This message has been deleted.
-
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! -
kruk_015 — 11 years ago(July 31, 2014 07:05 PM)
You probably just needed to adjust your color, brightness, and tint on your television.
Just kidding
But seriously, I agree. It was just kind of dry for my taste, but seemed like it meant well, and wasn't pretentious or anything. I just couldn't get into it.
Appearances can bedeceptive. -
Jiiimbooh — 9 years ago(May 08, 2016 07:20 PM)
Some shots looked very "digital video cam", which ruined the 1930s feel for me. Other shots looked good. A digital look is not necessarily bad, but in this case, it didn't fit.
"What does it do?"
"It doesn't
do
anything. That's the beauty of it." -
Goatlips — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 11:55 PM)
"As far as the camera work, Michael Mann can do no wrong" Trismike21 - you don't know what you're talking about!
OP is 100% correct about the TERRIBLE Dante Spinotti cinematography! Nothing to do with Mann. However - it is casting's fault that Crudup (Depp's twin) was Hoover! To deny that this film's photography ruined a great film is merely displaying a lack of intelligence! It looked like it was filmed on a mobile phone, especially in the final scenes! The dialogue was also INAUDIBLE - but that's just standard retarded BS for the last 20 years!