Public Enemies

[Matt]

Turns out they shot it on the Cinealta F23 with some action shots on the EX1. Plus Mann is continuing on his quest to establish the open shutter look as a worthy cinematic technique. That worked just about ok in Miami Vice. I just don't like it. Cinema has a certain look, and I like that look. Video screams "cheap" to me.

[NW2013]

Thought it was enjoyable, perhaps not great. There was some good composition of shots in there and a great 30's glamour feel. They didn't touch on the Depression at all apart from a couple of blokes on the street. I think it would take a couple of repeat viewings to fully appreciate.

Couple of young lasses in front of me and my mates, about 12/13, clearly went in for Mr Depp, bless them they looked so bored!

->Open Spoiler<-

Loved the shootout in the Woods, especially the shot Chain mentioned of Bale stepping off the moving car to kill Babyface.

The escape from the Indiana jail was good too, just driving out in a police car.

+1 star for featuring Carey Mulligan even if it was only for one shot (she was Sally Sparrow in the Dr Who episode "Blink"

[dvdmike]

Stunning film, he is proving HD is a valid format for everything

[Matt]

Can't how you can say that man. Film looks horrible at time. There are some conversations going on online with proper cinematographers, and I've not encountered anyone with a positive opinion on it. I don't mind the deep depth, I don't mind the Mann-framing (in fact I actually like that), but the motion is terrible. I don't buy in to the "reality" argument, that Mann and his DOP are saying. I don't mind people going against the conventions of cinema, and HD is a viable format when used correctly, but Mann has, if anything, put HD adoption back with this movie due to the use of EX1 and open frame (270, sometimes even 360 apparently).

If this was shot on film, or say a RED One, I think it would be a lot more successful, both commercially and critically.

[dvdmike]

Each to their own, I love the look of all his HD movies.
Also having plaed with a RedOne albeit breifly, it is not the golden boy people make it out to be

[Matt]

The RedOne is better than other HD cameras though, at a fraction of the cost. 4k shooting, can shoot 2k for that 16mm look, does slow motion which I think only one other HD camera, the Viper, can do. RAW as well.

It's not perfect, but it's leading the way. With the new Red sensors appearing hopefully this year, these may become the standard camera. They are proving popular.

[Malc]

Can't how you can say that man. Film looks horrible at time. There are some conversations going on online with proper cinematographers, and I've not encountered anyone with a positive opinion on it. I don't mind the deep depth, I don't mind the Mann-framing (in fact I actually like that), but the motion is terrible. I don't buy in to the "reality" argument, that Mann and his DOP are saying. I don't mind people going against the conventions of cinema, and HD is a viable format when used correctly, but Mann has, if anything, put HD adoption back with this movie due to the use of EX1 and open frame (270, sometimes even 360 apparently).

If this was shot on film, or say a RED One, I think it would be a lot more successful, both commercially and critically.

I have yet to see the film, so can't add my own opinion. But this line you have said so many times before. You always seem to 'know' people that have an opinion that agrees with yours, yet no evidence to back it up.

I have read the review from Empire and Total Film, two of the most respected film critic magazines - as i'm sure you know - and they praised Mann's use of the HD format, mentioning nothing about motion problems; something that if it really was 'terrible', they would have mentioned.

Armed with hyper-real, hi-def video cameras, Mann and Heat cinematographer Dante Spinotti make mythic movie-drama look like faux-documentary. This is not American Gangster. This is something else. Something much more startling in which ordinary scenes become electrifying experiences as Mann takes an old story and makes it feel new and unexpected.

Whatever James Cameron’s Avatar may resemble in cinema’s ‘big shake-up’ later this year, this less self-aggrandising film, shot entirely on an ultra-high resolution digital format, marks a new cinematic language. The genre may seem familiar, that rat-a-tat-tat of Tommy guns, molls and dapper hoods, but never with this level of immersion. If Mann’s mission was to portray the early ’30s with pin-sharp realism, he has triumphed. This is not a film about the ’30s — it is a film in the ’30s.

Also the Sony F23 HD cameras were tested before hand to test they were suitable with motion:

A few months before principal photography began on “Public Enemies,” Mann and Carroll tested the F23 on a series of commercials. On one set, it was mounted to a race car driving at speeds of up to 140 miles per hour. On another, it was handheld with the operator running between football players on the practice field to capture the shots.

“The F23’s ergonomics, film-like design and incredible amount of features – such as multi-speed recording, ramping and, of course the 4:4:4, 10-bit quality – proved to be bullet-proof,” Carroll said. “The camera just works and does its job.”

