Worst cinematography in recent memory.
-
Chelios24 — 16 years ago(March 23, 2010 08:59 PM)
My fiancee and I both noticed this film looked like it was made for TV. Very shoddy film making considering the stars involved in it. The lighting, "docu-feel" and crappy camera work really ruined it. And the script wasn't very strong.
-
saberdjedi — 15 years ago(July 17, 2010 04:42 AM)
Film "rules" are meant to be broken. Mann is simply continuing the legacy of the French new wave. There was a time where hand held and jump cuts were "wrong" too, but are no longer. It's ironic that people bring up Bonnie & Clyde without realizing that that film was just as unorthodox as Public Enemies, and was also heavily inspired by French new wave films.
-
flickfix — 13 years ago(August 28, 2012 02:18 PM)
It's not about that. In the shoot out scene, they could have parked a Toyota Prius outside the house, and I won't find it odd. I would actually find it fitting. It's that camcorder feel and look, that never existed till recent years.
It does not look more realistic as our eyes simply don't see things that way. Lighting choices also made the images very unnatural to our eyes.
He experimented, good for him. But he should have done more tests on it before diving in. I highly doubt he got the image results he was hoping for. -
chev_chelios-640-705566 — 15 years ago(September 18, 2010 04:29 AM)
If you look closely on your dvd you may see some certain scenes that have detail, which of course some parts are shot on 35mm film.
Cameras :
Arriflex 235 35mm
Arriflex 435 35mm
Sony F23 HD Camera
Sony HDC F950 HD Camera
Sony PMW EX1R HD Camera
Anything else do you need to know? Cheers:) -
skachick7000 — 16 years ago(December 27, 2009 09:43 PM)
I completely agree with the OP! The camera work very poor, and the dialogue was awful! "You want Prince Albert to come join you?" Seriously?
But having absolutely no character development was the worst part, I didn't feel anything for the characters and knew nothing about them! What was Purvis's background? How did Dillinger feel when all of his buddies were dead? I guess we weren't supposed to know.
It seemed like the director thought that everyone already knew everything about this event, so all he had to do was show you the action scenes, and nothing personal between the real people.
The music was also very poorly composed and came in and ended in the worst parts of the scenes.
Depp and Bale are my favorites and this was a very sad waste of a movie. It could have been so much better.
-Have you found Jesus yet, Gump?
-I didn't know I was supposed to be looking for him, sir. -
cowboymovies — 16 years ago(December 28, 2009 03:42 PM)
I'm sorry for everyone that's about to hate me, but that was one of the most beautifully shot movies of the decade. Did we watch the same movie?
Of course, as always, Christian Bale was the weak link of the film. Always slurring through words, no dynamic range in facial expressions; it tends to be sad to watch him.
"Dipped in Coffee" : Exactly. It's beautiful. You really shouldn't call it BAD, it's a stylistic difference of opinion. Michael Mann obviously knows what he's doing.
Let's go hate on Avatar. That's what I call "BAD". 500 Mill down the drain. -
DylansFearFiles — 16 years ago(December 28, 2009 11:44 PM)
I agree with the previous poster, except for the part about Bale's performance.
I believe this was shot with the same camera that was used with
Collateral
, neither films looked that different.
I watched this for several reasons:- I've always been captivated by stories of outlaws and lawmen and the Great-Depression era.
- I've heard a lot about Babyface Nelson and John Dillinger since my childhood.
- MICHAEL MANN
If you believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, put this as your signature
-
jewellrunner — 16 years ago(January 25, 2010 07:35 AM)
This is the voice of reason in this thread. I, too, am wondering if we all watched the same movie. The cinematography was great. All of the issues the OP points out are purposeful. Static, centered-framed shots of the front side of the person who is talking with a spotlight on his/her face does not equal good cinematography. Beh.
My Film Journal -
Chrisfilm.wordpress.com -
rl-10 — 15 years ago(August 01, 2010 05:53 AM)
agreed.. it was a very well shot film. I just think people are too used to standard shots that have become cliche.. and this film managed to do something interesting and "new" with its cinematography. "New" meaning different. Cinematography rarely is ever new anymore as it is a finite set of rules of course but anyways It was a very well shot film
-
chev_chelios-640-705566 — 15 years ago(September 18, 2010 04:42 AM)
I'm a Cinematographer myself for independent film productions. And according to me is that you don't know anything about Cinematography at all. Watch the DVD again if you look closely into some scenes that are shot hand-held, the image tends to blur a bit, and for dark interior scenes with dull lighting
you can see some grainy artifacts in the shadows. Michael Mann was expecting the results of the HD footage to be good, but it turns out it wasn't good. Remember the scene with John Dillinger arriving from the plane with crowds of people raising their flares and flashlights the image looks overexposed. Obviously the cinematographer doesn't know how to handle different exposure situations.
And for your information on hating Avatar, Avatar has won an academy award for best Cinematography. -
chris-4829 — 16 years ago(December 29, 2009 08:37 PM)
I totally agree, the end result looked garbage. I expected much more from Michael Mann.
It was shot on HD Video. Good for TV shows but not for cinema/ feature film.
It was a good movie ruined by the way it was shot. Christian Bale was merely a support actor in this film -
pninson — 16 years ago(December 30, 2009 12:32 AM)
I didn't have any problem with the way the film looked (and I saw it on blu-ray, for what that's worth). Maybe I just don't know anything about cinematography.
However, the lack of characterization was a real problem. The movie felt flat and uninvolving throughout. Nothing great about the dialogue, either.
A subpar effort overall for Michael Mann; his weakest picture since ALI (which was also lacking in characterization, despite its being a biopic).
We report, you decide; but we decide what to report. -
Twenty_East — 16 years ago(March 27, 2010 04:32 PM)
"All of the issues the OP points out are purposeful. Static, centered-framed shots of the front side of the person who is talking with a spotlight on his/her face does not equal good cinematography"
Sorry but by this logic it is good even if it is garbage just so long as it is purposeful. This movie had terrible cinematography yes I agree it doesn't need to be conventional with a spotlight but this movie didn't do anything remarkable with its shots in trying to be "different" and there lays the problem.
It isn't bad because it didn't do static, centered-framed shows with great spotlightmany movies do this very very well. It is bad because the cinematography and the handling was all wrong that it looked as if he had no clue wtf he was doing and just picked up a camera and started running with it claiming it to be "purposeful" or "different". -
msaiu78 — 9 years ago(April 05, 2016 11:21 PM)
I totally agree, the end result looked garbage. I expected much more from Michael Mann.
It was shot on HD Video. Good for TV shows but not for cinema/ feature film.
It was a good movie ruined by the way it was shot. Christian Bale was merely a support actor in this film
I kept trying to adjust the picture settings on my DVD player, but I couldn't improve on that camcorder look.
No wonder the movie looked like crap! It was shot on HD Video