" Hinder the Film a Bit. It's Best to just Go with the Flow and Enjoy the Show.
With Low Expectations its...
Worth a Watch.
She Balances a Love-Affair, an Attempt at Lucrative Home Ownership, and a Life Threatening "Home Invasion" by an Unhinged "White Collar" Tenant.
Michael Keaton Underplays His Socio-Pathic Behavior with a Smug In-Control Domination of Events.
He Totally Overtakes a Newly Purchase Townhouse by Modine and Griffith who are in Over Their Heads, both Financially and Emotionally.
Modine Routinely Responds to Keaton's Outrageous and Criminal Assault on Them and the Domicile, with Rage and Out of Control "Payback".
He is Out-Classed by Keaton who is an Experienced Manipulator of the "System" Knows the Buttons to Push on Modine and the Law.
Between the Lines of this Moderately Successful Horror-Tale are Themes about Capitalism and Justice.
Lopsided on Both Accounts against the "Little-Guy" and What it Takes to come out a "Winner"
Fairness and Justice have Little to Do with "Right or Wrong".
Morality is mostly Absent when Unbridled Capitalism and Law Enforcement Run Amok.
Contrivances and "Suspension of Disbelief" Hinder the Film a Bit. It's Best to just Go with the Flow and Enjoy the Show.
With Low Expectations its...
Worth a Watch.
Just when you though it was safe to rent out the studio....
leliorisen24 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Pacific Heights annoyed me. It's not so much that it's a bad movie, but it certainly seemed flawed in a way that made me wonder what was left on the cutting room floor. There are several incomplete scenarios and a plot that only works if the facts as presented are believable. I didn't think they were.
The essential premise of Pacific Heights, allegedly based on a true story, is that the way the laws are set up one can rent out an apartment to a psycho and that psycho can then destroy you and your property while claiming one court victory after another. The way this is presented is just simply unbelievable. In the meantime, observing what Keaton will do actually becomes rather anti-climactic and, ultimately, boring.
As for incomplete scenarios, we never really get a sense for who the person with Keaton in the apartment really is, or what ultimately happens to him. We never really learn what Keaton's character gained from the opening sequence. We are shown a minor character's application becoming accidentally ignored and yet it plays no role because the man later doesn't believe that it was an accident anyway and his involvement doesn't really matter ultimately. So what was the point? To imply racism that wasn't apparently there in this case?
The performances salvage this from being awful and it is why I gave it a 6. Michael Keaton does a good job as an amoral person. One gets the sense that behind the blank stare there really is no moral code. Melanie Griffith is her usual soft-spoken self, but it works here. Although, considering how laid-back she is, one marvels that she would have the chutzpah to try and exact revenge. As for Mr. Modine. Well, he does have 2 emotions to convey: self-satisfaction and hysteria. And he gets each accomplished on cue. He struck me as the 1990 version of Ben Affleck. Easy on the eyes and empty between the ears.
Pacific Heights was interesting and realistic in that, in today's market especially, the only way to own a decent home may involve renting out apartments. This is a cautionary tale for nervous landlords.
(mini-spoiler below)
Yuppie priorities also take a beating. In what other movie does a miscarriage become a throwaway subplot to the real tragedy, in this case, the desecration of one's property?
Dry your tears and pass The Wall Street Journal please.
The essential premise of Pacific Heights, allegedly based on a true story, is that the way the laws are set up one can rent out an apartment to a psycho and that psycho can then destroy you and your property while claiming one court victory after another. The way this is presented is just simply unbelievable. In the meantime, observing what Keaton will do actually becomes rather anti-climactic and, ultimately, boring.
As for incomplete scenarios, we never really get a sense for who the person with Keaton in the apartment really is, or what ultimately happens to him. We never really learn what Keaton's character gained from the opening sequence. We are shown a minor character's application becoming accidentally ignored and yet it plays no role because the man later doesn't believe that it was an accident anyway and his involvement doesn't really matter ultimately. So what was the point? To imply racism that wasn't apparently there in this case?