Which shows that the cameras had no problem with their recording of motion in HD, otherwise why would a director want poor results when it came to movement. Mann knows he can't film with static shots, as good as his directing is.

But hey, i'll see it with my own eyes next week and see how the film looks myself. Bet ya I wont see any ''terrible'' motion problems and i'm very picky about things. Maybe you saw it at some dodgy screening of the film, most cinemas turn the bulbs brightness down significantly to increase it's life span, it may not be noticable to some with negative, but with a digital projector, some methods of projection (depending on whatever method the cinema you went to uses) causes pixelation or delays in lining up the three images correctly in order to project the film, which may have caused a problem with viewing it at the particular cinema you saw it at, and not a fault of the F23'S. More factors need to be considered before blaming Mann's camera choice, especially when his film has recieved such praise from high sources regarding the HD filming.

[dvdmike]

The RedOne is better than other HD cameras though, at a fraction of the cost. 4k shooting, can shoot 2k for that 16mm look, does slow motion which I think only one other HD camera, the Viper, can do. RAW as well.

It's not perfect, but it's leading the way. With the new Red sensors appearing hopefully this year, these may become the standard camera. They are proving popular.

The red is versitile but I preffer the genesis for warmth and detail

[JP]

With digital filmmaking so far the real issue has not been whether the camera has been good or bad, the real issue that digital images are different to images created using film.

I've personally not seen anything using digital cameras that I've liked, I've found that it just looks bland to me.

At the moment It's far too early for any film makers to truly understand how to use the digital medium and we're probably years away from the first people who learn how to master it like people such as Deakins, Willis & Zsigmond have been able to do with film.

I've not seen Mann's new film yet as I really don't like what he does with his films, I find his use of colour to be really unappealing but a lot of people do like what he does.

[rmoxon]

IMO, to put it bluntly, Digital looks crap, you very rarely see a digital film that looks what anyone would call "good", never mind as good as film.

I havent seen this yet but Collateral looked like crap, as did Miami vice.

Course even when he uses film his movies look like crap anyway so whys it matter? Why do people even care that its digital?, it would look crap anyway.

[PrayforMojo]

Soderbergh shot Che digitally and I thought it looked fantastic on blu-ray, and that was a period piece too. Actually felt like I was there hiding out in the jungle with the rebels, fighting a guerrilla war. Same thing with Public Enemies, it made me feel like I was right in the action, but I can sort of see why that style of filmmaking is not to everyone's taste. Using hand held in a period piece does seem a little strange at first, like watching a documentary, but I soon adjusted to it.

No, the only real issues I had with Public Enemies was the lack of well drawn characters and social context. It's all style and very little substance.

[Malc]

Soderbergh shot Che digitally and I thought it looked fantastic on blu-ray, and that was a period piece too. Actually felt like I was there hiding out in the jungle with the rebels, fighting a guerrilla war. Same thing with Public Enemies, it made me feel like I was right in the action, but I can sort of see why that style of filmmaking is not to everyone's taste. Using hand held in a period piece does seem a little strange at first, like watching a documentary, but I soon adjusted to it.

No, the only real issues I had with Public Enemies was the lack of well drawn characters and social context. It's all style and very little substance.

I've seen Che as well on Blu-ray and I also had no problem with the film format. I prefer the crystal clear and sharp clarity you get with watching most digital filmed movies. As a photographer myself you almost always go for crystal sharp photos with absolutely no noise. turning the ISO up will give a film grain effect, which some people like, but it was just an imperfection with old cameras which was the same for filming cameras when recording onto negative.

I can understand why people like these sort of imperfections in movies, especially if they've grown up with films all their life looking like this as it gives a charm or warmth to the film, but the new format is taking over very slowly because of the sharpness and clarity of the recording, and I for one, like it.

[JP]

Don't confuse noise with grain. For me, it's not about film grain, what I've not liked about digital so far is the different way that it handles colour, I just find it incredibly bland.

Moving from one chemical film stock to another completely changes everything about how it reacts to the light that you burn the images with and moving between chemical to digital or digital to a different digital changes that again.

I've just not seen a digital medium/cinematographer/director combination who are able to even come close to what has been achieved by even a poor combination of the above when using film. I'm sure it will happen once we have the right combination of technology & talent but we could well be years away from that due to what's being thrown around at the moment.

[dvdmike]

I think Superman Returns and Planet Terror got pretty damn close, but I do not want digital to look like film and neither do Mann or others

[SharkSkin-Man]

I thought this was pretty terrible looking. It's textureless, boring and cold.

Didn't think that much of the film in general either, Dillinger and Purvis are both totally uninteresting. I think i'd sooner sit through the Warren Oates Dillinger film tbh.