Public Enemies - A Michael Mann Film

I don't know. It seems pretty pre-conceived to me. He did screen-test on film before they shot the movie on digital to decide which they liked better.

Also, note. I saw this film and then went into another theater and walked in. The aspect ration was COMPLETELY different than the last theater. I can't explain it. We also had a ton of projection problems in my theater. So I can't even really comment on how it was supposed to look, because I'm not even sure how it was supposed to look.

However, I do like the way Mann films. Even if it looks like video. He's very run-and-gun in my opinion and I think it's pretty cool. At least his movies are unique. Lol, even with the shaky cam. I don't know it just doesn't bother me.
 
I saw the film in two different theaters - one digital projection and the other on film. I was really amazed at the difference in quality. The digital projection version looked amazing to me. I was confused with people complaining about the image quality until I saw it on film - it really looked bad overall. I know there will be differences in quality but I didn't expect the film transfer to be as bad as it was (in comparison to the digital projection).
 
I liked the film for the most part. It was too long. Gun fights were epically amazing. There were sections that looked as though an amateur operator was behind the camera.

Now the F23 (the primary camera on the show) can do a great job. Why it didn't here, I can't say. But then again, they were splicing a bunch of other cameras into the mix. So maybe it's not the F23 at fault. But I can't even begin to explain what happened. Some sections looked great. Other sections, not so much.
 
maybe lot has to do with teh fact that not all theaters have digital output... so if its a35mm print it could be diff looking like said above... lot of factors come into play ..right...
 
I really enjoyed the story, acting, characters, shootouts, costumes, etc... but I absolutely hated the look and cinematography. Whoever made the statement about it looking like a History Channel re-inactment at times was spot on. There was also just some lighting that looked downright lazy, like they just threw up a flood light and started shooting. Other times there were some well lit scenes in terms of lighting aesthetics, but then Mann would ruin it with his excessive video gain.

Collateral and Miami Vice had some of these elements, but not so much that it distracted from the film. Also, those are both modern day settings, which a digital look works better with than the 1930's. It really shocks me that we can a digital film that looks like this, and on the other end of the spectrum we can have ones that look great like Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button.

I understand that Mann is embracing the new technology, and even if he doesn't want it too look like film that's fine, but he should at least make it look a little cleaner and more consistent. The TV series' Battlestar Galactica, The 4400, The Beast, and Weeds have used digital and/or embraced the digital aesthetic while still producing good looking shows and not resembling a History or Discovery Channel doc.

I guess if I didn't like all the other aspects of the film, then it wouldn't be so tragic that Mann decided to go with the digital look. Still though, I did enjoy the film overall, and can't say it was a bad movie because I didn't like the cinematography.
 
Mattykins said:
I liked the film for the most part. It was too long. Gun fights were epically amazing. There were sections that looked as though an amateur operator was behind the camera.

Now the F23 (the primary camera on the show) can do a great job. Why it didn't here, I can't say. But then again, they were splicing a bunch of other cameras into the mix. So maybe it's not the F23 at fault. But I can't even begin to explain what happened. Some sections looked great. Other sections, not so much.
Click to expand...

The F23 DOES look great - but I hear that he purposefully turned the sharpness up and doesn't like shooting in the 'Film Response Curve' S-Log. He likes shooting in Rec709 to insure that what is on the monitor on set is exactly what he wants.

He's very detailed and meticulous in getting what he wants in every aspect of production and post-production.

He intentionally wanted this movie to look exactly how it did - even if he had to make otherwise filmic looking cameras look like bad video to get his desired result.

A bunch of sound mixers are having similar discussions about this film in regards to how he made some 'interesting' choices in the sound mix.
 
after seeing the film, my girlfriend, who isn't technically inclined, said....
"There was something about the picture, i just didn't like"

soooo....people, who arent maybe into film or tech seem to have noticed
the digital thing.....

i myself found it distracting at moments.....
otherwise, i liked the acting, story and costume design
 
So much for the digital revolution. I just saw it and it looked absolutely terrible. It's hard to believe that the guy who created Theif and Heat would make something this awful looking.
 