The performances salvage this from being awful and it is why I gave it a 6. Michael Keaton does a good job as an amoral person. One gets the sense that behind the blank stare there really is no moral code. Melanie Griffith is her usual soft-spoken self, but it works here. Although, considering how laid-back she is, one marvels that she would have the chutzpah to try and exact revenge. As for Mr. Modine. Well, he does have 2 emotions to convey: self-satisfaction and hysteria. And he gets each accomplished on cue. He struck me as the 1990 version of Ben Affleck. Easy on the eyes and empty between the ears.
Pacific Heights was interesting and realistic in that, in today's market especially, the only way to own a decent home may involve renting out apartments. This is a cautionary tale for nervous landlords.
(mini-spoiler below)
Yuppie priorities also take a beating. In what other movie does a miscarriage become a throwaway subplot to the real tragedy, in this case, the desecration of one's property?
Dry your tears and pass The Wall Street Journal please.
Good film with par acting
RoseNylan15 May 2010
This is one of the few films there are about being a property landlord(the other is 2003's "Duplex"). A young and naive couple(Modine and Griffith) are convinced to move into a building that they cannot afford and decide to rent out some rooms to help pay the mortgage. Predictibly, their perfect plan is destroyed by a seemingly respectable tenant(played well in a rare villain role by Michael Keaton) who ends up driving away other tenants and putting a strain on the couple's relationship with his increasingly erratic behavior.
The film is suspenseful right up until the last minute, but there were some problems. First, Modine's anger at the situation and Keaton seemed to escalate way too quickly. He simply flew off the handle at which could have been honest, simple mistakes on Keaton's part such as day or so late with the first rent payment. It may have been more effective if the tension built more slowly.
Overall, a pretty good film with good suspense and fairly good acting.
The film is suspenseful right up until the last minute, but there were some problems. First, Modine's anger at the situation and Keaton seemed to escalate way too quickly. He simply flew off the handle at which could have been honest, simple mistakes on Keaton's part such as day or so late with the first rent payment. It may have been more effective if the tension built more slowly.
Overall, a pretty good film with good suspense and fairly good acting.
Definitely Not "Run Of The Mill"
seymourblack-15 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
It's very unusual for a conflict between a house-owning couple and a strange tenant to provide the plot for a psychological thriller but in "Pacific Heights", that's exactly what happens. This set-up is initially intriguing but soon takes on a darker complexion as it gradually becomes apparent just how sinister and dangerous the newest occupant of the house really is. The tension then builds steadily as the conflict becomes increasingly intense and the stakes get higher.
Drake Goodman (Matthew Modine) and his girlfriend Patty Palmer (Melanie Griffith) are an ambitious middle-class couple who decide to buy a Victorian house in the Pacific Heights neighbourhood of San Francisco. They both know that the property is really beyond their means, but after massaging some of the figures on their mortgage application, they soon become the proud owners of the impressive house which also needs some renovation work which they decide to undertake themselves. The financial commitment they've taken on is only sustainable if they let the two downstairs apartments and so arranging for this to be done becomes a priority.
A very pleasant Japanese couple soon move into one of the apartments and among the applicants for the second one is a well-dressed, smooth-talking, charmer called Carter Hayes (Michael Keaton). Drake is so impressed by Hayes (who carries a large amount of cash with him and drives a Porsche) that he doesn't insist on him completing a credit application. Hayes promises that he'll pay six months rent in advance and that he'll arrange for this to be done by wire transfer. Before any money is actually paid, Hayes moves into the apartment and after a great deal of stalling, refuses to pay any rent.
Things get progressively worse when Hayes moves a friend in and starts hammering and drilling loudly at all times of the day and night. The couple get anxious about what's being done inside the apartment and the Japanese couple move out because the disturbance they suffer through the nights is intolerable, as is the plague of cockroaches which suddenly infests their apartment. Drake stops Hayes' drilling by cutting off the electricity but this action gets him into trouble with the police and later, his efforts to get Hayes evicted also fail because the law always seems to be on the tenant's side.
A series of further provocations continue to pile pressure on the couple whose relationship suffers as Drake starts to drink too much and Patty suffers a miscarriage. They feel totally powerless until some action that Patty takes gives her an opportunity to get rid of Hayes but what happens later isn't necessarily what she would've hoped for or expected.
