Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Public Enemies (2009)

This is topic Public Enemies (2009) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001562

Posted by Jerome Holmes (Member # 5013) on 07-01-2009, 06:38 AM:

Review - 2/5 (I'm being generous)

We had a dry run this evening in our own theatre for fun (enough interest in Johnny Depp to spur this one on I guess).

Without spoilers, the quality of a lot of the shots was poor (looks like it was to be shown on 90's television, IE Full House?) And then the sound mixing was all wonky. a lot of the music channel was the left front speaker, making the right front very dull. Generally, the dialogue was uneven in volume, making dubbing very apparent. I think there are some sound editors out there that need to be fired...

I generally like heist movies too, and this one wasn't all that entertaining...

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 07-01-2009, 07:22 AM:

I am unsure of what to think with this film. The acting, plot and the action set pieces are great and the work on the sets, costumes etc. is also top-notch. My problem comes in deciding whether the sound and camera work makes it look dodgy or is brilliant in conveying imminence to a historical biopic. Will have to see this one again before coming to a final decision.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 07-02-2009, 04:36 PM:

Boring. I love how it has all the graphic gunshot scenes, but won't even show the girl's titties while she is in the bath tub. What a sad world we live in. I think the American people can handle seeing a titty.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-02-2009, 05:35 PM:

quote: Chris Hipp
I think the American people can handle seeing a titty.

I know Australians can. [thumbsup]

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-02-2009, 07:10 PM:

Unless this movie gives significant screen time to Sam Cowley, then it's hardly a "historical" biopic. Many historical accounts portray Melvin Purvis as the guy who consistently bothched attempts to catch Dillinger and Cowley as the guy who cleaned up the FBI's act.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 07-03-2009, 01:54 AM:

POOR POOR video and sound editing, shot on some kind of lame ass video camcorder from the 90's, maybe a Sony Handycam or something similar. Horrible dubbing(voices & lips were out of sync several times), it sounded as if it had the same tone and volume for every scene of dialogue(outside scenes and inside scenes had the same room tone effect, everything else was very soft for background room noises). It felt like the whole movie was dubbed in without any editing to cater to the actual settings in any location. Score/music repeated itself during every montage or climatic plot points. Every gunshot sounded fake.

Oh man, the cinematography on this is pure crap. Every shot was hand held, this person could not hold the camera still even if it was braced on to their body for dear life. Zoomed in way too close on MANY angles. I really did not need to see just half of someone's face every 5 mins. Literally, the editing sucks ass. I can't stress how hard they tried to make some of the action sequences seem more action packed then it actually was. I bet Johnny Depp had motion sickness from looking at the camera guy moving the camera everywhere in front of him. It felt like watching the show The Office but set in the 1930's with a Hi8 camcorder. Or imagine watching a late night made for cable tv movie that's 2 hours way too long.

Acting was atrocious... could not relate or connect in any shape or form to any of the characters. Cheesy one liners from everyone who uttered words from their mouth. Depp barely said much of anything throughout the whole movie. I cared even less for the Billie character(lead female), Bale's character could have been played by anyone, and there were way too many people in this movie to warrant any amount of interest for them. As well as way too many cameos that were really meant for extras to play...

Michael Mann was directing this via web cam obviously and everyone else went to Tennessee to record this without any grips... nor dollies, tripods, or body braces for the Handycam... Apparently, any flat surface was obsolete for every location. My guess is that the tables and counters in the banks couldn't support the heavy camera body...

0.5 out of 5 [The Jen]

because I feel bad for the actors who really wanted to work with Mann for some stupid reason...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-03-2009, 03:00 AM:

Wow, I'm glad I was at work installing projectors instead of watching this one with you. Michael Mann sucks ass. Remember Miami Vice? What an asshole.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 07-03-2009, 05:41 AM:

Yes, we walked out of that one...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-03-2009, 02:55 PM:

quote: Jennifer Pan
Oh man, the cinematography on this is pure crap.

You can't say that! After all "digital" is perfect!

quote: Jennifer Pan
POOR POOR video and sound editing, shot on some kind of lame ass video camcorder from the 90's, maybe a Sony Handycam or something similar.

