We’re in the tank based on the script of Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies,” but we’ve got to admit, we’re feeling a little iffy about the trailer. Sure, trailer’s are always lowest-common denominator dumbed-down to connect with the largest amount of lemmings, but it leaves us concerned. Music isn’t great, ok fine, that’s just there to sell it, but the digi-look and the hand held camera in the opening leaves little to be desired. Billy Crudup is usually on-point, but his accent as J. Edgar Hoover also sounds suspect.
Hmm, we thought this could use a more restrained DePalma tone (oxymoron we know), or at least some grandeur, but it seems Mann is going for a more raw, intimate look like “Miami Vice,” which we didn’t like one iota. We’re not convinced it’s the appropriate tone, but we’re definitely still hoping it turns out to be great, because again, the screenplay was excellent. “Public Enemies” gangster take stars Johnny Depp as notorious 1930s criminal John Dillinger, Christian Bale as his authority pursuant Melvin Purvis, Marion Cotillard as the object of Dillinger’s affection and a cast that includes Leelee Sobieski, Giovanni Ribisi, Channing Tatum, David Wenham, Stephen Graham, Emilie de Ravin, Marion Cotillard and Stephen Dorff. The picture is due in theaters July 1.
Anyone know that last song? We can’t honestly say that’s a kind of music we listen to.
Fortunately I don’t think Michael Mann cut the trailer.
Yeah, i doubt it too. Which is why i’m still hopeful. Really don’t like that digi, underlit look though.
HD is the absolute worst!
I cannot believe Michael Mann or anybody for that matter thinks this digital crap looks any good.
It’s the worst ever.
I’m not a cinematographer but I always thought the camera style should reflect a certain reality about the period. Shooting hand-held digicam in a movie set in the 30s??? Retarded.
I mean… the trailer showed a few of the De Palma-isms with a squirrelly crane shot or whatever, but hand-held digicam?!?
Also that Crystal Method-y music = wtf. As you mentioned, though, it’s a trailer.
Probably more humane to fill the theaters with carbon monoxide.
Geez, finally people that agree. Twitter movie critics seem to think it’s all perfectly fine.
I dunno… the look of the trailer looked damn good to me. I mean, the the film’s DP is Dante Spinotti fer crissakes!
Yeah, yeah, it’s easy to beat up on HD but look at what David Fincher did with it on ZODIAC.
Aside from the dodgy modern music, the trailer for this film looked pretty badass to me.
Dante Spinotti is a fine DP, sure, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to make HD look great. "Zodiac", I admit was pretty good, but Benjamin Button wasn't so. Everything from the colors to the contrast to motion just look so awful in HD. This film particularly looked border line amateurish. Now, the people involved are far from amateurs, it's just the nature of the format. At TIFF we saw "Me and Orson Wells", it was a fun film, but it was also shot HD. It came across as a bad A&E MOW and "Public Enemies" has a very similar look. Hopefully the film doesn't suck!
Wait a second…you praise him for the digital look of films like Collateral (which according to imdb was the first major motion picture to be shot in Viper FilmStream HD) but then criticize its use here. So which is it?
Also, and I don’t know if this pertains to Public Enemies, but here’s Mann’s reason for using digital cameras on Collateral…
“In an interview in American Cinematographer, Michael Mann said that as far as he was aware, this was one of the first movies to attempt to make a “look” out of digital video rather than trying to make DV look like film. This approach meant the movie could be shot in the low-light scenes of urban desolation Mann wanted – because Digital reacts much better to low light than film. The approximately 20% of the picture that was shot on film was mostly, according to Mann, the portion set in the “Fever” nightclub – because this is the scene with the brightest lighting states, a condition in which DV does not perform as well.”
Ryan- calling a creative decision Michael Mann has made “retarded”? I know this is the internet, but have some respect, people. This is Michael fucking Mann.
I don’t think the problem lies in the mere fact of how many pixels were used . . . i think it’s the frame rate.
In especially the shots where there’s significant camera movement, you can tell the cinematic qualities of 24p aren’t there. if they truly shot this whole thing at 30 frames a second, the movie’s gonna suck, with every take feeling like some behind-the-scenes footage clip.
More than frame rate even it’s to do with shutter speed. It certainly is distracting, feel a bit like a cops and robbers film some kids would make on their parent’s handicam.
Anyways, it is pretty hard to tell from what little is shown in a movie trailer. Let’s see once the film comes out.
But then again, I actually liked how Mann used HD in MIAMI VICE so….
im batman
The song that Plays at the end of the trailer
Ten Million Slaves – Otis Taylor
I bet all of you guys complaining have NEVER done anything noteworthy or worthwhile. Get over it. This is the digital age. Film is a becoming a thing of the past each minute that passes.
FD, that’s a completely banal argument. I think raising the issue of a period film shot on what looks like grainy-digital video is a very valid concern.
Can’t stand people on this site who don’t want anyone to raise an objection or even the slightest worry.
And the, “well what have YOU accomplished” response is a useless ad hominem argument.
FD,
I took a shit in the shape of Superman’s S today.
Go away now.
i love it, i think it’s genius. I think the music is perfect and sets the appropriate tone, this isn’t the shawshank redemption people, this is JOHN DILLINGER, the most bad ass bank robber in american history. It’s an action movie of the 1930s, and to make it feel REAL Dr. Mann chose to use a digital approach. It looks beautiful, congratulations Michael on another masterful work of Cinema. Ya’ll are just haters.
…and to add, what i meant by taking a digital approach he embraced a view of the past through the looking glass of today, to make it more relatable to and audience, as if the scenes were not taking place in some history book, but right there on the screen in the theater for a first time. If you don’t like digital, that’s fine, just don’t say “Oh, i hate that digital look”, instead praise or folly his USE of the digital look to obtain what he wanted. Your criticism is unvalid in the success of the film, because he CHOSE digital over film. If the movie was partially shot in film stock, you could say “I wish he shot the whole thing that way”. But he didn’t the whole thing is digital because that’s what his creative vision was, so judge the vision, not the overarching cinematic concepts of digital versus film. suckaaaaaaa
Truth is it looks bad, … very bad. Dante is a great DP, he just wasn't the right DP for this film. I can assure anyone who is defending the look of this film as "digital" that this IS a really BAD example of the above. There are plenty of mid – even low budget films that are shoot digitally and achieve better results than those on this film. Mann should have opted for a younger DP that has grown within the age of digital. There are certain tricks to shooting digital, it is harder to shoot really good digital as opposed to film. This film is going to do really badly… Sorry!
I just saw the film and I have to say that it was ruined by the cheap tracking effects and flat lighting on digital. The medium was also totally inappropriate to the content.