Michael Keaton is a tremendous villain and utterly convincing as the psychopathic scam artist who's an expert at acquiring properties by unorthodox means and at very favourable prices. Melanie Griffith also does really well as Patty who is far more rational and intelligent than her partner and who also provides some of the most enjoyable moments of the movie when she decides to turn the tables on Hayes. Matthew Modine also gives an energetic performance as the hot-headed, impulsive and not-very-bright Drake whose actions regularly do more harm than good.
"Pacific Heights" is entertaining, less predictable than many thrillers and definitely not "run of the mill". It's these qualities together with the performances of Keaton and Griffith that ultimately make this such an enjoyable movie to watch.
Drake Goodman (Matthew Modine) and his girlfriend Patty Palmer (Melanie Griffith) are an ambitious middle-class couple who decide to buy a Victorian house in the Pacific Heights neighbourhood of San Francisco. They both know that the property is really beyond their means, but after massaging some of the figures on their mortgage application, they soon become the proud owners of the impressive house which also needs some renovation work which they decide to undertake themselves. The financial commitment they've taken on is only sustainable if they let the two downstairs apartments and so arranging for this to be done becomes a priority.
A very pleasant Japanese couple soon move into one of the apartments and among the applicants for the second one is a well-dressed, smooth-talking, charmer called Carter Hayes (Michael Keaton). Drake is so impressed by Hayes (who carries a large amount of cash with him and drives a Porsche) that he doesn't insist on him completing a credit application. Hayes promises that he'll pay six months rent in advance and that he'll arrange for this to be done by wire transfer. Before any money is actually paid, Hayes moves into the apartment and after a great deal of stalling, refuses to pay any rent.
Things get progressively worse when Hayes moves a friend in and starts hammering and drilling loudly at all times of the day and night. The couple get anxious about what's being done inside the apartment and the Japanese couple move out because the disturbance they suffer through the nights is intolerable, as is the plague of cockroaches which suddenly infests their apartment. Drake stops Hayes' drilling by cutting off the electricity but this action gets him into trouble with the police and later, his efforts to get Hayes evicted also fail because the law always seems to be on the tenant's side.
A series of further provocations continue to pile pressure on the couple whose relationship suffers as Drake starts to drink too much and Patty suffers a miscarriage. They feel totally powerless until some action that Patty takes gives her an opportunity to get rid of Hayes but what happens later isn't necessarily what she would've hoped for or expected.
Michael Keaton is a tremendous villain and utterly convincing as the psychopathic scam artist who's an expert at acquiring properties by unorthodox means and at very favourable prices. Melanie Griffith also does really well as Patty who is far more rational and intelligent than her partner and who also provides some of the most enjoyable moments of the movie when she decides to turn the tables on Hayes. Matthew Modine also gives an energetic performance as the hot-headed, impulsive and not-very-bright Drake whose actions regularly do more harm than good.
"Pacific Heights" is entertaining, less predictable than many thrillers and definitely not "run of the mill". It's these qualities together with the performances of Keaton and Griffith that ultimately make this such an enjoyable movie to watch.
Loved the movies premise since it followed accurately how the law works if you know how to abuse it...BUT...
nealvan55712 September 2018
I'm a fan of nearly all of Michael Keaton's movie work. He's an excellent and well roused actor who can do both comedy and drama in equal measures of greatness. I've got nothing against either Meg Ryan or Matthew Modine as they played the roles they were given as directed. I despise their characters on nearly every level. The blatant stupidity of Modine's character and the near 'magical' investigatory skills of Ryan's character. I also think the so-called realistic BS premise that 'the black guy never gets fair treatment by white people' was totally uncalled for and could have been handled much better with the exact same characters.
Another thing I've noticed from reading many reviews of this film both good and bad, was the total disregard for the relationship and character of Beverly D'Angelo's character we see in the opening of the film, then as Meg finds her through that magical investigation into who Keaton's character really is. Not one mentions how D'Angelo is just like Keaton's character and how the opening scene showed Keaton's character setting up D'Angelo's husband as the sucker who beats Keaton nearly to death which allows Keaton to sue and either get the property he was in, or some other type of large settlement for being 'seemingly' beaten without cause. It's not stated, but it's clearly implied that D'Anglelo shares in his scheme and profit. She's just as ruthless and a sociopath as much as Keaton's character is.
