93 replies to this topic

[bond 16.05.72]

Where I'm sceptical of Empire reviews and will still have an open mind but unlike some I love Michael Mann and have been waiting for this one.

A rest from the usual summer bollocks will be refreshing and this review is glowing, if it's Empire usual awarding a 5 star review to 4 star film then so be it but this sounds outstanding.

Can't wait till I see it.

http://www.empireonl....asp?FID=136004

[Ambler]

There's a handful of directors I still turn out for. Mann is one of them.

[KENDO NAGAZAKI]

Haven't really liked a Mann film since The Insider (Collateral too unbelievable plus Tom Cruise was in it, Miami Vice was unremarkable, Ali was kinda pointless coming so soon after When We Were Kings). Hopefully this one will re-convert me, as I still think Heat is one of the top five films of the last 20 years. This one doesn't look like one of his best from the trailer and the cast are maybe a bit too baby-faced to compete with the more world-wearily appealing likes of DeNiro, Pacino, Crowe, Plummer etc from the better Mann flicks, but if it's better than his last three films I'll be happy enough.

[Simon]

I too was non-plussed by the Empire review for Terminator, especially since the rest of the world seemed negative towards it and so too was I, post seeing it.

However, Mann for me is the major draw. Heat is less of a film and more of an Event, Collateral tips Cruise on his head and comes out supremely, Mohicans is gorgeous and Miami Vice, while I initially experienced disappointment, seems better on repeated viewings.

I was devoid of any reaction to Insider and have yet to see Ali.

I will most certainly be seeing Public upon release.

[Safari Suit]

I've heard stories that would support the alleged (I said alleged!) notion that Empire have been rather kind to certain franchises in the past with their reviews (Star Wars, Pirates of the Carribean) in order to make sure they can comfortably secure juicy exclusives regarding future films. Of course, it looks like if The Terminator will return to the screen, it will be with a reboot...

I totally agree with you about The Insider. I think Public Enemies looks good, but I also think there is a danger that it could be simultaneously po-faced and risible. So basically what I am saying is it could either be good, or it could not be, I'm really sticking my neck out here.

[Simon]

...basically what I am saying is it could either be good, or it could not be, I'm really sticking my neck out here.

You are. I think you have summed this up admirably.

I was trying to find the words above but gave up. Clearly, you're the wordsmith.

[bond 16.05.72]

Although crtically acclaimed I see not much love for the Insider, personally I think it's only slightly inferior to Heat which like another poster I would cite as one of the best film of the last 20 years.

I've always rated the Insider, I've never seen Crowe better, completely immersed in the role and so much more worthty of an Oscar than Gladiator but when does that matter to the Academy?

As well as Crowe you have probably Pacino last really great performance and Christopher Plummber is on top form, I find the subject fascinating and are literally riveted to my seat everytime I watch it. Although like on here I have friends who don't understand my praise of this but they also have no love for Heat as well .

Mann seems to be one of those directors you will embrace or you can't stand, Zorin would rather watch McG direct Vin Diesel.

While Collateral for me was not prime Mann it was better than most thrillers of this type of the last decade and I also found Cruise most capable in this film.

Miami Vice I wasn't completely bowled over by but still enjoyed, I'm hoping Public Enemies is top drawer Mann and will looking forward to seeing it. Depp seems a great fit and I'm not joining the Bale hate campaign that seems to be waging at the moment although reviews have cited he's not that much of a standout.

[bond 16.05.72]

Not as glowing as Empire's but another strong review.

http://www.totalfilm.../public-enemies

Not as glowing as Empire's but another strong review.

http://www.totalfilm.../public-enemies

[dodge]

Thanks for those two reviews. This is sounding, imo, like the one great summer film to see.

[bond 16.05.72]

Thanks for those two reviews. This is sounding, imo, like the one great summer film to see.

I did enjoy Star Trek but this and Inglourious Basterds are my must for the summer!

[Tarl_Cabot]

I saw Public Enemies today...

** I wanted so bad to love this film. I wanted Micheal Mann to finally get the Oscar he deserved for Heat but I just couldn't get into Public Enemies. It's drab looking and dull as a butter knife.The hand held camera work is effective in Jason Bourne's universe but not in 1933; the film is also relentlessley dark. This is another pointless Michael Mann excercise along the lines of Ali.I wish he had been making Killing Pablo instead. I love Miami Vice, Collateral, Heat, The Insider....but this director has his occasional stale bread and this one of them. A crushing dissapointment. Summer 2009 is offically a catastrophe.

[tdalton]

This is probably the first Michael Mann film that I'm going to pass on. It just looks like a period-piece remake of HEAT with much less interesting visuals and an inferior cast.