I saw the film one and besides some interesting choices with sound, as someone else mentioned in this thread, I thought it looked pretty average overall. I think the acting was great, as well as the set/costume/production design, but the story just didn't really engage me on a level to where I was really that interested or invested in the characters. I didn't find John Dillinger that intriguing, and I didn't really care that he was running away from the cops and Melvin Pervus. It was just like.....meh.
 
I really didn't care for this. I felt it lacked any character development, and as a result, the whole thing felt very superficial and empty. I found myself pretty disinterested. I didn't care for any of the characters.
 
i as well but i hear people say this is there favorite depp performance.... what performance?
 
By the title I thought it might be a remake of 'Public Enemy' with James Cagney.
I see on wiki there another 2 films by that name, South Korean, one a sequel but not related but maybe influenced from the original.

Anyways, Johnny Depp is alright but I don't see him as a gangster. Can't buy it, especially after a guy like Cageny. You know, a 'man'. Depp looks too much like a pretty boy. Maybe if it were an unknown actor, or someone with more of an agreesive apprearance, I'd go for it. Depp's not a tough guy in the theatrical sense imo, although there are exceptions.

John Dillinger was a useless a-hole. It does make for good entertainment though.
But Depp? Naw. There plenty of other actors who could have been a better fit.
William Forsythe for example...



:beer:

//I dont' know...here's another one. Maybe he wasn't interested/considered in/for the script, money, casting , I don't know...Cool guy though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMxsWbjvKvs
 
Last edited:
Depp might not be a tough guy in the traditional sense, but I'll take him over DiCaprio. Don't get me wrong, I think Leo is a great actor, but I don't think he plays to his strengths or type as much as he should. This movie left me wondering what some of Scorsese's recent work would be like if he had cast Depp.

Even so, I wouldn't say that I loved it, I just thought some of it was merely good and the rest kind of flat. I thought the shoot-out in the forest was especially amazing. The sound mix for all of the shoot-outs was top notch. But the digital look distracted me a lot of the time, and I do think it stood out even more being that this is a period film. Still, I appreciate that somebody had to 'go there' sooner or later, I'm just not sure anyone should do it again. Certain looks are so ingrained in us as being representative of certain periods or types of content (the History Channel comment, for example), that you better be ready for a backlash if you go against the established norms.

Also, I think Zodiac looks more like film than even Benjamin Button, which I thought was almost so perfect in a way you could never get film to look. I don't know why it isn't mentioned more, but Zodiac literally felt like a movie shot in the 70's that just happened to have a perfect archival print. From what I've heard, the difference is that Fincher shoots uncompressed files to disk rather than tape. The disks basically act like reels of exposed negative, and copies are immediately made and put into storage. He then edits a downrez to DVCProHD on Final Cut.

The lack of compression leaves a lot more latitude in the image, and gives that creaminess to the highlights and a really subtle curve to the entire image.

There's an excellent podcast interview with Fincher about shooting this and the worries of the studio, the lack of a crew, what Harris Savides said about shooting this way... it's been up for a while and... yep, still there! Here you go, enjoy:

Fincher on Shooting HD with the Viper
 
I know some filmmaker friends who live near one of the shooting locations for Public Enemies. They were able to get on the set of the film too.
 
Well contrary to what most people here think I thought that when it worked it looked great, the contrast in the shootouts, the play between light and dark, and the detail and sharpness looked brilliant. Unfortunately there were scenes with the gain turned right up (wtf!!) color timing issues, and some pretty shoddy camera work in places. An inconsistent performance, but when it worked it was stunning. Even on my crappy little productions I wouldn't resort to increasing gain.
 
I noticed some of the problems mentioned above, i thought it was obvious simple mistakes thus im still trying to understand how these were done, and im getting the idea that they were all purposefully done, but for what reason i dont know.

I liked the film a lot, i just finished watching it, although i thought it could have been better in the way they portrayed the journey of the character, it seemed too rushed, his love life with the woman, they only just meet and then suddenly there immortally bound together, seemed like they need more scenes to show more of a longer journey for the characters, a montage could have done, something i can imagine scorsese doing.

Does anyone know what camera they used specifically? I really dont have the time to go through 8 pages of posts and read every post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top