This message has been deleted.
-
rl-10 — 15 years ago(August 01, 2010 05:50 AM)
I disagree completely.
It was much more classic, than todays style and actually felt more interesting and dynamic.
This may have been odd to people, expecting somethign they are so used to seeing
but i found it to be a visually interesting film. It was stylized like films before 1960s with a bit of todays flare. -
NicoleSky — 15 years ago(August 01, 2010 12:34 PM)
I agree, this movie was bad. It was a disappointment. I was expecting a good movie with Johnny Depp and Christian Bale as leads. I think they both did an "ok" job, but the movie had absolutely NO character development. I had to force myself to finish watching it.
-
whowhatwherewhenwhy — 15 years ago(September 06, 2010 05:17 PM)
Someone needs to look up the definition of the word "hyperbole". Enough of this "worst", "best" stuff regarding any and everything. Watch some horrible indie flicks, or even a piece of Gus Van Crap like Last Days to find out what horrible cinematography really is.
I had some issues with this movie in the editing and script department, but the cinematography wasn't anywhere near the worst, even among mainstream films released that year. -
Fitvideo — 15 years ago(September 18, 2010 03:02 PM)
Having just now seen this I have to wholeheartedly agree with you ..
I can do better on my HD cameras and certainly edit it to a higher standard
Mind you having a rubbish script and wooden actors in Bale and Depp does not help
Mr Mann has gone the way of George Lucas
Almost laughablethe soundtrack can't save it either which sometimes works , not in this case
cheers
Fitvideo -
sjprice-1 — 15 years ago(January 27, 2011 09:28 PM)
I was there for the Aragon Ballroom and Stueben Club scenes and it was an incredible experience to be there in the moment with Johnny, Marion and cast. I truly wish you could have seen what I saw in the filming, the chemistry between Johnny and Marion, the incredible detail on the set and wardrobe, and the energy that made up this film. I too wish it was not lit as darkly. The magic was there in the room, and it would be wonderful to provide the vision that I had the good fortune to witness in person. Also, Johnny is an amazing, gifted actor with a personal heart of gold. Marion is immensely beautiful and was wonderfully casted as Billie.
-
dragmio — 15 years ago(January 29, 2011 04:10 PM)
This is a very interesting issue. Most of the film is shot perfectly, that's usual with Michael Mann's films. But, every now and then there comes a short sequence that look like a reenactment in a documentary. What gives? I think the answer is - the second unit. Also, I'm almost certain those shots were filmed after the principal photography was wrapped up.
Obviously "someone" thought they needed more shots for editing. Someone was wrong. And I'm pretty sure that someone wasn't Michael Mann. -
roobieroo — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 09:00 PM)
It's never a good thing when instead of enjoying the movie and the story unfolding you're taken out of it and you keep thinking about how odd and strange the picture looks. I hope to God this isn't the future of cinematography. It reminded me of how the Twilight Zone switched from film to video near the end of its run because it was cheaper. It also looked absolutely horrible and made it hard to just watch without thinking about how bad it looked.
-
TequilaMockingbird5150 — 13 years ago(August 07, 2012 10:21 AM)
keeping track of who was who, and it was kind of frustating, but I took it too be that it was too illustrate the confusion of such endeavors such as robbing banks and escaping from prison.
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. Samuel Beckett -
flickfix — 13 years ago(August 17, 2012 12:04 AM)
I hated the lighting and choice of cameras too. Framing, composition, was great. What a waste.
The "look" bothered me to a point that I could not enjoy the film. Our eyes can read a wide range of exposure naturally. Having blown outs all over the place only reminded me that this was fake. It was a constant reminder that I'm seeing the images from some crappy camcorder, not because I demand film quality but it just looked very unnatural.
Another problem is when camera moves, the images seem to not being able to refresh/update fast enough, like some YouTube video when I'm having internet connection problems. It was very distracting.
There were also a lot of shots with extremely wide depth of field that flatten the image that bothered me too.
I just watched it again for the second time since its release. And I still get so bothered by the things that I had mentioned, that I simply could not immerse myself in it even when I tried to ignore that made-for-TV-by-YouTubers look. -
PunishU — 13 years ago(October 02, 2012 10:53 PM)
Like everyone else, I'm an avid fan of the Crime genre and most of Michael Mann's resume but again the filming does take one out of focus and as opposed to being IN every step of the film's motion, you're still in the audience chamber observing the very unattractive nature of it.
If it had been low budget, I would've cut it some slack and I'm open to new and improved ways to film various scenes but, as stated before, Mann chose the worst possible moments to film in aforementioned style. At least when he used this style in Collateral, it wasn't always noticeable unless you were paying exquisite attention, plus that film at least had some substance to support it.
Personally, I've seen just about every version of the John Dillinger story and I still have yet to find a satisfying and rather rewarding take on it (the Milius, TV version with Mark Harmon and this are all pure filth).
If Ridley Scott can finally bring justice to the Robin Hood legend (IMHO) while mixing some understated cinematography that allows me to escape into that world, then how come one of the most respected talents had to copy and paste the "seen-it-before" cops and robbers formula with the horrid grit of the failed Miami Vice update??
And, yes, I would say that Mann is ready to fall into George Lucas territory but obviously he's not becoming an internet punching bag just yet. It's that he seems to have forgotten what made Heat so stellar and that you can only duplicate success so many times before it just turns to a carbon copy stinkfest.
Either ask someone else to doctor his script (Jonathan and Christopher Nolan anybody?), not make the mistake that Nolan does of casting Marion Coillard in every single movie of his, and focus on a different genre if anything.
If he can make great dramas like The Insider, Last of the Mohicans and Ali, then he can certainly replicate their success. He swung crime out of the ballpark and either needs to get on a different field or stay sitting on that bench in timeout! -
mike-ricketts-1 — 12 years ago(April 30, 2013 12:13 PM)
Some film-makers think that the audience can't spot the difference between film and video / digital, but they are wrong, as this Board testifies!
I have recently seen the film on TV (ITV4), and could not believe the contrast (in every sense!) between the scenes shot on film (eg the escaping prisoner being shot) and those on "HD" (eg some of the interiors).
The latter reminded me of the British 60s' TV series "Manhunt" (a great series in its own right), which was shot on video (with film inserts). I half expected to hear the "noises off" that one associates with such productions!