quote:

Originally posted by Pats12Fan:
She has the most amazing eyes and can convey so much without saying a word.

I totally agree with this!

quote:

Originally posted by Pats12Fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Alc:
P.S. This movie really sucked.

no it didn't.

Except that it did.

quote:

Originally posted by Alc:

quote:

Originally posted by Pats12Fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Alc:
P.S. This movie really sucked.

no it didn't.

Except that it did.

I agree with Alc... It did suck...

I've already mentioned this, but what about the costumes, the art direction, the sound and the sound editing, the score (Mannish but slightly subdued for him)...did all of that "suck" too?

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:
I've already mentioned this, but what about the costumes, the art direction, the sound and the sound editing, the score (Mannish but slightly subdued for him)...did all of that "suck" too?

NO! I even said that the Art Direction and the Costume Design especially were fantastic! Sound as well! I do expect Public Enemies to get nominations in those tech fields for sure!

I just got back from the theater. I'm no good at writing reviews, but with that said, this is probably one of the best films I've seen this decade. I quite liked Michael Mann's "The Insider", but this film is in another league. This is an absolute accomplishment. It'll be difficult for me to find another film that I like more by year's end.

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:
I've already mentioned this, but what about the costumes, the art direction, the sound and the sound editing, the score (Mannish but slightly subdued for him)...did all of that "suck" too?

Well no, not every aspect of the production sucks, but that's not how I judge a film. A movie can be competently made and still be terrible.

And as a matter of fact, I did think the cinematography and editing 'sucked'. I thought the digital images lacked depth, like they were shot with surveillance equipment, especially in the nighttime sequences, there were too many ridiculous close-up shots, and the editing made a hash of some of the set-pieces.

I kinda agree with you re cinematography and editing Alc. That's why I didnt mention those aspects.

But I appreciate the craft in any film, irrespective of the screenplay and even the acting. I found Public Enemies quite violent (well duh), but I also found Michael Mann surprising in his attention to details, and his understanding to a point, of the man who was John Dillinger.
I also found the supposed "good guys" as reprehensible as the people they were chasing. Perhaps, worse.
So, from a 'craft' pov, and some of the actors, I cant label Public Enemies as a 'sucky' film.

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:
I also found Michael Mann surprising in his attention to details, and his understanding to a point, of the man who was John Dillinger.

See, that was kind of a problem for me. I'm fine with Mann "understanding to a point, of the man who was John Dillinger," but I felt like the film tried to make us sympathize with Dillinger, and once we fall into that, we have to realize that this made was a bad man... I thought that part was really weak. We shouldn't have to sympathize with a bad person, no matter how smart and suave they are. I think that because of that aspect, it added to the downfall of the film IMO.

Shakespeare is full of bad characters we sympathize with at times - that sort of thing is a common element of good drama, even for real life characters.

Bonnie and Clyde definitely had elements of sympathizing with them; so of course does The Godfather (which is full of evil characters from top to bottom).

quote:

Originally posted by bocaboy7:

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:
I also found Michael Mann surprising in his attention to details, and his understanding to a point, of the man who was John Dillinger.

See, that was kind of a problem for me. I'm fine with Mann "understanding to a point, of the man who was John Dillinger," but I felt like the film tried to make us sympathize with Dillinger, and once we fall into that, we have to realize that this made was a bad man... I thought that part was really weak. We shouldn't have to sympathize with a bad person, no matter how smart and suave they are. I think that because of that aspect, it added to the downfall of the film IMO.

That's the thing about "good men" and "bad men". There arent usually any absolutes when it comes to human nature. I would not want to see any portrayal of any man in a one-note, two dimensional fashion.
Btw; have you seen Bonnie and Clyde? The Godfather? Bugsy? Angels with Dirty Faces?
Part of what made those films so terrific, was in fleshing out the characters as real people. Good and bad.

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:

quote:

Originally posted by bocaboy7:

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:
I also found Michael Mann surprising in his attention to details, and his understanding to a point, of the man who was John Dillinger.

See, that was kind of a problem for me. I'm fine with Mann "understanding to a point, of the man who was John Dillinger," but I felt like the film tried to make us sympathize with Dillinger, and once we fall into that, we have to realize that this made was a bad man... I thought that part was really weak. We shouldn't have to sympathize with a bad person, no matter how smart and suave they are. I think that because of that aspect, it added to the downfall of the film IMO.

