Public Enemies

[Dr_Kn0w]

Originally Posted by halsan40

Sorry for my ignorance but what is the "Steelbook" edition?

Thanks

This means that the movie comes in a special steelbook case instead of the traditional plastic case. The contents of the disc itself is the same. Just fancy packaging....

[buddywhite]

Originally Posted by AndyM

i've seen other films shot in HD and some of them have looked pretty good (Zodiac comes to mind). Why anyone would want to shoot a film to look like this i'll never understand. what's wrong with these people ????

Fincher knows what he's doin. Both Zodiac and Benjamin Button looked beautiful and very film like.
Michael Mann wanted the "realistic style". Kudos for trying but it didn't work. It's not unwatchable by any means but it was a disappointment

[stwrt]

Originally Posted by buddywhite

Fincher knows what he's doin. Both Zodiac and Benjamin Button looked beautiful and very film like.
Michael Mann wanted the "realistic style". Kudos for trying but it didn't work. It's not unwatchable by any means but it was a disappointment

Michael Mann has been using this style since at least Ali, which mixed HD video and celluloid. Miami Vice used it prominently. I would say this director knows what he wants and he gets his cameramen to deliver it, and when you think of the calibre of men he chooses to shoot his movies - Dante Spinotti, Emmanuel Lubezki - he's getting some of the best cinematographers in the world to deliver the image he wants. I would say that it works, it's just not a style everyone appreciates - especially via their expensive monitors and projectors.

[Rigby Reardon]

Originally Posted by AndyM

i've seen other films shot in HD and some of them have looked pretty good (Zodiac comes to mind). Why anyone would want to shoot a film to look like this i'll never understand. what's wrong with these people ????

Personally, I liked the look of the film and am glad that some filmmakers like Mann and Fincher are willing to experiment off the beaten path. Most films try to cater to the audience's established expectations. For period films, they often even try to create a "nostalgic" look by desaturating colors, adding a slight sepia tone, purposefully choosing very grainy film stock etc., the idea being that it somehow looks more authentic if period material is presented in "period-like" images, as we imagine them to look based on old newsreels, photographs, etc.

The drawback of this approach is that it re-enforces the viewer's temporal distance to the depicted events. In contrast, by using a modern look to present period material, Mann is obviously trying to remove that distance and bring a modern audience right back into 1933, reminding them that this was an actual reality, and not just a couple of faded pictures in a history book. This is also underscored by the meticulous attention to detail in set design etc. and shooting in the real historical locations for many of the major scenes.

[degas]

Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon

Personally, I liked the look of the film and am glad that some filmmakers like Mann and Fincher are willing to experiment off the beaten path. Most films try to cater to the audience's established expectations. For period films, they often even try to create a "nostalgic" look by desaturating colors, adding a slight sepia tone, purposefully choosing very grainy film stock etc., the idea being that it somehow looks more authentic if period material is presented in "period-like" images, as we imagine them to look based on old newsreels, photographs, etc.

The drawback of this approach is that it re-enforces the viewer's temporal distance to the depicted events. In contrast, by using a modern look to present period material, Mann is obviously trying to remove that distance and bring a modern audience right back into 1933, reminding them that this was an actual reality, and not just a couple of faded pictures in a history book. This is also underscored by the meticulous attention to detail in set design etc. and shooting in the real historical locations for many of the major scenes.

While I appreciate everything you say, I still feel the "look" on this film doesn't look particularly "good" (meant in a "visually pleasing" kind of way).
At least it don't speak to my aesthetics.
And as have been proven by other filmmakers - this kind of approach can certainly look good.

But as someone above pointed out - he knows what he wants, and he use great people, so I'm sure he got what he wanted.

It simply did not work for me aesthetically.

[Chief Brody]

In reply to the previous poster, the UK release is from Universal and so is not region locked. I have the UK disc and thought that the transfer looked stunning, but it all depends on where you stand with the issue of DV video 'noise', because you are going to see a LOT of it here, especially in the night-time shootout. At times, the gunfire even seems to interfere with the image, such as when Purvis and the Feds are pursuing Nelson in the car and exchanging fire. Yet the amount of snap and clarity in the image overall is faultless.

[lgans316]

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id...c-enemies.html

[AndyM]

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id...c-enemies.html

yeah, that first screen shot pretty much says it all. yuk !!!!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon

Personally, I liked the look of the film and am glad that some filmmakers like Mann and Fincher are willing to experiment off the beaten path. Most films try to cater to the audience's established expectations. For period films, they often even try to create a "nostalgic" look by desaturating colors, adding a slight sepia tone, purposefully choosing very grainy film stock etc., the idea being that it somehow looks more authentic if period material is presented in "period-like" images, as we imagine them to look based on old newsreels, photographs, etc.

