Worst cinematography in recent memory.
-
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
-
FnDan — 16 years ago(January 03, 2010 07:52 PM)
Dante Spinotti was the cinematographer on Public Enemiesas he was on other Mann pics Heat, Last of the Mohicans, The Insider and Manhunter. Perhaps it was the transition to DVD Digital that caused some issues, but to me the style and action was vintage Mann/Spinotti. Felt like I was watching Heat set in the Great Depression.
-
madison_bridges20 — 16 years ago(January 17, 2010 01:05 PM)
looks like not the only one that was disappointed.
and was mainly looking to it because I am from Indiana, and have actually seen some of those locations, like the courthouse, that were used in the movie -
vinchenzo19 — 15 years ago(July 15, 2010 03:47 PM)
Why does everyone think that for a film to be good you MUST USE A TRIPOD OR DOLLY??
A multi million dollar film doesn't have to be the same as every other film out there!!!
Thankfully this is a director that's willing to try and get a different feel for a film. Moving the camera keeps the action mobile and makes you feel like your with the character every step of the way!
I think it's hillarious that everyone here is now an expert of lighting & composing!!Royale with cheese!
-
hawks_senator — 16 years ago(January 06, 2010 06:22 AM)
I vehemently agree. Other than the poor lighting and the amateurish shots, the shaky-camera technique was used quite a lot in the first 30 minutes too and when all three are combined, you'll get an ugly looking film such as Public Enemies.
I'm completely disappointed with the movie. I had such high expectation for the film and it turned out flat.
If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story. -
SKCA — 16 years ago(January 10, 2010 10:46 PM)
I started to really notice the way it was filmed about halfway through, completely took me out of the movie and I just could not enjoy it. I kept on telling my girlfriend that it looks like cheap video.
If it was shot on HD video then it makes sense, very clear but just awful for a movie. I didn't like it. -
mac1165 — 15 years ago(May 21, 2010 11:03 AM)
Soap opera is exactly the way to decribe the horrid cinematography in this movie. Not only did it look like a made for TV movie, but the damn shaky-cam was employed on top of that. A digital camera will NEVER be able to capture the look of film. I saw this movie projected on a 96" inch, 2.35:1 screen at home on Blu-ray, so the potential for quality was there.