That's the thing about "good men" and "bad men". There arent usually any absolutes when it comes to human nature. I would not want to see any portrayal of any man in a one-note, two dimensional fashion.
Btw; have you seen Bonnie and Clyde? The Godfather? Bugsy? Angels with Dirty Faces?
Part of what made those films so terrific, was in fleshing out the characters as real people. Good and bad.

I have, but it just seems like this film made it seem alright with all the things he was doing. Like it's alright to rob and bank and then tie up two people to a tree in the middle of nowhere and leave them to die only to laugh about it later... I understand that that's how Dillinger worked, but I felt like the film made the good people, like Purvis and Hoover, seem c0cky and annoying. Maybe it was just me not liking this film at all, as opposed to a film like you mentioned above like The Godfather, but I just felt like that part was weak in the film...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bocaboy7,

Saw it on Wednesday night. Very disappointing. It was boring, and I felt like the characters lacked depth or charisma. Christian Bale was horribly mis-cast here as well.

However, I have to give Marion Coitllard MAJOR credit, because she made me a fan with this movie. Where I found her overwrought in La Vie In Rose, I just thought she was incredibly subdued here, and that last scene was pitch perfect. I'm a fan.

I love Johnny, but this role is hardly Award worthy.

I'm glad you thought the same way about the movie as I did MTSRocks, though I liked Cotillard since La Vie En Rose and even A Good Year. Still have to see Jeux d'enfants (Love Me If You Dare) though...

I gotta say I am kinda disappointed, bocaboy. I usually agree with most of what you say but I really think you missed the mark here. LOL I dont wanna say youre flat out wrong on your opinion of this movie because after all it is your opinion....but I'm thinking it. LOL

I think youre missing the point of why DIllinger was portrayed the way he was. Or maybe youre not but it seems like you are. From anything I have heard on him, and the movie even touches on it, was that he was a bit of a celebrity to the public BECAUSE of the fact that he was just the way Johnny played him, where you almost knew he wasn't going to harm you unless you tried to stop him from robbing the bank. It showed that in quite a few scenes from the movie. Obviously robbing banks is wrong and yada yada we all know that, I just dont get how some wanting to sympathize with Dillinger when he was gunned down makes this a bad film?

Some other thoughts,

I dont think the movie is boring at all. See people are so used to the Transformers taking over with explosions and cheesy ass jokes every thirty seconds that if one of the two isnt happening constantly the movie cant seem to hold people's attention. The movie is nearly two and a half hours and i wasnt bored once.

I DO agree that some of the shots were frustrating and i was thnking to myself a few times that I wish the camera woulda been pulled back a little. There were alot of lingering close ups but again to me that doesnt mean automatically label the movie as sucky. It seems that movies are either brilliant or sucky, no in between. One or two minor aspects dont make a film terrible.

but those are just my opinions, like yall have yours. lol you have to just accept when one person says so and so lacked charisma and then another says the person was too charismatic and shouldnt have beeen. oh well .

btw, I do agree with whoever it was that said Marion's last scene was amazing...indeed it was.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pats12Fan,

quote:

Originally posted by Pats12Fan:
I gotta say I am kinda disappointed, bocaboy. I usually agree with most of what you say but I really think you missed the mark here. LOL I dont wanna say youre flat out wrong on your opinion of this movie because after all it is your opinion....but I'm thinking it. LOL

Ha ha. It's ok! Tell me that I'm "flat out wrong!" I'm fine with that! Oh and, good use with using my words that I used earlier!

quote:

I think youre missing the point of why DIllinger was portrayed the way he was. Or maybe youre not but it seems like you are. From anything I have heard on him, and the movie even touches on it, was that he was a bit of a celebrity to the public BECAUSE of the fact that he was just the way Johnny played him, where you almost knew he wasn't going to harm you unless you tried to stop him from robbing the bank. It showed that in quite a few scenes from the movie. Obviously robbing banks is wrong and yada yada we all know that, I just dont get how some wanting to sympathize with Dillinger when he was gunned down makes this a bad film?

Maybe I did miss the point... Maybe I just didn't know enough about Dillinger prior to seeing the film.

