Public Enemies - Audio Reviews

Add a Comment

Comment by Teknolyze on July 2, 2009 at 6:29pm

I have to respecfully disagree with the spill crew. The movie was absoulutly a Full Price for me. It's true the fact the HD was unprossessed was a bit distracting, but aside from the technical quibbles everything else was spot on. I have to also disagree with Leon's statement that Michael Mann's character's don't have any depth; the reason it can come off that way to some people is that Mann just isn't into a lot of character exposition and has them comunicate things more subtly with things like looks and quiet moments - and if you're looking out for the subtleties they say a lot.
I do agree that they tried to make Dillenger more likeable than he probably was though, and showing him being a asshole some of the time would have added some depth.

Comment by Max Million on July 2, 2009 at 6:07pm

I would give this a matinee, It was a good movie but it just wasn't a great movie. I wasn't bothered with the HD film style in fact that's one of the reasons why I like Micheal Mann's movies eventhout the sound was all over the place in this flick. the Acting was pretty good but the ending was "Whatever" and there wasn't any parts that left me in awe. It's too bad because I had high hopes for this one.....Oh well
7/10

Comment by Alexandra (Zandy) on July 2, 2009 at 5:16pm

GO JOHNNY DEPP!!!!

YEAH!!!!!!

Comment by Savage_Vandar on July 2, 2009 at 4:17pm

Pretty spot on review, fellas. That's exactly the way I felt and I so wanted a good movie to wash away the vomit I tasted last week with Transformers 2. I agree on the camera criticisms and how this felt more like a modern recreation of what happened back in the 1930's which it is, it's a movie(but a movie is not supposed to feel like it's reminding you that it's a movie while your watching it). The high def camera mis-use and the overly modern soundtrack did that in spades. Your right in that Crudup has THE stand-out performance of the film and I wouldn't be too suprised come oscar time if he nabs a B.S.A. nomination. Definitely a guy with a lot of talent and a great potential future ahead of him. I think I'm right in the middle between you guys on this one so I'd give it a low matinee.

Comment by BOWENARROW on July 2, 2009 at 3:31pm

It was an enjoyable movie, I was never bored (it didn't feel like 2 1/2 hours), and all the acting was good, but you guys are right about the documentary style that just pulled me right out of the movie a few times. Mainly the raid on the cabin scene. It just felt like I was watching a poorly made for TV movie or some re-inactment on Rescue 911 or something. You meantioned the soundtrack and I didn't notice it all. Like I said, it was a good movie, but in the end it lost a lot of enjoyablity just because of the way it was filmed, which worked for Collateral, but not here. I agree that I will never watch this again and would recommend just waiting for rental.

Comment by Anthony on July 2, 2009 at 7:23am

wow, this is has to be one of the worst reviews you all have done. I think your qualms with this movie are ridiculous. Clarity?? seriously?? c'mon guys really weak.

Comment by Anne on July 2, 2009 at 4:26am

This movie was really cool even though it could have used more character development.

Comment by Eli on July 2, 2009 at 2:16am

One point worth mentioning: The Dark Knight was NOT shot in HD; it was shot on 35 mm anamorphic film and, in part, on 70 mm IMAX. In fact, it's one of the few films that didn't even go through a digital intermediate for color timing. It did get digitized for IMAX (and was sharpened/grain processed, producing a digital-ish look), but for 35 mm presentations it looked beautiful and film-like. It was also awesome in IMAX, but for different reasons.

Anyway, Mann's the choice to shoot Public Enemies in HD has created notable controversy, but I don't mind it that much. The look of the film was completely Michael Mann's intent; he chose the Sony CineAlta F23 mainly because of its ability to shoot in darkened areas. The reason this film looks more digital than other HD films, like Benjamin Button, is because they shot it at high speed with fast shutters. This allowed them to shoot in low light and get the "you are there" feel that Mann wanted. I'm not saying that you have to prefer this choice, but it's his vision and is completely intentional. And while film is generally used for period pieces, you're forgetting that many good filmmakers have turned to new technology to create a "window into the past" effect. Roman Polanski used smaller, modern cameras (for the time) with sharp lenses when shooting Chinatown, and David Fincher shot HD on the Thomson Viper for his last two period piece films. While I personally prefer the look of film, I respect Mann's stylistic intent. And I greatly appreciate his choice to shoot this movie through naturalistic, clear lenses instead of using "old-fashioned" soft filters and shit like they did for Sky Captain and The Black Dahlia. This may be a popular technique, but it's fuckin' pedestrian.

Anyway, I think this film's gonna be awesome. I really like you guys, but this may be one of those times where you... um... miss the mark a bit. And did Leon really say that he DIDN'T like Heat? That movie was only one of the BEST freaking heist movies ever made! 'The fuck, man?

Comment by trillmatic on July 2, 2009 at 2:11am

Didn't care for this film. Why didn't dude just move some where else and get a new girl.
I really wanted to LOVE this movie but I could not. The most intense part of this movie was Christian Bale's glare...wooooo, scary!

Comment by Will on July 1, 2009 at 11:30pm

I think I might actually like the HD filming.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last