I used to rent rooms/homes to people back in NJ where I'm originally from between 1984 - 1995. I KNOW the laws shown in the movie are 100% accurate and true based on the situation shown. Before the word being used, it used to be called 'Squatters Rights' which protect anyone who takes possession of a room or home. It was meant to PREVENT landlords from being unreasonable to their tenants. However, like most once positive things such as 'Workers Unions', the laws have NEVER been amended and now make the landlords more open to abuse if the landlords happen to stupid like Modine's character certainly is.
The law (at least in Florida I'm certain of) now states that any landlord can evict any tenant for ANY reason and give ONLY 30 days notice in writing. If the tenant has not left the property in good condition, the landlord can sue for monies spent to return the same place back to the condition it was in at time of tenants possession. Must have photos of space before renting date stamped and preferably notarized. PLUS, if tenant is not gone within the 30 days, the landlord can call the police to physically remove the tenant(s) without their belongings which would need to removed and given back to the tenant IF it isn't being held as collateral for any damages during the time the tenant was in possession.
How Keaton does what he does isn't the point. It's two fold in my opinion. First it shows how careful you need to be about who your rent to and how to handle any problems. Secondly, Keaton's character does what he does because he ENJOYS CAUSING OTHERS TO SUFFER WHILE HE GETS REWARDED BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM knowing that if he pushes his 'marks' just the right way, they will do something illegal HE can call the police about. As one reviewer said...I'd just kill him and tell the police "I thought he was an intruder breaking in." If done correctly, this would work according to the legal system.
If this movie should ever be remade, I can only hope the writers & director come up with a better script. But after what happened in 2008 with the mortgage bond fraud that nearly caused the entire planet to become bankrupt, I highly doubt Hollywood would even think of stirring ANYTHING having to do with real estate and how the laws are all out of whack.
I hope this review of the movie sheds more light on the subject of this film as well as some major bits seemingly ignored or missed by those who also posted reviews.
Another thing I've noticed from reading many reviews of this film both good and bad, was the total disregard for the relationship and character of Beverly D'Angelo's character we see in the opening of the film, then as Meg finds her through that magical investigation into who Keaton's character really is. Not one mentions how D'Angelo is just like Keaton's character and how the opening scene showed Keaton's character setting up D'Angelo's husband as the sucker who beats Keaton nearly to death which allows Keaton to sue and either get the property he was in, or some other type of large settlement for being 'seemingly' beaten without cause. It's not stated, but it's clearly implied that D'Anglelo shares in his scheme and profit. She's just as ruthless and a sociopath as much as Keaton's character is.
I used to rent rooms/homes to people back in NJ where I'm originally from between 1984 - 1995. I KNOW the laws shown in the movie are 100% accurate and true based on the situation shown. Before the word being used, it used to be called 'Squatters Rights' which protect anyone who takes possession of a room or home. It was meant to PREVENT landlords from being unreasonable to their tenants. However, like most once positive things such as 'Workers Unions', the laws have NEVER been amended and now make the landlords more open to abuse if the landlords happen to stupid like Modine's character certainly is.
The law (at least in Florida I'm certain of) now states that any landlord can evict any tenant for ANY reason and give ONLY 30 days notice in writing. If the tenant has not left the property in good condition, the landlord can sue for monies spent to return the same place back to the condition it was in at time of tenants possession. Must have photos of space before renting date stamped and preferably notarized. PLUS, if tenant is not gone within the 30 days, the landlord can call the police to physically remove the tenant(s) without their belongings which would need to removed and given back to the tenant IF it isn't being held as collateral for any damages during the time the tenant was in possession.
How Keaton does what he does isn't the point. It's two fold in my opinion. First it shows how careful you need to be about who your rent to and how to handle any problems. Secondly, Keaton's character does what he does because he ENJOYS CAUSING OTHERS TO SUFFER WHILE HE GETS REWARDED BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM knowing that if he pushes his 'marks' just the right way, they will do something illegal HE can call the police about. As one reviewer said...I'd just kill him and tell the police "I thought he was an intruder breaking in." If done correctly, this would work according to the legal system.
