Public Enemies - New Michael Mann film!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Apr 2009, 17:14

o Trailer:

+ 480P (49.3Mb) - http://movies.apple.com/movies/universa ... _h480p.mov
+ HD 720P (99.6Mb) - http://movies.apple.com/movies/universa ... _h720p.mov
+ HD 1080P (169Mb) - http://movies.apple.com/movies/universa ... h1080p.mov

This looks ace, one to watch out for.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 12 Apr 2009, 17:30

Worst trailer ever made.

Dogshit Digital rules the day.

The trailer is bad at home on my screen, but when I saw it in the cinema it's like watching an episode of Eastenders.
Many in the crowd thought it was a joke film, not even real but an advert. That says a lot about the digital look.

Garbage, Mann was a visual master, now he is an ugly film maker.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 12 Apr 2009, 18:13

romerojpg wrote:Many in the crowd thought it was a joke film, not even real but an advert.

And how did they express these thoughts to you romero? Did they all lean over and shout at you "hey romero! we thought that was a commercial!" or did you take up a viewer survey after the film?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Apr 2009, 19:31

I was thinking the same Shing

. I don't believe for a second many thought it was a joke film, most don't care what type of camera is used.

It looks ace to me. I don't spot when a digital camera have been used. It's just another way of film-making, not something worse IMO. An episode of EastEnders, WTF! What a bizarre comparison.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 12 Apr 2009, 21:21

Shingster wrote:
romerojpg wrote:Many in the crowd thought it was a joke film, not even real but an advert.
And how did they express these thoughts to you romero? Did they all lean over and shout at you "hey romero! we thought that was a commercial!" or did you take up a viewer survey after the film?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Apr 2009, 02:06

I guess when you go to a packed out cinema you all put ear plugs in and everyone keeps their mouths shut and all your friends never talk to you either

must be fun to go with you.

and bradavon if you cannot see it was filmed on Digital! god must have blessed your eyes, I wish I could not see such garbage. Its not fit to be called a "Film". Its one of the single worst digital looking things I have ever seen thats for damn sure.

Eastenders, as in it looks like it was made for TV with crappy digital cameras on a budget. Colareral looked ok, Miami Vice was evil looking and This new film looks far, far worse than both them.

Still if you cannot spot it great, but I cannot see how anyone cannot

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Apr 2009, 04:11

Please explain how you spot it and why it looks dodgy to you? As I really cannot see what is largely to complain about.

I know what you mean about EastEnders though, it can look shocking at times but that's usually due to the excessive digital compression used, which I've always presumed is down to the feed more than anything else.

As to someone thinking it was a joke, it's an odd thing for someone to just blurt out "is this film a joke?" Don't you think?

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 13 Apr 2009, 12:53

romerojpg wrote:I guess when you go to a packed out cinema you all put ear plugs in and everyone keeps their mouths shut and all your friends never talk to you either must be fun to go with you.

I have come to the conclusion that you must be one of 3 things:

1. An internet bullshit artist.
2. A compulsive exaggerator.
3. A schizophrenic or someone suffering from frequent delusions.

I'm favouring #2 today!

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Apr 2009, 15:29

Well obviously you only go to empty cinemas with no friends, well done.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 13 Apr 2009, 15:33

Nope, I go to busy cinemas with friends, I'm just... you know... sane!

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Apr 2009, 15:38

Obviously not, you moderate this forum

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 13 Apr 2009, 17:36

Collateral and Miami Vice do have certain scenes shot on digital cameras, they give a different "feel", but I love it. Both films are very gritty and put you right in there with the characters. Great stuff.

But romerojpg will probably just call me biased because I love Michael Mann's work. We're all obviously only allowed an opinion if it is the same as his.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Apr 2009, 17:44

Not at all I LOVE Manns early work.

So I know he can make georgous films, he just does not any more for me and many others.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Apr 2009, 18:13

bradavon wrote:Please explain how you spot it and why it looks dodgy to you? As I really cannot see what is largely to complain about.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Apr 2009, 18:24

I cannot explain what is so obvious to me and many others.
It looks digital ugly, like it was filmed with a cheap camcorder.

