The historical novel format in literature is a popular way to tell a fictional story against the background of real events that actually happened. This type of format can be very entertaining in the medium of film also provided that producers and directors are honest with the audience and do not deliberately mislead viewers into thinking they are watching something that resembles real history.<br /><br />The problem of unintentional misrepresentation could have been easily solved in this film if there had been a simple disclaimer statement at the start of the movie to warn viewers they are watching fiction, not history. The Untouchables is a very entertaining and skillfully produced film that succeeds wonderfully in offering viewers an enjoyable movie and memorable characters such as the fictional police officer played by Sean Connery. But at the same time the film fails miserably to offer the necessary warning that it is only a work of fiction.<br /><br />It is just plain wrong to imply that this film is even "loosely based" on real events or people. The screenplay by writer David Mamet is almost completely fictional. It is not based on the 1957 book with the same title authored by Elliot Ness and Oscar Fraley or the 1959 TV series starring the late Robert Stack as Ness which followed the book a little bit in its first season. This film has no more connection to the original book than the recent Steve Martin fictional "Cheaper by the Dozen" has to the original 1940s book by Ernestine Gilbreth. The title is the same and that is all.<br /><br />Except for using the names of a few people who really lived, there is almost nothing in this film that remotely tracks real historical events that happened in Chicago between the formation of a special Treasury Department task force called "The Untouchables" in January 1930 and the federal trial of Alphonse Capone in October 1931. As long as viewers understand that it is fiction, most people will find the characters enjoyable and the action exciting.<br /><br />Movie fans can enjoy this film at the level of entertainment alone and not worry about the bad history but for one problem where the first defect also intrudes on the acting. Most of the characters seem real enough and Sean Connery gives a fine performance. But unfortunately the characterization of Al Capone by Robert DeNiro is that of a cartoon character.<br /><br />Here is where the historical dishonesty interferes with the entertainment value of the film because DeNiro makes a ruthless gangster seem almost appealing as a warm and fuzzy colorful character. Make no mistake, the real Al Capone was an amoral monster who ordered the murder of many people who got in his way and civilians were hurt also. He was not colorful or clever as DeNiro portrayed him. <br /><br />The worst slander of the film and its artistic defect as well is a dramatic climax in which Elliot Ness murders Frank Nitti for revenge by tossing him off the roof of the Federal Court House in 1931. The real Frank Nitti died 12 years later in 1943 at the hands of fellow gangsters on Chicago's west side. There was no motive for revenge by Ness since there was no Sean Connery character in real life.<br /><br />Writer David Mamet grew up in Cook County and presumably knows local history. So it is hard to see why he chose to so severely distort historical events to provide him with a dramatic crutch for his convoluted plot device. The real Elliot Ness was a fine law enforcement man who later became Chief of Police in Cleveland, Ohio and he never murdered anyone in cold blood.<br /><br />Many entertaining movies take great liberties with history for the sake of dramatic impact. There is nothing wrong with that by itself just as long as producers are honest about what they are doing and the audience members do not walk away from the film thinking that they now know the true history of an era.