If this movie should ever be remade, I can only hope the writers & director come up with a better script. But after what happened in 2008 with the mortgage bond fraud that nearly caused the entire planet to become bankrupt, I highly doubt Hollywood would even think of stirring ANYTHING having to do with real estate and how the laws are all out of whack.
I hope this review of the movie sheds more light on the subject of this film as well as some major bits seemingly ignored or missed by those who also posted reviews.
Too Many Script Problems
CitizenCaine26 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This is a John Schlesinger directed thriller about two unmarried, "upwardly mobile" people, who buy a Victorian mansion only to find themselves terrorized by a tenant. The couple are portrayed by Melanie Griffith and Matthew Modine; the tenant is Michael Keaton, who was in between his Batman movies at the time. Keaton slithers his way into the apartment without a lease or paying a deposit, ...yeah right! People that have the kind of money to buy a $750,000 building aren't that dumb. It would probably take, in most cases, over $100,000 for a down payment. Yet this movie would have us believe that people would just allow anyone to waltz into an apartment without being checked out. The script leaves a lot of things unexplained like this. We're supposed to believe it's because the couple are so desperate for money to meet the mortgage that they'd allow someone in that flashes cash like that. OK, but then Keaton violates any number of landlord/tenant laws almost immediately. It should never take 6, 8, or 9 months to get rid of a tenant as the movie implies; because, it would most likely bankrupt any new owner. California must be the dumbest state in the country if that's the way it is there. In Wisconsin, you could throw someone out in about two months tops, worst case scenario. Also, a landlord has a right to enter the premises for any reason with a 24 hour notice to a tenant over here, which Modine attempted to do more than once. As a result, the varying degrees of law around the country would affect how viewers perceive this movie, alternating from suspenseful (as was the intent) to preposterous to downright bizarre. For me, it was just disbelief. The Modine character was a way over-the-top nut-ball himself, which is necessary for the viewer to believe that the Keaton character could get away with this for so long. Griffith redeems a small portion of the script in the last half hour, as she attempts to play detective. Keaton is the best thing in the movie, as he plays this whack-o to the hilt. You thoroughly detest him long before the end of the movie. The ending seems very tame though, considering all that's gone on before. Beverly D'Angelo has a small uncredited role, and Tippi Hedren has a bit in the last half hour too. There are just too many unexplained things in this movie for it to work, such as the landlord/tenant laws problem mentioned above. In addition, what was the point of the male character that answered Keaton's door a number of times, only to leave and never be heard from again later in the movie? Why would Modine remain clam and collected when he just happens to discover Keaton's game, but then rage out of control at the mere sight of Keaton? The movie never uses the San Francisco location to good effect either. Wanting Keaton stopped is the only reason to continue watching this movie. You don't really care about the couple or too much else. It would be interesting to see this on a double bill with Peter Weir's The Plumber. ** of 4 stars.
Maddeningly vague, but surprisingly effective
DavidSim24018316 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Pacific Heights is unusual among psycho-thrillers because of its completely different approach to psychological terror. Instead of a Freddy Krueger or a Michael Myers we have Michael Keaton as a psychotic tenant who makes life hell for his landlords Melanie Griffith and Matthew Modine. Knowing every legal loophole in the book, his weapons of choice are restraining orders and civil suits, not butcher knives and chainsaws. Driving them to increasingly desperate measures to evict him, Keaton dreams up new and more sadistic methods to torment them.
I've always thought Pacific Heights is rather underrated. It's got a mite more intelligence than you'd expect from Hollywood's hijacked psycho-stalker genre. John Schlesinger directs it all with confidence, but then he's an old hand in this area. And Michael Keaton is wonderfully malevolent. His presence makes the entire movie. I've always enjoyed the course the film takes us on. Even if it occasionally gets into some muddy areas along the way, Pacific Heights is compelling to the very end.
Modine and Griffith play Drake Goodman and Patty Palmer. A young and naive yuppie couple, they renovate a Victorian house in San Francisco. Truthfully, the house is more than they can afford, but can (barely) make ends meet by renting out two downstairs apartments. One to a nice Japanese couple. And the other to businessman Carter Hayes (Keaton).
