Public Enemies

[Matt]

I apologise Chain for my rant a few days ago. It's just hard when I read such positive reviews of a film I genuinely can't wait to see, only to have it hammered down when I come on to here. Rllmuk is even worse for that kind of thing though.

Like I said first off, I wasn't putting my own opinion over, so I wasn't making myself seem like a crazed hardcore fanboy of Michael Mann. I just wanted to show you others peoples opinions, those from two well regarded film magazines praising his camera work.

When I see it next week I will give my own opinion. Which will more than likely agree with you in the end.

We're cool mate

I went in wanting it to be great, as I am actually a Mann fan - I'll defend Miami Vice to the end, I think it's a masterpiece. And as I say, I liked the film, if not the techniques. There are some stunning compositions in this.

I hope you enjoy the film. We all have different opinions, and will be interested to see what you feel about the open shutter issue once you've "experienced" it in the film. I may well find it's not as jarring on my second viewing.

[Matt]

This was in still shots, that's the problem. The blacks were also out of whack too, so some shadows were appearing purple and green like on old TVs. Time to try a different cinema I think.

Does sound like a cinema issue. Possibly a combination. Mann shot mainly with natural light I believe, and there are times when it can look "mucky" - didn't look like they even used bounce boards to get a bit of light back on the faces.

Try it in another cinema (I trust you got a refund) and let us know what you think

[dvdmike]

We're cool mate

I went in wanting it to be great, as I am actually a Mann fan - I'll defend Miami Vice to the end, I think it's a masterpiece. And as I say, I liked the film, if not the techniques. There are some stunning compositions in this.

I hope you enjoy the film. We all have different opinions, and will be interested to see what you feel about the open shutter issue once you've "experienced" it in the film. I may well find it's not as jarring on my second viewing.

We at least both agree that vice is a masterpeice (in directors cut form)

[blastre]

I really liked Miami Vice - saw a lot of it's style ported into The Dark Knight - camera roving away, taking in small inconsequential detail.
Always a bit hot and cold with Mann though - like Manhunter a lot, love his music choices. Some of his stuff like Ali, The Insider, Last of the Mohicans doesn't really cut it with me.
Verdict on Public Enemies? Didn't mind the end of it. Overlong though, for no reall reason. As many have said - doesn't really get into the who and why of Dillinger - not really a very true bio.

[CMcK]

I saw the film last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. Good performances from the leads and a compelling story even though you know roughly what to expect.

Regarding the panning shots I thought some of the time it looked a bit like the artifical smoothness you see with movie mode turned on on some modern TV's. Is this likely to have been a result of the cameras or maybe some post processing?

[Roddie]

This film was pretty boring, the pacing was terrible and the characters had absolutely no depth so the likes of Christian Bale are never really given the chance to shine.

As for the debate on how it's shot, I had have to say it was probably the most jarring thing about the film. I'd only heard about it from one person before, and he's a film-maker who was discussing with a projectionist so I'd hoped they were just being picky, but unfortunately it seems they were not. Some of the shots are framed beautifully (mostly only still ones, come to think of it) but for the most part, it has a very weird amateur look to it. It really does look like it was shot for TV with a camcorder at many points and I found it impossible to get past.

[Malc]

I'm going to see this at 10:30 tonight, hopefully i'll enjoy it as i'm really looking forward to this. I'll post my thoughts on the film and its looks later on or tomorrow.

[Matt]

So come on Malc, what's your opinion? Or do your eyes still hurt

[Malc]

I have to say that I could notice the motion blur when the camera was paning or moving, especially that Michael Mann seems to have loved the handheld cameras a little too much in this film which didn't help the blur issue. However, after the first 15-30 mins I got used to it and it didn't bother me at all. I do not agree with the comments about the film having an amateur look to it; not at one point did I think the picture quality look that bad, or was filmed/framed badly enough to warrant an amateur look.

For the actual film and it's story, I didn't think it had enough depth to it as other Mann films like Heat or Miami Vice. For instance, I had no problem with Bale's acting, but the film itself never delved beyond Purvis' devotion to catching Dillinger

->Open Spoiler<-

(apart from when it showed him shooting another man in the back with a rifle )

which left his character feeling cold and unemotional. By far, Mann wanted to focus more on Dillinger and making sure the viewers felt sympathy for him and you could tell Mann was on his side, very much like people were in real life back then I suppose.

As for the gun battles; outstanding. Again, Mann hasn't dissapointed. The guns themselves are loud like a proper gun would sound, and they are filmed beautifully, just what I expected from this director. I especially liked the

->Open Spoiler<-

late night cabin fight when they found out Dillingers location and proceeded to shoot the hell out of the place. Nice audio effects of the bullets piercing the wood made it like a real life gunfight was happening and I was watching it.

Motion blur was not a problem in these action scenes for me, I didn't notice it due to the awesomeness happening on screen. In fact, it may have even helped me get 'into' the battles a bit more which is why I thought they were so brilliant.

One thing I did notice though, something like film grain was still present throughout the movie, mainly in the well lighted locations and environments, whereas the dark blacks of the night shots were really deep without any film grain effect. I didn't mind as I'm used to negative recorded films, but I thought digital was supposed to eliminate this problem? Unless it was something to do with the odeon cinema, and not a fault of the film.

[SuperDanX]

Saw this on Blu ray last night. I really enjoyed it. Underrated i think.

[abigsmurf]

I think this film probably works better on the small screen where the shakey cam would be less headache inducing.