As I said if you cannot see it, then you are lucky. Some can look fine, but some just look in your face I AM DIGITAL.

Many directors have said they will never move to Digital. Good I say.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 13 Apr 2009, 19:02

romerojpg wrote:Obviously not, you moderate this forum

Good point!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Apr 2009, 19:22

Collateral was an unattractive looking film IMO.

luckystars · Post by **luckystars** » 13 Apr 2009, 20:38

The switching of film types helped keep my interest when seeing it in the cinema, made it seem a bit edgy.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 13 Apr 2009, 22:20

Not sure what Romero means, but I do feel that when you are going for a 'in-your-face' gritty look like it's filmed with a camcorder or something, you should go all the way with it, and make it really look as gritty and choppy etc as you can, and obviously it has to also fit with the movie.

Sometimes you get that half-assed stuff, where you see a director is shooting for some kinda effect, but is affraid to take it all the way... for example someone going for an old 70's style grindhouse effect with scratched and blemishes etc (using some filters or something), but you will still notice from other stuff that it's a recent movie... which makes the effect completely useless and thus stand out negatively.

I haven't seen Mann's newer movies. I have yet to see Collateral, and Miami Vice is supposedly shit, so I'll probably never see that one.

This flick, Public Enemies, sounded like a cool movie, but early reports have been so-so, so not sure if I'll be checking it out.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Apr 2009, 22:59

All of Mann's work is good to Outstanding IMO. Even Miami Vice (which does have problems) is still good.

Heat - Outstanding
Manhunter - Brilliant
Last of the Mohicans - Brilliant
The Insider - Brilliant
Ali - Very good
Collateral - Good
Miami Vice - Good

Looking through his back catalogue it looks like the only two I've not seen are "The Keep" and "Thief". I don't count LA Takedown btw which I've also seen.

There aren't many directors who can be both commercial and know how to make a proper movie at the same time.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 14 Apr 2009, 00:00

I've started watching the TV-show Miami Vice again this weekend (watched the first 3 episodes), and from what I hear, the show is much better than the movie, so I really don't feel the need to check that out, except maybe to see Gong Li.

I've seen Heat, and although it's technically a good movie, I never really cared much about it.
Ali same thing: technically a good movie, but if I want to see Ali, I'd much rather watch some of the great documentaries about the real guy. I didn't care much about the movie.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Apr 2009, 00:14

Yi-Long wrote:I've started watching the TV-show Miami Vice again this weekend (watched the first 3 episodes), and from what I hear, the show is much better than the movie, so I really don't feel the need to check that out, except maybe to see Gong Li.

The only connections are: "Miami" and "Vice". They're otherwise entirely different beasts all together. Incomparable.

Yi-Long wrote:Ali same thing: technically a good movie, but if I want to see Ali, I'd much rather watch some of the great documentaries about the real guy.

You could say that about any biopic though. A documentary is always going to show you more of the real person.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 14 Apr 2009, 12:11

Last of the Mohicans - 3.5/5 (very old rating)
The Insider - 4/5 (very old rating)
Heat - 4.5/5
Collateral - 4/5
Miami Vice - 4.5/5

bradavon wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:I've started watching the TV-show Miami Vice again this weekend (watched the first 3 episodes), and from what I hear, the show is much better than the movie, so I really don't feel the need to check that out, except maybe to see Gong Li.
The only connections are: "Miami" and "Vice". They're otherwise entirely different beasts all together. Incomparable.

That's true. But it makes sense actually. Miami Vice the TV show was all about using the latest technology and trends. The movie is just the same, only the time is different.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Apr 2009, 13:51

HungFist wrote:Last of the Mohicans - 3.5/5 (very old rating)
The Insider - 4/5 (very old rating)

Why not update them, based on your opinion today?

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 14 Apr 2009, 14:16

bradavon wrote:
HungFist wrote:Last of the Mohicans - 3.5/5 (very old rating)
The Insider - 4/5 (very old rating)
Why not update them, based on your opinion today?

Because I haven't seen these films for nearly 10 years and I don't own them on dvd. I bought The Insider on VHS when it was released, but I no longer have a VHS player.