Ooo, the trailer's out! More Mann movie marvelousness momentarily:
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/p/Public-Enemies/index-6529465.html
Looks the bomb, yo. Cool as yer like, cinematography to make angels weep, and a sick, sick setting.
Saw this film last night.
It was good. I'm hesitant to say it was great though. As of now I'd probably give it an 8/10. Johnny Depp was fantastic, Bale was adequate (he had much less to work with), Cotillard was also adequate. The HD cinematography really worked for me, I dug it; there were some excellent shootouts in the film.
However, I wish they'd developed Depp and Cotillard's relationship more. They convey that they care for each other, but they don't build it up or go into enough detail; there's not enough "meat" there, if you will. Also, I would've like to see WHY the public looked up to Dillinger. They mention it, but they never explain it. Other than that, I wish they would've done a bit more with Melvin Purvis (Bale's character); it seems like he was conflicted in his job of pursuing Dillinger, because he risked losing his men and credibility if he didn't succeed, but they only touch on this.
Anyway, solid film, worth watching. Certainly better than Transformers and I maybe liked it better than say... Up or Drag Me to Hell (and I really liked those two). Maybe. Not quite sure yet, I may have to see it again before I cement my opinion.
Go see it for Depp, for the shootouts, for the raw/visceral cinematography and the jail breaks. But don't expect a large amount of drama. Drama that, I think, would've elevated this movie to "great" status.
I just saw the movie... I walked out. It was not because of the acting. Johnny Depp and Christian Bale did a great job like always. Michael Mann is a terrible director. All the shots were close up shots. The editing was horrible. The lighting was terrible, the audio would go in and out. The camera moved to much and the blur was annoying. It gave me a headache. I felt like I just got off the mission space ride at Disney. The movie sucked
I can tell it was not made on film. The movie looked like it was shot on a digital camera and made for Bluray rather than made for the theaters. I hope this film making trend ends soon or at least keep the look and quality of traditional film stock.
Aside from all this the movie had good acting. The cinematographer did a descent job. And the premise was good. But it wasn't enough to make a good film. And since I left within the first hour, I can't judge the entire film. But because of everything mentioned before, I know I didn't miss much.
Weird, the sound was funky at my screening as well. I just figured something was wrong with the theater's sound system. If the sound is messed up on the DVD, I'll be pissed.
Anyway, Mann is NOT a terrible director. Just thought I should get that out there. I didn't notice anything wrong with the lighting and personally, I liked the HD cinematography/close-ups, especially during the shoot-outs, considering that it felt like I was part of the film during those scenes, instead of watching something blatantly choreographed. But, since you left an hour into the film, you didn't even see the best shoot-out anyway.
If the cinematography/camera-work literally gave you a headache, then I can understand you leaving, but otherwise, you should've stayed to finish the movie.
Originally posted by Darth Martin
Roger Ebert said the same thing in his review.
I'll have to read it!
I saw this on Saturday night. I went with huge expectations, having read Empire's ridiculously enthusiastic review, and Heat is one of my favourite films. While I did think it was a good film, I couldn't help feeling slightly disappointed. The film didn't emotionally involve me as much as I expected, and the characters just weren't as interesting as Vincent Hannah and Neil Macauley in Heat, or Geoffrey Wigand in The Insider.
I did think Johnny Depp was very good, and Christian Bale played his role pretty well (in fact, I had no problems with any of the cast) but I didn't care about the characters enough; partly because I knew what was coming, partly because the film felt very detached from the main characters. Doubtless, I thought it was a good film on an intellectual level, with some quite good points, including those on Dillinger's decline into insignificance.
I'd probably give the film an 8.5/10; I did enjoy it, and I did think it had a lot of significant qualities. I also think I'd probably enjoy it more on a second viewing, as there was quite a lot to take in.
It's about a million times better than anything else out right now. Considering the top 5 in the box office are Transformers 2, Harry Potter, Ice Age, Bruno and the Hangover, this is unsurprising. I'd definitely recommend seeing it in the cinema. It's no Heat, but Michael Mann's worth a million Michael Bays.