my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Public Enemies (2009) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Public Enemies (2009) Jerome Holmes Film Handler Posts: 35 From: San Jose, Ca Registered: Nov 2008 posted 07-01-2009 06:38 AM                     Review - 2/5 (I'm being generous) We had a dry run this evening in our own theatre for fun (enough interest in Johnny Depp to spur this one on I guess). Without spoilers, the quality of a lot of the shots was poor (looks like it was to be shown on 90's television, IE Full House?) And then the sound mixing was all wonky. a lot of the music channel was the left front speaker, making the right front very dull. Generally, the dialogue was uneven in volume, making dubbing very apparent. I think there are some sound editors out there that need to be fired... I generally like heist movies too, and this one wasn't all that entertaining...  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 07-01-2009 07:22 AM                     I am unsure of what to think with this film. The acting, plot and the action set pieces are great and the work on the sets, costumes etc. is also top-notch. My problem comes in deciding whether the sound and camera work makes it look dodgy or is brilliant in conveying imminence to a historical biopic. Will have to see this one again before coming to a final decision.  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 07-02-2009 04:36 PM                     Boring. I love how it has all the graphic gunshot scenes, but won't even show the girl's titties while she is in the bath tub. What a sad world we live in. I think the American people can handle seeing a titty.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-02-2009 05:35 PM                     quote: Chris Hipp I think the American people can handle seeing a titty. I know Australians can.  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 07-02-2009 07:10 PM                        Unless this movie gives significant screen time to Sam Cowley, then it's hardly a "historical" biopic. Many historical accounts portray Melvin Purvis as the guy who consistently bothched attempts to catch Dillinger and Cowley as the guy who cleaned up the FBI's act.  |  IP: Logged Jennifer Pan THE JEN! Posts: 1219 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: Nov 2003 posted 07-03-2009 01:54 AM                        POOR POOR video and sound editing, shot on some kind of lame ass video camcorder from the 90's, maybe a Sony Handycam or something similar. Horrible dubbing(voices & lips were out of sync several times), it sounded as if it had the same tone and volume for every scene of dialogue(outside scenes and inside scenes had the same room tone effect, everything else was very soft for background room noises). It felt like the whole movie was dubbed in without any editing to cater to the actual settings in any location. Score/music repeated itself during every montage or climatic plot points. Every gunshot sounded fake. Oh man, the cinematography on this is pure crap. Every shot was hand held, this person could not hold the camera still even if it was braced on to their body for dear life. Zoomed in way too close on MANY angles. I really did not need to see just half of someone's face every 5 mins. Literally, the editing sucks ass. I can't stress how hard they tried to make some of the action sequences seem more action packed then it actually was. I bet Johnny Depp had motion sickness from looking at the camera guy moving the camera everywhere in front of him. It felt like watching the show The Office but set in the 1930's with a Hi8 camcorder. Or imagine watching a late night made for cable tv movie that's 2 hours way too long. Acting was atrocious... could not relate or connect in any shape or form to any of the characters. Cheesy one liners from everyone who uttered words from their mouth. Depp barely said much of anything throughout the whole movie. I cared even less for the Billie character(lead female), Bale's character could have been played by anyone, and there were way too many people in this movie to warrant any amount of interest for them. As well as way too many cameos that were really meant for extras to play... Michael Mann was directing this via web cam obviously and everyone else went to Tennessee to record this without any grips... nor dollies, tripods, or body braces for the Handycam... Apparently, any flat surface was obsolete for every location. My guess is that the tables and counters in the banks couldn't support the heavy camera body... 0.5 out of 5 because I feel bad for the actors who really wanted to work with Mann for some stupid reason...  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-03-2009 03:00 AM                        Wow, I'm glad I was at work installing projectors instead of watching this one with you. Michael Mann sucks ass. Remember Miami Vice? What an asshole.  |  IP: Logged Jennifer Pan THE JEN! Posts: 1219 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: Nov 2003 posted 07-03-2009 05:41 AM                        Yes, we walked out of that one...  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 07-03-2009 02:55 PM                     quote: Jennifer Pan Oh man, the cinematography on this is pure crap. You can't say that! After all "digital" is perfect! quote: Jennifer Pan POOR POOR video and sound editing, shot on some kind of lame ass video camcorder from the 90's, maybe a Sony Handycam or something similar. According to IMDB, Public Enemies was shot using the following: Arriflex 235, Cooke S4 Lenses Arriflex 435, Cooke S4 Lenses Sony CineAlta F23, Zeiss DigiPrime and Fujinon Lenses Sony HDC-F950, Zeiss DigiPrime and Fujinon Lenses Sony HDW-F23 (Zeiss DigiPrime Lenses) Sony PMW-EX1 Sony XDCAM EX I'm a little surprised any film photography was used on this movie. Everything I've seen in the previews looks obviously like 6 o'clock news quality video half-ass digital filter-faked into trying to look like film but missing the mark like Evel Kinevel not making the jump across the Snake River Canyon. Pure suckage. After as shitty as Miami Vice: The Video looked, I have no desire to see this movie.