Public enemies (Michael Mann,2008)

[Sergio B]

Originally Posted by Wostry Ferenc

And digital needs a couple more years until it can be used for feature films. Every time the camera moved, PE became a home video. Red Camera is almost there, why didn't he used that one? Because than the film would have actually looked good?

I have to agree with you. The smearing and jerkiness of the video footage during action scenes, particular during the Little Bohemia sequence, kept taking me out of what was happening onscreen. I enjoyed the movie overall, but can only imagine how much better it would have looked had it been shot on film.

[Guillaume P]

Conversation about PUBLIC ENEMIES,on this interesting site:

http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/838

[Aaron G]

I just saw this and it makes me want to crack open my 'Warners Gangsters' Collection and go back and watch Mann's CRIME STORYT.

I found it to be overall a quite 'amoral' film, it seemed to be a mediation on the futility of violence and crime itself. Dillinger was a man who was never really safe or comfortable in his own skin, always 'on the run'. But so too were the cops after him, both Purvis and J. Edgar Hoover..So in the end neither were right or wrong, both existing in this tense kind of limbo..

It's pretty violent, I don't mind the usage of DV. Yeah it was alright.

[Guillaume P]

Originally Posted by Aaron G

it seemed to be a mediation on the futility of violence and crime itself. Dillinger was a man who was never really safe or comfortable in his own skin, always 'on the run'.

SPOILERS

I like the scene when Dillinger enters in the FBI office and sees the pîctures of his dead friends,also the theater scene when he seems to see on the big screen his whole life,lost girlfriend,and his fate awaiting him...very touching scenes,a bit like the melancholy,nostalgic mood in "Once upon a time in America".

[James Flower]

Finally caught with this a few days ago and enjoyed it, though with reservations - Mann can't seem to decide for melodrama and docudrama, and the film winds up being neither fish nor fowl. The script was pretty weak in retrospect, with most actors given nothing much to do (Stephen Lang is a glorious exception). The DV worked for me - but sweet merry fucking Christ, why was the sound recording so bad?! That can't just have been my cinema, I literally could understand almost none of the dialogue for the first 40 or so minutes.

[AdamAskov]

I recently saw this film in Amsterdam. It left me abit puzzled afterwards. Was this just a total borefest or what? It was well made. But I had already forgotten the whole story the day after I had seen it. I had expected it to stay with me for abit longer. Visually it was everything you would expect from Mann. But somehow the film ended up being a total drag for me. Actually not even a drag. Just completely forgettable.

[John Gargo]

I actually saw this in the cinema, which is odd given I forgot to post about it... I think that gives a clue about how this film made me feel.

There are moments that are undeniably exciting, but I found myself emotionally detached from the characters/plot. A lot of that has to do with Mann's filmmaking in general I suppose, but I would have appreciated a bit more of a connection to some of the people here; Christian Bale's character seems to have been dropped into this film and despite interacting with many of the characters, he never seems to be occupying the same movie as Johnny Depp, for instance.

Also, I think the choice to film this in digital video was a mistake. I am one of those who felt that DV worked in previous Mann films, like MIAMI VICE and especially COLLATERAL, where the photography seemed to lend an aura of immediacy. Here, the DV aesthetic seems at odds with the period drama, at times making me feel I was perhaps watching a made-for-tv documentary. I know Mann is attempting to make his film resonate with contemporary audiences (not to mention issues with the current economy), but I found the photography here distracting.

So hence my ambivalent reaction... I don't regret watching it, but it's a bit of a misstep for a mostly-dependable Mann.

[John K]

I'm with Adam on this one - I was massively underwhelmed. This film just didn't feel complete - it was more like a series of events masquerading as a biopic, but I couldn't have cared less about pretty much everything that was happening at any given moment. Coutillard (did I get that right?) was completely wasted in the thankless role of the thankless girlfriend and essentially just lept into Dillinger's arms with no attempt ever made to make it clear what she saw in him or what would interest her in him.

As it stands, it could have been a pretty ho-hum glossy period drama, but then Mann destroys it will with the DV, to boot. The film looks great when the camera's sitting still, but for some reason Mann plays against that and has it jittering constantly, turning every action scene into an amateur-hour blur-fest. I literally felt like I was at a micro-budget filmfest or something, and I feel like a good DIY filmmaker with a bit of gumption could probably get pretty similar results for 1/10000th of the budget. Probably the most affecting thing about the film, for me, was how much time and energy had been put into creating something that ended up looking like a glorified Junior High history class project. I don't think I've seen anything from this infamous Red camera yet, but based on PE, I'm not terribly worried about DV supplanting film any time soon. Based on this example, it's just not ready...

[J.L. Carrozza]

The cabin scene was completely destroyed by the DV, I agree. It looked like a direct-to-video release, like something that would come out of The Asylum. In fact, many parts of this film looked quite a bit like some softcore porn flick at certain points.

16mm would have served those scenes for a "gritty look" far better than HD/DV or whatever Mann used. I think he was trying to make us see what it was like to actually exist in person in the 1930s, but it just didn't work.

[Guillaume P]

Originally Posted by John Gargo

Christian Bale's character seems to have been dropped into this film and despite interacting with many of the characters, he never seems to be occupying the same movie as Johnny Depp, for instance.

at least he wasn't overacting and didn't do his cheesy dark knight loud voice!

I liked the unusual HD cinematography for a "retro" film like this,but more on a second viewing (i saw the film in a digital screening) than the first.
The opening scene with the clouds and blue sky looks great,crystal clear.

[Guillaume P]

Blu Ray review:

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

[Jeffrey Allen Rydell]

Originally Posted by Guillaume P

Blu Ray review:

Make sure you post links to all of 'em!

[Marshall Crist]

Originally Posted by J.L. Carrozza

The film is pretty boring and I completely agree that the digital cinematography really didn't work.

Just saw the last 20 minutes of this on HD cable and it was pretty appalling. Could tell it was shot digital within ten seconds (because it looked like shit.) The Matrix-style CGI bullet at the end was embarrassing. I had read/heard absolutely zero about this film because it is not in my wheelhouse, but I am not immune to running across a pleasant surprise while channel surfing, even if it is not in my usual genres. But this sucked.

[John K]

What's so perplexing to me is that it being "digital" was such a big part of the buzz surrounding this film...Mann was in love with the digital technology, the best way to see it was in a digital projection, and so on and so forth. And it looked absolutely terrible (admittedly, I saw it on 35...because it was supposed to be a movie)! But the thing is, a number of films have come out in the last year or so that have been shot digital - Date Night, Takers...I could find more, but those are the couple I can think of off the top of my head. But in each case, it was only *ONE* (1) shot in the film's trailer that cued me off, and it was always a really fast-motion action shot. I was surprised to go in IMDB and see that these had indeed been shot digitally. So it seems like digital is pretty much to the place where, in the right hands, it can produce something very close to a film-quality image. So why the hell does Mann's movie look like something out of Inland Empire?! I don't get it...

[Guillaume P]

I loved the use of HD cinematography in COLLATERAL and to a slightly lesser extent in MIAMI VICE but i agree that it's a bit unusual for a "retro" film like PUBLIC ENEMIES,at least on a first viewing...i guess than Mann wanted a "you are there" feeling in his images,not a nostalgia recreation of the past...it has a crisp,sharp look and i overall liked it (for example the sharp HD look really works fine in the opening scene or this great shootout in the woods)