Public Enemies - Audio Reviews

Comment

Comment by Darthnazgul on July 6, 2009 at 3:09pm

I give this a full price, probably will get nomination for best production value.

Comment by Torrey AKA Tor Tor on July 6, 2009 at 2:35pm

and Cyrus what the fuck is too much clarity...

Comment by Torrey AKA Tor Tor on July 6, 2009 at 2:34pm

Luv this film best of 09 but hey when convienient the spill crew sometimes nitpick but its thir opinion.

Comment by bc1canty on July 6, 2009 at 8:34am

Its not a bad movie, if your looking for an action pack robbing movie, its not this, its a true story people not going to be all out there. But if your looking for a good story this is the movie to see, FULL PRICE.

Comment by spazeghost on July 5, 2009 at 11:58pm

I give this one a high matinee. Not a bad movie, though it took huge creative liberties that just seemed out of place. I didn’t see any problems with the film quality. Thanks for the review fellas.

Comment by Andrew Willson on July 5, 2009 at 4:44pm

I thought did looked a little fuzzy. I give it a high matinee.

Comment by oliver salter on July 5, 2009 at 7:24am

I liked this film alot, but they could of given Christian Bale more to work with.

Comment by Castinglove on July 4, 2009 at 9:47pm

A solid full price for me. I loved it. Somewhat flawed but still very good.

Comment by Eli on July 4, 2009 at 8:43pm

This is definitely one of the times you missed the mark. Public Enemies was not only a good movie but it was one of the only REAL movies this Summer. If you want to reserve your praise for kiddie movies like Star Trek and Terminator Salvation, it's your call. Personally, I'm glad to finally see a movie for grown-ups, even if it's an imperfect one. The only other serious films I've seen in the past few months are Moon and Up. This wasn't as good as the last two, but it's a serious film made by a serious filmmaker. In spite of its (relatively minor) flaws, I give it a "Full Price." In fact, this film almost redeems Bale for his weak performance in that mechanical turd he starred in about a month ago. I almost forgot he could actually act instead just growl and glower.

Additionally, the HD cameras didn't really bother me. Film definitely looks better, but so what? I don't think using digital on this film is any more outrageous than using it anywhere else. Just because this movie's a period piece doesn't mean that it has to look all soft and old-fashioned and shit. That's not how it looked at the time and that's not how it looks now. It would be like if people in the future said "We don't want this movie to look too sharp. It's set in 2009; it needs an old-fashioned soft look or people won't buy it." Just because the filtered shit is popular, that doesn't make it good. Whenever someone strays from the formula, though, they take a kick in the nuts for it. And while I'm not exactly sure what you were getting at when you said that no one from the thirties will see this movie, it's incorrect nonetheless. My grandfather's into heist/thriller films and he's eighty-five. So, I know that at least one person who was alive at the time will be there.

On a somewhat related note, please give it a rest with Dr. Manhattan's cock. It was old when you brought it up on your review of Watchmen, and it's not getting any fresher. Once you get to be around thirty years old, it's time to move on. Men have cocks; be grateful for it.

Comment by Mostafa on July 4, 2009 at 7:07pm

This was a really high full price low better than sex for me. Totally disagree with you guys on this one.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last