The drawback of this approach is that it re-enforces the viewer's temporal distance to the depicted events. In contrast, by using a modern look to present period material, Mann is obviously trying to remove that distance and bring a modern audience right back into 1933, reminding them that this was an actual reality, and not just a couple of faded pictures in a history book. This is also underscored by the meticulous attention to detail in set design etc. and shooting in the real historical locations for many of the major scenes.

This.

And FWIW, I think the UK disc IS the US disc. It's got a specific 'Canadian French' audio track, and it's got an FBI warning too. Don't normally get either of those on our UK platters unless it's the US disc in disguise (see Warners).

[Rigby Reardon]

Some screenshots from the UK disc. What these obviously cannot show is the specific way the video technology renders motion, which is not everybody's cup of tea (as we can read in this very thread ). But the movie also has many stunningly detailed images.

[stwrt]

THose are terrific captures, particularly that last cap outside the Biograph. The re-creation of 1930's locations was one of the best thing about the movie which is surprisingly similar to a lot of the set-ups in Heat which made Public Enemies slightly repetitive, but still a good movie.

[crunchyfrogs]

Originally Posted by gwsat

I saw Public Enemies in the theater and liked it. Most of the critics who criticized the film seem to have done so because it did not meet their expectations, given who its director and stars were. I read some of the reviews before I saw the film and, as a result, went into the movie theater with somewhat lowered expectations. I was pleasantly surprised. Although I thought that Public Enemies focused too much on the history of the times and too little on the characters of John Dillinger, Melvin Purvis, and others, it was nevertheless consistently interesting and never seemed to drag, despite its 140 minute runtime. I have Public Enemies in my Netflix queue and look forward to seeing it again.

Agree with you partially. We watched this the other night and found the lack of character development disappointing...which usually means watched once and on the shelf it goes forever for me. The dialogue is not well written at all IMO...
The only way I will pick this up is when it hits the bargain bin down the road.

[akademiks]

I picked this up and it was very underwhelming.. I was pretty disappointed with the PQ. It just looks very bland..

[giantchicken]

I missed this in theaters. I've talked to several who saw it, and none of their impressions made this sound like a movie that would warrant repeat viewings. I almost never rent, but with Christmas shopping to do, I don't think I'll be diverting money towards a blind buy in this case.

[buddywhite]

Originally Posted by stwrt

Michael Mann has been using this style since at least Ali, which mixed HD video and celluloid. Miami Vice used it prominently. I would say this director knows what he wants and he gets his cameramen to deliver it, and when you think of the calibre of men he chooses to shoot his movies - Dante Spinotti, Emmanuel Lubezki - he's getting some of the best cinematographers in the world to deliver the image he wants. I would say that it works, it's just not a style everyone appreciates - especially via their expensive monitors and projectors.

Personal taste I guess. I don't care if this look is more natural or original or closer to how it looked back then. When I go to the movies I want to be carried away. I want it to look like film, like a movie.
It ain't reality I'm watching, it's a movie.

But as I said, it wasn't that bad, I just felt that all that great cinematography got a little lost in the process.

[dgolombowski]

Originally Posted by stwrt

THose are terrific captures, particularly that last cap outside the Biograph. The re-creation of 1930's locations was one of the best thing about the movie which is surprisingly similar to a lot of the set-ups in Heat which made Public Enemies slightly repetitive, but still a good movie.

I am really looking forward to seeing this film. Most of it was shot in Wisconsin and they used many historic buildings in Milwaukee for backdrops. I didn't get to see any of the filming myself but I am a big Michael Mann fan.

[urbeenjammin]

got one on fleabay for auction under "urbeenjammin"

[Kram Sacul]

Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon

Some screenshots from the UK disc. What these obviously cannot show is the specific way the video technology renders motion, which is not everybody's cup of tea (as we can read in this very thread ). But the movie also has many stunningly detailed images.

All these shots look like they're from a behind the scenes type featurette especially that last shot. Your eyes immediately search for the film crew and the real camera shooting the scene.

[Partyslammer]

I watched it last night and considering the cast and Michael Mann being the director, it didn't really live up to (my) expectations.

I echo some of the other complaints in this thread regarding character development through the movie as well as the pacing in some stretches. I didn't have as much an issue with the way it was filmed as some people here, but I thought the switch between digital and film in some places was a bit jarring and distracting. Overall, some good sequences, especially the gunfights which sounded realistic compared to most Hollywood action flicks but definitely a rental for anyone on the fence.