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-03-2009 03:27 PM                        I'm sure that someone else has already mentioned this in the Miami Vice review thread, but it is ironic that the TV show was shot on film and the movie was shot on video. Why do all of these actors want so badly to work with Michael Mann? Heat was good, but c'mon. He has fallen far.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 07-03-2009 06:06 PM                     Mann just needs to get a decent script and develop some patience for working with film again. Heat looked pretty awesome in some respects with all the Panavision anamorphic film glory showing through. Christopher Nolan said he modeled some of the look of The Dark Knight after the cinematography of Heat. At least Dante Spinotti, ASC must be happy about that. It's just too bad Michael Mann has been sticking video cameras in his hands since then. Or is it the other way around? Who knows. Like the Dark Side of The Force shooting on video is only easier and faster. It is not better. The end result, visually, is almost always visually inferior to film origination (unless the film shooter guy screwed up on the job). Video gives off that oily anal juice concoction of pure evil. Comedy is about the only genre where I can understand video production being an advantage. Getting the timing right and using improvisation wastes a LOT of film before you dial into something that works. Easier to shoot electronically and just keep working and experimenting until something gels. Most movies and genres typically have a solid script in place before the cameras, cranes and lights get rented. Film origination is better in that regard. IMHO, I've seen nothing from Michael Mann's body of work where video use has been justified.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-04-2009 01:31 AM                     Agree on the fotography - way too much handleld shots. Reminds of "The Blair Witch Project" - way too much jittery and waving action! Cinematogaphers needs to realize that when we see things while we are in motion, our eyeballs are fixated on that one object and makes that object appear stationary for us to concentrate on. In filmmaking,that danged camera needs to be stationary on a tripod/unipod or on a track dolly since we are stationary sitting in our seats. It's hard to fixate on a subject or object when it's moving around all the time, thus getting us dizzy, and/or suffer eyestrain from trying to fixate on that subject or object. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-04-2009 02:20 AM                        It was shaky-shaky because they were trying to make it look like a documentary or some such because as everyone knows, documentary makers are always completely incompetent with the camera.  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 07-04-2009 06:34 PM                        CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS AUDITORIUM: 14 (from the balcony) PRESENTATION: 35mm/Mystery Meat Digital PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None, aside from the movie itself RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four) This is the first time I've ponied up for the balcony. So I climb the stairs and...HOLY CRAP! THERE'S A FULL-SERVICE BAR/LOUNGE up here! We're talking seating for 50. I had NO idea. Maybe I should take up drinking. Guy Who Takes My Ticket also shows me to my seat and announces himself as my server. The seat is so big it makes you feel like a child sitting in it. He shows me the seat's heat control, shows me a little LED flashlight attached to the table, and shows me button to push for service. Then he offers me a drink and goes away. I fire up the heat. Ahhhhh. Everybody should have a hot dog on the Fourth of July, and I have mine here. The bun totally makes this. It's toasted and buttered and completely awesome. The bowl of chili...not so much. Oh yes...They were nice enough to show a movie too. THE PLOT: A guy runs from the law. Wackiness ensues. I'd use the fact the guy robs a bank or two as the plotline, but we don't really see much of that. It's much more about the FBI-Dillinger relationship than anything. Pretty much everybody in the movie is an asshole. So I guess it's a matter of choosing which asshole you dislike least. As for the asshole you dislike most...your answer will probably be Michael Mann. If you're going to watch a movie shot on video, you might as well watch it on the biggest screen around, right? I was surprised they showed it on film since there's a digital projector in here too, but they did. Outstanding, steady presentation. The blatant video parts didn't bother me as much as some here, and I thought the soundtrack was fine. The chosen shooting style of 'motion sickness' is just stupid. I don't know if it would have made the movie better with tripods and film (or at least PROPER digital equipment), but it certainly would have made it more watchable.  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Jorgenson Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1002 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: Feb 2005 posted 07-09-2009 04:43 AM                        quote: Sam Graham The blatant video parts didn't bother me as much as some here, and I thought the soundtrack was fine. The chosen shooting style of 'motion sickness' is just stupid. Hmm, I'm the exact opposite. The video's color looked like it was shot on a pocket digital-still camera set to mpeg - just atrocious, and the sound mix was really distracting to me. Shakiness, on the other hand, didn't bother me at all.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.