[Tarl_Cabot]

This is probably the first Michael Mann film that I'm going to pass on. It just looks like a period-piece remake of HEAT with much less interesting visuals and an inferior cast.

It's not anything like Heat. I wanna see it again to see if it grows on me...Miami Vice really grew on me after a few viewings at home...But I'll wait till it's on dvd and get it cheap before I give it another go.

[tdalton]

This is probably the first Michael Mann film that I'm going to pass on. It just looks like a period-piece remake of HEAT with much less interesting visuals and an inferior cast.

It's not anything like Heat. I wanna see it again to see if it grows on me...Miami Vice really grew on me after a few viewings at home...But I'll wait till it's on dvd and get it cheap before I give it another go.

Well, if it's as much of a crushing disappointment as MIAMI VICE, as it seems to be from reading your review of the film (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting this), then I can't say that I'm interested in it even though it didn't end up being a semi-remake of HEAT. I thought that MIAMI VICE was one of the most diappointing films that I've ever seen. It was one film that I really wanted to see, but unfortunately (or is that fortunately ) missed in theaters, and ended up catching on DVD and thinking "Is this what I had waited so long to see?". I even gave MIAMI VICE a second chance, and still found it to be terrible, which is why I don't have particularly high hopes for PUBLIC ENEMIES.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Well, what can I say, I love Miami Vice but Public Enemies was a let down.I was annoyed by how unnatractive a film it was. You gotta say 'Vice had some travelogue eye candy going for it at least.

[jrcjohnny99]

Just saw it tonight;
pretty dissapointing.
I also went into this wanting to love it (I also feel Mann's last truly great pic was the Insider), but it's just not engrossing enough.
Depp is miscast, Cotillard wasted and Bale could've beenplayed by anyone.
I did like Crudup and there's a slew of great supporting actors (mostly sadly wasted)
Ultimately, not a bad film by any stretch, just dissapointing with all the talent involved....

[Simon]

Hmm - I will be following the immediate above.

Empire did say that maybe a repeated viewing would be required but, that said I agree with those above who say the digital photography doesn't really offer the colour and richness of film and the shakey camera work does not belong to this film.

I probably went in wanting more of Heat, Mohicans and Collateral. All famed for their solid story telling and beautiful music. Public for me did not really compare.

I must also admit that I thought there was something wrong with the Odeon sound in Maidenhead whereby one was searching for some of the dialogue and at other times, background noise or incidental music was comparatively loud. This did not help the engagement with the film so figure a second viewing is necessary.

But Heat in the Depression it is not.

[DamnCoffee]

I meant to see this 2 days ago, but alas, I fell ill.

I'm going next Wednesday instead, with low expectations.

[Vauxhall]

Sad to see some disappointed reviews here. Having said that, I've been known to buck the trend from time-to-time, so I'm still interested to see what I make of it.

[Loomis]

I must also admit that I thought there was something wrong with the Odeon sound in Maidenhead whereby one was searching for some of the dialogue and at other times, background noise or incidental music was comparatively loud.

Funny you should mention this. From the review in yesterday's Times:

It’s not just the look of the film that suffers at the hands of Mann and his defiant lack of refinement. The sound mix is chaotic. It sounds as if the words are blurred. Key lines of dialogue are lost to random swells from the score, others jump in volume for no apparent reason halfway through. It’s so messy that I rang the distributors to check whether there was a technical problem with the print they showed or the cinema they screened it in, but both were apparently fine.

http://entertainment...icle6618752.ece

PUBLIC ENEMIES sounds like absolute piffle. My boycott starts here.

[Safari Suit]

I'm not boycotting it, I should be seeing it in a couple of days. That said, my expectations are wierdly low, there's not really anything about this project that really grabs me outside of the Mann name. A lot of the reviews seem to reflect what I was afraid the film might be like. The Empire article last month promised that the film would offer "colours, sounds, textures, a whole level of focus unavailable to other filmmakers" which initially excited me, but the reviews I've read (even the positive ones) more recently seem to suggest this was a bit of a false promise. I like Depp, and Bale has been good in the past but neither lure me in by name alone. Basically, I doubt I'd be too bothered with this if it weren't from a director I'm particularly interested in.

[bond 16.05.72]

Mann definitely is the biggest draw of this film for me despite liking the cast.

I get the idea this film is either a film your going to like or your not, too, many people have said this is good for me to dismiss it.

Yes their have been those who flat out don't like it but I'm a Mann fan and I'm still looking forward to seeing it. A Mann misfire is far more worthy of my money than any Michael Bay movie in fact I've been flabbergasted at some members delivering 4 star reviews to TF 2 as I thought the 1st one was dreadful so I have no desire to see the sequel unless it's free and I'm really lacking for something to watch which means probably never.