According to IMDB, Public Enemies was shot using the following:

Arriflex 235, Cooke S4 Lenses
Arriflex 435, Cooke S4 Lenses
Sony CineAlta F23, Zeiss DigiPrime and Fujinon Lenses
Sony HDC-F950, Zeiss DigiPrime and Fujinon Lenses
Sony HDW-F23 (Zeiss DigiPrime Lenses)
Sony PMW-EX1
Sony XDCAM EX

I'm a little surprised any film photography was used on this movie. Everything I've seen in the previews looks obviously like 6 o'clock news quality video half-ass digital filter-faked into trying to look like film but missing the mark like Evel Kinevel not making the jump across the Snake River Canyon. Pure suckage.

After as shitty as Miami Vice: The Video looked, I have no desire to see this movie.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-03-2009, 03:27 PM:

I'm sure that someone else has already mentioned this in the Miami Vice review thread, but it is ironic that the TV show was shot on film and the movie was shot on video.

Why do all of these actors want so badly to work with Michael Mann? Heat was good, but c'mon. He has fallen far.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-03-2009, 06:06 PM:

Mann just needs to get a decent script and develop some patience for working with film again. Heat looked pretty awesome in some respects with all the Panavision anamorphic film glory showing through. Christopher Nolan said he modeled some of the look of The Dark Knight after the cinematography of Heat.

At least Dante Spinotti, ASC must be happy about that. It's just too bad Michael Mann has been sticking video cameras in his hands since then. Or is it the other way around? Who knows.

Like the Dark Side of The Force shooting on video is only easier and faster. It is not better. The end result, visually, is almost always visually inferior to film origination (unless the film shooter guy screwed up on the job). Video gives off that oily anal juice concoction of pure evil.

Comedy is about the only genre where I can understand video production being an advantage. Getting the timing right and using improvisation wastes a LOT of film before you dial into something that works. Easier to shoot electronically and just keep working and experimenting until something gels. Most movies and genres typically have a solid script in place before the cameras, cranes and lights get rented. Film origination is better in that regard.

IMHO, I've seen nothing from Michael Mann's body of work where video use has been justified.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-04-2009, 01:31 AM:

Agree on the fotography - way too much handleld shots. Reminds of "The Blair Witch Project" - way too much jittery and waving action!

Cinematogaphers needs to realize that when we see things while we are in motion, our eyeballs are fixated on that one object and makes that object appear stationary for us to concentrate on.

In filmmaking,that danged camera needs to be stationary on a tripod/unipod or on a track dolly since we are stationary sitting in our seats.

It's hard to fixate on a subject or object when it's moving around all the time, thus getting us dizzy, and/or suffer eyestrain from trying to fixate on that subject or object.

-Monte

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-04-2009, 02:20 AM:

It was shaky-shaky because they were trying to make it look like a documentary or some such because as everyone knows, documentary makers are always completely incompetent with the camera. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-04-2009, 06:34 PM:

CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 14 (from the balcony)
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Mystery Meat Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None, aside from the movie itself
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

This is the first time I've ponied up for the balcony. So I climb the stairs and...HOLY CRAP! THERE'S A FULL-SERVICE BAR/LOUNGE up here! We're talking seating for 50. I had NO idea. Maybe I should take up drinking.

Guy Who Takes My Ticket also shows me to my seat and announces himself as my server. The seat is so big it makes you feel like a child sitting in it. He shows me the seat's heat control, shows me a little LED flashlight attached to the table, and shows me button to push for service. Then he offers me a drink and goes away. I fire up the heat. Ahhhhh.

Everybody should have a hot dog on the Fourth of July, and I have mine here. The bun totally makes this. It's toasted and buttered and completely awesome. The bowl of chili...not so much.

Oh yes...They were nice enough to show a movie too.

THE PLOT: A guy runs from the law. Wackiness ensues.

I'd use the fact the guy robs a bank or two as the plotline, but we don't really see much of that. It's much more about the FBI-Dillinger relationship than anything.

Pretty much everybody in the movie is an asshole. So I guess it's a matter of choosing which asshole you dislike least. As for the asshole you dislike most...your answer will probably be Michael Mann.

If you're going to watch a movie shot on video, you might as well watch it on the biggest screen around, right? I was surprised they showed it on film since there's a digital projector in here too, but they did. Outstanding, steady presentation. The blatant video parts didn't bother me as much as some here, and I thought the soundtrack was fine. The chosen shooting style of 'motion sickness' is just stupid.