Hayes moves in without permission, or even a down payment. He locks himself in, not paying any rent. He has a roommate, who hammers away to all hours of the night. He changes the locks. Breeds cockroaches. Drives away the other tenants. And because no money is coming in, Drake and Patty's legal status is becoming all the more shakier. As is they're relationship.
Pacific Heights is a film that comes with a certain appeal when looked at closely enough. The idea of a tenant being able to have more power than a landlord is scary stuff. I didn't always believe some of the stunts the film pulls. Unleashing hordes of cockroaches is perhaps going a little too far. Even for a psycho-thriller. Even a tenant who knows how to manipulate the law for his own purposes would have to face culpability sometime.
And yet at the same time, Pacific Heights is a constant source of fascination. Hayes leads Drake and Patty through a wonderfully complex legal minefield. Its surprisingly the film's threats of foreclosure and mounting bills that are more effective than its outright sinister approaches.
This is a criminally overlooked performance on Michael Keaton's resume. In fact he's always been an actor long overdue recognition. Hot off the success of Batman, Keaton plunges right into the role of Carter Hayes with pure, unadulterated relish. Even though Hayes' motivations are never exactly made clear, its Keaton's performance that sells the character.
This is a man with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He apparently comes from a broken home. Shut out of the family fortune. Disowned. So now he takes a perverse pleasure in destroying the lives of those happier than his. Keaton is a powerful presence. All the more remarkable considering he spends most of the film behind closed doors.
Whenever Keaton is around, you sit up and pay attention. But I can't really say the same for Modine and Griffith. Modine is annoying the way he stupidly plays into Hayes' hands time and again.
And as for Griffith, she only really comes into her own towards the end. Melanie Griffith once showed signs of being a promising actress in the 80s. Witness her superb performance in Working Girl. But over the years her star has paled, and now she's nothing more than another face in the crowd.
But towards the end, we finally see something of the promise she showed in Working Girl. She exacts a little revenge on Hayes by playing him at his own game. She tracks him down to a swanky hotel, has his bank account frozen, and charges hundreds of dollars worth of room service to his credit card. That's the Melanie I remember.
But elsewhere, every shred of enjoyment to be had comes courtesy of Keaton. There is something wonderfully poetic to Pacific Heights at times. Not to mention unnerving. Like when Hayes calmly provokes Drake into beating the crap out of him, because the stress of all this causes a pregnant Patty to suffer a miscarriage. And best of all, Drake is legally restrained from entering his own home. Because of Hayes' presence there.
The climax is pretty good too. That's the point when Schlesinger (and Keaton) forgets about being courteous, and launches into all out psycho mode. Complete with nail-guns and spikes.
Pacific Heights is maddeningly vague at times about where its going to go next. But I think its a worthwhile film, and well worthy of reevaluation. Also look out for a fine turn from the underrated Laurie Metcalf as Drake and Patty's attorney. She lights up the screen just as much as Keaton does.
I've always thought Pacific Heights is rather underrated. It's got a mite more intelligence than you'd expect from Hollywood's hijacked psycho-stalker genre. John Schlesinger directs it all with confidence, but then he's an old hand in this area. And Michael Keaton is wonderfully malevolent. His presence makes the entire movie. I've always enjoyed the course the film takes us on. Even if it occasionally gets into some muddy areas along the way, Pacific Heights is compelling to the very end.
Modine and Griffith play Drake Goodman and Patty Palmer. A young and naive yuppie couple, they renovate a Victorian house in San Francisco. Truthfully, the house is more than they can afford, but can (barely) make ends meet by renting out two downstairs apartments. One to a nice Japanese couple. And the other to businessman Carter Hayes (Keaton).
Hayes moves in without permission, or even a down payment. He locks himself in, not paying any rent. He has a roommate, who hammers away to all hours of the night. He changes the locks. Breeds cockroaches. Drives away the other tenants. And because no money is coming in, Drake and Patty's legal status is becoming all the more shakier. As is they're relationship.