I find Mann's films are always been criticised for lacking characters that you can feel for but I just think people just want things spoon fed to them and Michael Mann doesn't do that.

Will put my review up after tomorrow, whether I like it or not.

[coco1997]

I must also admit that I thought there was something wrong with the Odeon sound in Maidenhead whereby one was searching for some of the dialogue and at other times, background noise or incidental music was comparatively loud.

Funny you should mention this. From the review in yesterday's Times:

It’s not just the look of the film that suffers at the hands of Mann and his defiant lack of refinement. The sound mix is chaotic. It sounds as if the words are blurred. Key lines of dialogue are lost to random swells from the score, others jump in volume for no apparent reason halfway through. It’s so messy that I rang the distributors to check whether there was a technical problem with the print they showed or the cinema they screened it in, but both were apparently fine.

Interesting...I saw it the other night and this was my biggest complaint. I had attributed to the quality of the sound system of the theater in which I saw it, being that it was a bit run-down, but if that's how all copies of the film turned out, that's a real blunder on the sound crew's part.

I actually enjoyed the film, though it was a bit long. Besides what I mentioned above, the only thing I can really suggest to improve the film would be to show a wider scope of Dillinger's threat to the U.S. Instead of having the President announcing a nation-wide manhunt for Dillinger, SHOW him doing this. I felt like there wasn't enough emphasis on the large specter JD was casting over the entire country.

[bondrules]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but this movie does not tickle my bone at all.....I'll wait for the rental.

[jrcjohnny99]

I'll add to all the sound comments above; the dialogue in the first half of the movie was mixed incredibly low; I saw it in a state-of-the-art theater in LA so no excuses on behalf of the theater system.
very odd and quite distracting.

[Joe Bond]

I must also admit that I thought there was something wrong with the Odeon sound in Maidenhead whereby one was searching for some of the dialogue and at other times, background noise or incidental music was comparatively loud.

Funny you should mention this. From the review in yesterday's Times:

It’s not just the look of the film that suffers at the hands of Mann and his defiant lack of refinement. The sound mix is chaotic. It sounds as if the words are blurred. Key lines of dialogue are lost to random swells from the score, others jump in volume for no apparent reason halfway through. It’s so messy that I rang the distributors to check whether there was a technical problem with the print they showed or the cinema they screened it in, but both were apparently fine.

Interesting...I saw it the other night and this was my biggest complaint. I had attributed to the quality of the sound system of the theater in which I saw it, being that it was a bit run-down, but if that's how all copies of the film turned out, that's a real blunder on the sound crew's part.

I actually enjoyed the film, though it was a bit long. Besides what I mentioned above, the only thing I can really suggest to improve the film would be to show a wider scope of Dillinger's threat to the U.S. Instead of having the President announcing a nation-wide manhunt for Dillinger, SHOW him doing this. I felt like there wasn't enough emphasis on the large specter JD was casting over the entire country.

The CHUD.com review agrees with you since it argued that there should have shown the rise of Dillinger instead of just showing the fall of him. To a certain extent I agree with that but despite this I still like it and I think there was a problem with the sound where I saw it but it did not really bother me.

I'm not boycotting it, I should be seeing it in a couple of days. That said, my expectations are wierdly low, there's not really anything about this project that really grabs me outside of the Mann name. A lot of the reviews seem to reflect what I was afraid the film might be like. The Empire article last month promised that the film would offer "colours, sounds, textures, a whole level of focus unavailable to other filmmakers" which initially excited me, but the reviews I've read (even the positive ones) more recently seem to suggest this was a bit of a false promise. I like Depp, and Bale has been good in the past but neither lure me in by name alone. Basically, I doubt I'd be too bothered with this if it weren't from a director I'm particularly interested in.

I think its good but since I have not seen any of Mann's other films then I can't really compare to his other's but I do like the documentary visual style that Mann captures of the 30's, the action is very well shot including the big final shootout which is worth the price of admission IMO, but I don't think the HD cameras really worked for me but at least Depp and especially Bale are good (well at least Bale isn't running around and screaming like in TDK and Terminator). By the way Safari Suit, what Mann film would you say is the best?

Edited by Joe Bond, 03 July 2009 - 10:18 PM.