I don't know if it would have made the movie better with tripods and film (or at least PROPER digital equipment), but it certainly would have made it more watchable.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 07-09-2009, 04:43 AM:

quote: Sam Graham
The blatant video parts didn't bother me as much as some here, and I thought the soundtrack was fine. The chosen shooting style of 'motion sickness' is just stupid.

Hmm, I'm the exact opposite. The video's color looked like it was shot on a pocket digital-still camera set to mpeg - just atrocious, and the sound mix was really distracting to me. Shakiness, on the other hand, didn't bother me at all.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-09-2009, 05:53 AM:

I blame Woody Allen.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-09-2009, 12:32 PM:

Woody Allen hasn't shot anything on video has he? I think he still mixes all his movies in mono too.

quote: Sam Graham
I don't know if it would have made the movie better with tripods and film (or at least PROPER digital equipment), but it certainly would have made it more watchable.

Video doesn't work well within the school of "Shakes the Camera Man" style of shooting. That's because the CCD or CMOS based sensors don't see and process the imagery fast enough. Certain details visually get blurred or smeared, especially in low light situations. It makes the video look so much more obvious. If the camera was locked down on a tripod or dolly track the video artifacts would be more difficult to spot.

quote: Sam Graham
This is the first time I've ponied up for the balcony. So I climb the stairs and...HOLY CRAP! THERE'S A FULL-SERVICE BAR/LOUNGE up here! We're talking seating for 50. I had NO idea. Maybe I should take up drinking.

I'd like to check out the balcony section at the Moore Warren 14 an hour's drive from here in Oklahoma. Unfortunately every time I've visited the theater the balcony section has been sold out. That's kind of amazing to me since the price premium is a little hefty. I hear the food and drinks are priced somewhat steep as well. Still, it's supposed to be a really nice experience. Great place to take a date. With throwing out the extra coin your date might let you get some!

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 07-09-2009, 09:25 PM:

I'm pretty sure Vicky Cristina Barcelona had three tracks with sound on them - scenes with music anyway. But anyway, Woody's films are properly exposed & mixed - Public Enemies was not. ...and if it was an aesthetic choice, it didn't work for me.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-09-2009, 09:53 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Woody Allen hasn't shot anything on video has he?

No, for the shaky cam.

Manhattan Murder Mystery

quote:
With throwing out the extra coin your date might let you get some!

Pizza?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-09-2009, 09:57 PM:

I was talking about a different kind of "pie."

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-09-2009, 09:58 PM:

Blueberry? Yum!

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-10-2009, 04:44 PM:

quote:
I'd like to check out the balcony section at the Moore Warren 14 an hour's drive from here in Oklahoma. Unfortunately every time I've visited the theater the balcony section has been sold out. That's kind of amazing to me since the price premium is a little hefty. I hear the food and drinks are priced somewhat steep as well. Still, it's supposed to be a really nice experience. Great place to take a date. With throwing out the extra coin your date might let you get some!

You can still go up to the bar without buying a balcony ticket. The balcony itself is surprisingly small...only four or five rows, and the seating space is HUGE, so there aren't nearly as many seats per row as there is on the floor.

Menu for the balcony, including prices, are here.

Most of this stuff is also available for the same price in the Diner. My tab...a "benefit special" box of popcorn with a glass of Pepsi (yes, a glass), a hot dog, and a cup of chili, actually only came to $9.99.

Posted by Sally Ann Burgess (Member # 4746) on 07-29-2009, 05:05 AM:

Test screened this morning. I quite liked it but I found it hard to understand what people were saying. There was one shot that looked really grainy but I thought the picture quality was really good otherwise. I found it hard to spot my own joins!!
Film-3/5.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-29-2009, 03:57 PM:

quote:
I found it hard to spot my own joins!!

That's because they made sure the camera person was having a seizure at any time the camera was on. If the image was shot with more competence, your "joins" would be much easier to spot.

Posted by Tom Inglis (Member # 5181) on 07-31-2009, 02:03 PM:

I've only seen the first 90 minutes so far of our digital copy, and i can't quite understand your problems. It's a stunningly beautiful film, which i have come to expect from Mann.

So far, so good. Will check out the end soon.

Posted by Sally Ann Burgess (Member # 4746) on 07-31-2009, 09:35 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
That's because they made sure the camera person was having a seizure at any time the camera was on. If the image was shot with more competence, your "joins" would be much easier to spot.

Cheeky sod you!! There was me thinking it was my undeniable AWESOMENESS at splicing...... [Wink]