Pacific Heights is a film that comes with a certain appeal when looked at closely enough. The idea of a tenant being able to have more power than a landlord is scary stuff. I didn't always believe some of the stunts the film pulls. Unleashing hordes of cockroaches is perhaps going a little too far. Even for a psycho-thriller. Even a tenant who knows how to manipulate the law for his own purposes would have to face culpability sometime.
And yet at the same time, Pacific Heights is a constant source of fascination. Hayes leads Drake and Patty through a wonderfully complex legal minefield. Its surprisingly the film's threats of foreclosure and mounting bills that are more effective than its outright sinister approaches.
This is a criminally overlooked performance on Michael Keaton's resume. In fact he's always been an actor long overdue recognition. Hot off the success of Batman, Keaton plunges right into the role of Carter Hayes with pure, unadulterated relish. Even though Hayes' motivations are never exactly made clear, its Keaton's performance that sells the character.
This is a man with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He apparently comes from a broken home. Shut out of the family fortune. Disowned. So now he takes a perverse pleasure in destroying the lives of those happier than his. Keaton is a powerful presence. All the more remarkable considering he spends most of the film behind closed doors.
Whenever Keaton is around, you sit up and pay attention. But I can't really say the same for Modine and Griffith. Modine is annoying the way he stupidly plays into Hayes' hands time and again.
And as for Griffith, she only really comes into her own towards the end. Melanie Griffith once showed signs of being a promising actress in the 80s. Witness her superb performance in Working Girl. But over the years her star has paled, and now she's nothing more than another face in the crowd.
But towards the end, we finally see something of the promise she showed in Working Girl. She exacts a little revenge on Hayes by playing him at his own game. She tracks him down to a swanky hotel, has his bank account frozen, and charges hundreds of dollars worth of room service to his credit card. That's the Melanie I remember.
But elsewhere, every shred of enjoyment to be had comes courtesy of Keaton. There is something wonderfully poetic to Pacific Heights at times. Not to mention unnerving. Like when Hayes calmly provokes Drake into beating the crap out of him, because the stress of all this causes a pregnant Patty to suffer a miscarriage. And best of all, Drake is legally restrained from entering his own home. Because of Hayes' presence there.
The climax is pretty good too. That's the point when Schlesinger (and Keaton) forgets about being courteous, and launches into all out psycho mode. Complete with nail-guns and spikes.
Pacific Heights is maddeningly vague at times about where its going to go next. But I think its a worthwhile film, and well worthy of reevaluation. Also look out for a fine turn from the underrated Laurie Metcalf as Drake and Patty's attorney. She lights up the screen just as much as Keaton does.
Good Movie
svader2 January 2021
I still like this 39 years on as it is so simplistic.
A few karma moments befall Mel and her hubby. They lie on the mortgage application, act suspiciously against the black man and generally act completely stupid throughout the whole film.
Still worth a watch though to remind you how not to be so pathetic and infantile.
A few karma moments befall Mel and her hubby. They lie on the mortgage application, act suspiciously against the black man and generally act completely stupid throughout the whole film.
Still worth a watch though to remind you how not to be so pathetic and infantile.
Disappointing; Needed More Of Keaton
ccthemovieman-11 July 2006
What hurt my rating in this movie was that friend said "It was the scariest, most suspenseful film I've ever seen!" Well, I didn't find this to be the tense thriller she said.....or even close. Since I expected more, I was disappointed.
The only interesting character was the villain, "Carter Hayes," played nicely by Michael Keaton. The problem was he wasn't shown that much in the film. This movie needed more scenes with him in it, and less of the two other major characters: "Drake Goodman." (Matthew Modine) and "Patty Palmer" (Melanie Griffith).
This starts off promising, as if it's going to be very suspenseful. Maybe it was Modine's unlikable character that turned me. Whatever it didn't have the impact I was expecting. Overall: disappointing.
The only interesting character was the villain, "Carter Hayes," played nicely by Michael Keaton. The problem was he wasn't shown that much in the film. This movie needed more scenes with him in it, and less of the two other major characters: "Drake Goodman." (Matthew Modine) and "Patty Palmer" (Melanie Griffith).
This starts off promising, as if it's going to be very suspenseful. Maybe it was Modine's unlikable character that turned me. Whatever it didn't have the impact I was expecting. Overall: disappointing.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