[RufusCobb]

Haven't really liked a Mann film since The Insider (Collateral too unbelievable plus Tom Cruise was in it, Miami Vice was unremarkable, Ali was kinda pointless coming so soon after When We Were Kings). Hopefully this one will re-convert me, as I still think Heat is one of the top five films of the last 20 years. This one doesn't look like one of his best from the trailer and the cast are maybe a bit too baby-faced to compete with the more world-wearily appealing likes of DeNiro, Pacino, Crowe, Plummer etc from the better Mann flicks, but if it's better than his last three films I'll be happy enough.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with your 'baby-faced' comment about the cast. According to IMDB and Wikkipedia, (if I've done my sums right,) Johnny Depp is 46 - John Dillinger was 31 when he died, (but Johnny can get away with looking that much younger). Christian Bale is 35, the character he plays, (Melvin Purvis?) was 31 when John Dillinger died. (I haven't seen the film yet, so I don't know if he killed Dillinger, whether he was even present, I don't know.)

So, to say they are baby-faced and can't 'compete with the more world-weary appealing likes of DeNiro, etc ...) seems a bit of nonsense to me, when they are young looking actors who are portraying young looking, real people. (Well, young to me, I'm in my 50's.) They are playing their own age, basically.

I grew up thinking all Western outlaws were middle-aged men like Randolph Scott and Robert Taylor and Alan Ladd. It was only when I had grown up and researched 'The Old West' for myself and they started making modern films that tried to portray things as they actually were, that I saw that most of the famous outlaws, (and I include Prohibition Era Gangsters in this,) were Young Bucks trying to make a name for themselves, not old guys like me, DeNiro and Pacino. (I point this out to them when we are playing Scrabble down at the Darby and Joan club and Oh how we laugh about it.)

Most of the real Outlaws and Gangsters probably never made it past forty. (Yes, yes , I know Al Capone went to jail and died there.)

Edited by RufusCobb, 04 July 2009 - 12:26 AM.

[DamnCoffee]

Depp: 'I was visited by Dillinger's ghost'

Johnny Depp has claimed that he encountered the spirit of John Dillinger while shooting Public Enemies.

The Edward Scissorhands actor, who portrays the gangster in the new film, admitted that he felt as though the infamous bank robber was watching over him during the making of the movie, STV reports.

"It was magical to be able to literally walk in the same steps that he took. You could almost feel him. I did feel him, not to be spooky or anything, but there were moments when I felt his presence. There were moments when I felt a certain level of approval from the guy," he said.

Depp also revealed that he felt privileged to be able to recreate historical events with his role and cited the experience as a priceless one in his cinematic career.

He added: "To be able to fire my Thompson gun out of the very window Dillinger was firing his Thompson out of during the gun battle at Little Bohemia - you can't put a price on that."

Public Enemies, which co-stars Christian Bale, is in cinemas now.

[Gobi-1]

I can add several more voices to the bad audio mix. I along with several people from my film class went and saw the film and I simply couldn't fully enjoy it because of technical problems.

1. Sound - The audio mix was bad. For the last nine months I've worked as a sound mixer on film projects for my university and the sound mix I heard on Public Enemies would not have passed by my professor. Too my ears it sounded like the original audio that was recorded on set and they didn't bother to clean it up and polish it during post production. Unless they're pulling some Dogma 95 stunt it came across as very nonprofessional.

2. HD vs 35mm - I support shooting film in HD. Depending on what type of movie you're shooting and various other factors HD makes sense and looks good. I've never had a problem with it until I saw this film. This looked like video. There wasn't anything cinematic about the texture to the image I was watching. In places it reminded me of a documentary camera roving around the set filming stuff. The night time scenes were almost unwatchable. You could barely see anything. I also noticed a blur or ghosting whenever anything move. It's something I've noticed in places on some HD shot movies but this was for the entire length of the film. It also looked like that the movie was shoot entirely in soft focus. I found it very hard to adjust my eyes on anything because of the lack of focus and blurring. If they had shot this on film I think it would have looked ten times better.

3. Camera Work - I thought that the hand held camera work was terrible. The composition of shots was drab, bland, boring and something I expect from amateur filmmakers not a major Hollywood movie. The constantly moving (although no where near Jason Bourne level) camera continually kept reminding me of the film maker's presence. I understand they were trying to go for a documentary "you are there" feeling but that type of modern film making technique clashed with the 1930s time period. It just didn't work. Micheal Mann should have employed some old fashion filming technique and left the camera alone.

If done right the technical side of film making should be invisible and all you're concerned with is the story and characters. Unfortunately with Public Enemies the filmmakers kept getting in the way.

[DR76]

I saw "PUBLIC ENEMIES" today. I really enjoyed it. In fact, it is one of the three movies, this summer, I have really enjoyed.

I have one problem with the film and it was the sketchy documentary style photography that brought up bad memories of "THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM". Come to think of it, the photography and editing in nearly all of the summer movies from this year suffer seemed to suffer from the same flaw.