BTW, while almost no one will get this, I noticed actor Don Frye in a small part as one of Purvis' G-Men who was previously in Godzilla Final Wars.

T.B.

[Haroon Malik]

I really enjoyed the movie. It is one of the top gangster movies IMO. Michael Mann did a fantastic job. Depp was pretty good in this movie.

The gunshot scenes are top notch. Mann always pays a lot of attention to the sound of the gunfire to make it as authentic as possible and it shows in his movies. Heat, Collateral and Miami Vice had it. This one has it too. Not only that, but the sound is as close as possible to the actual guns being used. I don't know any other director who focuses on this aspect that much. The musical score is also very good.

I am looking forward to getting it on blu-ray.

P.S. Otis Taylor's "Ten Million Slaves" is a fantastic song which is played at the right time for more impact in the respective scene.

[buddywhite]

The song is a remix for the movie with electric guitars, the studio version only has acoustic... cool tune indeed

[oland]

I'm trying to figure out what Best Buy and Target are claiming in their Sunday ads...

Best Buy says "Only at Best Buy! exclusive behind-the-scenes footage" while Target says "Target exclusive production notes."


It's annoyingly vague, and I can't find a better explanation anywhere online.

[robertc88]

Post #17 in October I wrote I'd give it another go via a rental but I've decided against it. I don't think another viewing would change my opinion of this movie!

[stumlad]

Just watched it... I did not like the camera work from this movie... The way the camera moved, and the whole feel of it... at times felt like I was watching a soap opera.

The PQ was all over the place, and some scenes were very dark. There were some moments where the PQ revealed a lot of fine detail, and others looked mushy... The movie wasn't bad, but it wasn't exactly what I'd expect out of Depp and Bale. The bank robbery scenes had no tension at all... Even when they were firing out in the open, I felt nothing......

[Paul Cordingley]

Originally Posted by stumlad

Just watched it... I did not like the camera work from this movie... The way the camera moved, and the whole feel of it... at times felt like I was watching a soap opera.

The PQ was all over the place, and some scenes were very dark. There were some moments where the PQ revealed a lot of fine detail, and others looked mushy... The movie wasn't bad, but it wasn't exactly what I'd expect out of Depp and Bale. The bank robbery scenes had no tension at all... Even when they were firing out in the open, I felt nothing......

My thoughts exactly. The variable PQ pulled me out of the movie more often than not. I *do not* like the video look in a motion picture, and I agree it removes tension - it just looks and feels amateurish.

[c722]

Originally Posted by Paul Cordingley

...I agree it removes tension - it just looks and feels amateurish....

... aren't they meant to be ..erh... cartoonish ?

[gwsat]

I saw Public Enemies in the theater when it was first released and liked it well enough. I got the BD from Netflix and watched the movie again last night. I agree that the movie has many weaknesses, although the PQ seemed just fine to me in this gritty period piece. The film's most significant weakness was the writing. This was an interesting time in American history, with J. Edgar Hoover and his new FBI becoming ascendant and old time desperadoes, such as John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson being ruthlessly hunted and no longer able to rely on the protection of modern business oriented Mafia mobsters, such as Al Capone and Frank Nitti. Unfortunately, this incredibly rich story is told so bloodlessly that even the talents of its large and gifted ensemble cast are unable to raise it above the ordinary.

Despite my lukewarm assessment of Public Enemies, I recommend it anyway. Although it is far less than we might have expected, given its great cast and high production values, it is still a decent film and well worth the time it will take to watch it.

[xradman]

For those of you that watched this in theater with film, did it still have that video soap opera look or was that masked by film?

[zoey67]

Originally Posted by Dr_Kn0w

Did any of you find that the audio in the dialogue was weird at some points? Like was the opening scene really hard to hear and were there points where someone was talking and all of a sudden their dialogue got loud for a word or two, then dropped back down?

that's why I started to turn subtitles about a year ago for every movie now regardless and have found them to be highly useful and wished I've done this long ago.

Don't let your pride keep you from doing so like you need some help, its only there when you need it and not intended to be read word for word line for line like some ppl around here who feels they're above it.

And this is coming from a reader of the year award recipient in jr high so its not a big deal or shameful for me to have it on, and its not distracting either if you know how it use it and not focus on it all the time where you miss out on the action on the screen. Just try it a few times, you'll see what I mean. You'll enjoy films even more you won't miss out whenever they mumble, whisper, or say something too fast or with accents.

[degas]

This was the worst audio mix in a long time.
Annoyingly inconsistent.