And I when I mentioned the whole sympathize with Dillinger thing, I didn't mean that towards just the scene where he's gunned down, I just had that feeling throughout the entire movie that we were like suppossed to sympathize with him. That's all...

quote:

Some other thoughts,

I dont think the movie is boring at all. See people are so used to the Transformers taking over with explosions and cheesy ass jokes every thirty seconds that if one of the two isnt happening constantly the movie cant seem to hold people's attention. The movie is nearly two and a half hours and i wasnt bored once.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about a movie like Transformers!

quote:

I DO agree that some of the shots were frustrating and i was thnking to myself a few times that I wish the camera woulda been pulled back a little. There were alot of lingering close ups but again to me that doesnt mean automatically label the movie as sucky. It seems that movies are either brilliant or sucky, no in between. One or two minor aspects dont make a film terrible.

but those are just my opinions, like yall have yours. lol you have to just accept when one person says so and so lacked charisma and then another says the person was too charismatic and shouldnt have beeen. oh well .

I totally agree with you on the camerawork as well. That was a very annoying factor, but that wasn't the complete reason why I didn't like this film. I think I just had much more problems with just the entire story/screenplay than the camerawork...

quote:

btw, I do agree with whoever it was that said Marion's last scene was amazing...indeed it was.

AGREE! That last scene along with that scene where she is getting hit around by that investigator proved to us why Cotillard is such a great actress! IMO, she, along with some of those TECHS mentioned above, was the best part of the film! I would be in total support behind her for a Best Supporting Actress nomination for this role... but... the only thing holding her down, I think, is the movie.

Quickly, I liked, but did not love this movie. I came into it expecting it to be bad, so maybe that helped? I thought it was a very entertaining film (MUCH MUCH MUCH more so than Transformers 2...which I should have walked out on, haha). As others here have mentioned it had great technical achievements and I loved Marion Cotillard. Sidenote: My brother thought she looked like Katy Perry in this movie, haha. As for Johnny Depp, I really liked him here. Once again, I came in having read a negative review about his performance, but ending up thinking the opposite. Overall, I thought it to be a pretty good film. Much better than the last gangster release I can remember, American Gangster, which was boring and predictable as hell! Public Enemies is flawed, but not once did I feel bored during its 2 and a half hour run, and having felt the opposite with the last film I had seen (Transformers 2), I much appreciated that. haha

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 24fanatic,

quote:

Originally posted by 24fanatic:
As others here have mentioned it had great technical achievements and I loved Marion Cotillard. Sidenote: My brother thought she looked like Katy Perry in this movie, haha.

Another disappointing film from Michael Mann is I how I feel about Public Enemies. The jerky camera work the weak screenplay and the no big deal performances make for 1 medicore film. I agree with those who say Marion Cotillard was the best performance in the film. But even at that it certainly is nothing worth an oscar nomination. Johnny Depp who lately has always been good is ok in the title role. Forget those that talk of a possible oscar nomination for Billy Crudrup. For what? His 5 minutes of screen time that no left no impression of J Edgar Hoover? The bst thing about this film are the techs Coleen Atwood's costumes and the score and production design.

Grade C+

well, I must say the diverse reviews this movie has gotten has left me wondering about the film and I suppose I must simply make up my own mind after seeing the film what I think of it.

I must make this comments, I have an elderly family member who knew Dillinger. My cousin, Boots, was a child during Dillinger's heyday and gangster would come and stay at Boots' mother's farmhouse in northern Indiana (I assume he and his men, for he always had others with him, were hiding out). Boots said Dillinger was always very good to him and his mother (a widow) and made sure his men were polite to her. When he left he always gave her what seemed to them a large amount of money. So while he may have been a "bad guy" he could be likable to a small child, and he had a sense of decorum about how to treat a widow even if he was on the run.

As someone has mentioned characters aren't suppose to be cartoonish and 1-dimensional, so if they've managed to make the villains less than black-hearts and show the good guy's flaws that's not such a bad thing. I'll have to wait to see whether I think the technical aspects helped or hurt the movie. But I'll have to admit this isn't necessarily my cup of tea as far as movies go and having Johnny Depp in the movie isn't going to hurt my wanting to see it.