This message has been deleted.
-
PrimitiveScrewhead — 15 years ago(July 21, 2010 04:49 AM)
Here's a thought - if you're going to break the rules of film language be sure to have a REASON for it. There was no reason to shoot Public Enemies with such piss-poor conduct and then hide behind that feeble 'Artistic' parade that so many badly-made films claim to be.
-
saberdjedi — 15 years ago(July 24, 2010 02:55 AM)
Piss poor is an opinion. It was unconventional, but that doesn't make it bad. Why do you imply that it's cinematography has no meaning behind it? If you study Mann's work, it's clearly something he's intentionally doing and not just the result of fumbling around with a camera.
A majority of the people who don't like the way the film looks, can't even explain their opinions past the fact that they just don't like it. -
rjjh-1 — 15 years ago(July 28, 2010 02:53 PM)
Yeah its poorly made. Looks like its been shot on Michael Manns youngest childs toy video camera. I do not see the point of making a film that looks as beep as this. Could have been a good movie, although as previously mentioned there wasn't much in story or character development. Johnny Depp is a great actor but even he couldn't do much with this.
-
mcuman — 15 years ago(July 31, 2010 01:40 AM)
I have figured out a way to make thiswhatever it isviewable in 2010. Pick up an old B&W tube type TV from the thrift store and a RF modulator from Radio Shack. Plug your Blu-Ray into the modulator and hook it to the TV. Pretend it's 1955 and you are watching a live performance of Playhouse 90.
-
rl-10 — 15 years ago(August 01, 2010 05:50 AM)
I disagree completely.
It was much more classic, than todays style and actually felt more interesting and dynamic.
This may have been odd to people, expecting somethign they are so used to seeing
but i found it to be a visually interesting film. It was stylized like films before 1960s with a bit of todays flare. -
NicoleSky — 15 years ago(August 01, 2010 12:34 PM)
I agree, this movie was bad. It was a disappointment. I was expecting a good movie with Johnny Depp and Christian Bale as leads. I think they both did an "ok" job, but the movie had absolutely NO character development. I had to force myself to finish watching it.
-
whowhatwherewhenwhy — 15 years ago(September 06, 2010 05:17 PM)
Someone needs to look up the definition of the word "hyperbole". Enough of this "worst", "best" stuff regarding any and everything. Watch some horrible indie flicks, or even a piece of Gus Van Crap like Last Days to find out what horrible cinematography really is.
I had some issues with this movie in the editing and script department, but the cinematography wasn't anywhere near the worst, even among mainstream films released that year. -
Fitvideo — 15 years ago(September 18, 2010 03:02 PM)
Having just now seen this I have to wholeheartedly agree with you ..
I can do better on my HD cameras and certainly edit it to a higher standard
Mind you having a rubbish script and wooden actors in Bale and Depp does not help
Mr Mann has gone the way of George Lucas
Almost laughablethe soundtrack can't save it either which sometimes works , not in this case
cheers
Fitvideo -
sjprice-1 — 15 years ago(January 27, 2011 09:28 PM)
I was there for the Aragon Ballroom and Stueben Club scenes and it was an incredible experience to be there in the moment with Johnny, Marion and cast. I truly wish you could have seen what I saw in the filming, the chemistry between Johnny and Marion, the incredible detail on the set and wardrobe, and the energy that made up this film. I too wish it was not lit as darkly. The magic was there in the room, and it would be wonderful to provide the vision that I had the good fortune to witness in person. Also, Johnny is an amazing, gifted actor with a personal heart of gold. Marion is immensely beautiful and was wonderfully casted as Billie.
-
dragmio — 15 years ago(January 29, 2011 04:10 PM)
This is a very interesting issue. Most of the film is shot perfectly, that's usual with Michael Mann's films. But, every now and then there comes a short sequence that look like a reenactment in a documentary. What gives? I think the answer is - the second unit. Also, I'm almost certain those shots were filmed after the principal photography was wrapped up.
Obviously "someone" thought they needed more shots for editing. Someone was wrong. And I'm pretty sure that someone wasn't Michael Mann. -
roobieroo — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 09:00 PM)
It's never a good thing when instead of enjoying the movie and the story unfolding you're taken out of it and you keep thinking about how odd and strange the picture looks. I hope to God this isn't the future of cinematography. It reminded me of how the Twilight Zone switched from film to video near the end of its run because it was cheaper. It also looked absolutely horrible and made it hard to just watch without thinking about how bad it looked.