This message has been deleted.

Saw your vid Avant. Good stuff man.
I am not a Troll, I am an actor who loves films, Jacare Calhoun's official imdb account.(2010)

It's kind of sad that Mann, who ten years ago was creating a masterful career that possibly would have had him eclipse his counterparts, now regresses to use the tools and tricks of lesser filmmakers.
"Lesser filmmakers"? You mean like Jean-Luc Godard, Lars von Trier, Steven Soderbergh, Danny Boyle, Jia Zhangke, Francis Ford Coppola, Michael Winterbottom and David Lynch; award-winning filmmakers, many considered amongst the very best of their respective generations, who have all shot feature-length films on consumer-quality DV.
Mann is a filmmaker interested in mood, atmosphere and the psychology of characters. The camera work in Public Enemies is intended to put you inside the head of the central character; the disorganisation of the frame, the extreme close-ups, the lack of focus are all used by Mann to suggest the psychology of Dillinger; the sense of the world closing in on him.
It's also intended to suggest the look of contemporary news reportage, bringing this old story about the rise of the career criminal to the level of genuine superstar, into the contemporary media-saturated world of modern celebrity.

Borderline unwatchable. It's kind of sad that Mann, who ten years ago was creating a masterful career that possibly would have had him eclipse his counterparts, now regresses to use the tools and tricks of lesser filmmakers. Another problem is that the shots are framed so poorly, that a lot of the aesthetic, scenery, sets, clothes, ect that they paid meticulous detail to, are cut out of blurred because of the crappy camerawork.

This message has been deleted.

You bring up some good points. Some great things to think about.
I am not a Troll, I am an actor who loves films, Jacare Calhoun's official imdb account.(2010)

As a grad student in digital cinema productions, I too agree that digital camera killed this movie. It was incredibly distracting and took us out of the time period. But it wasn't just simply digital camera that did it. It was the digital camera he used, and it was his cinematography.
His signature handheld style had no place in this movie. In interior scenes I felt like John Dillinger and his gang were on a reality TV show. It felt like there was some guy in the room with them with a hand held. When you can feel that cameraman in the scene, it doesn't work. Period.
But one thing you have to keep in mind: digital has come a LONG way in the last decade. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is an example of beautiful digital cinematography, and it works. Perfectly. So does the Social Network.
A quote I like and agree with regarding Benjamin Button:
"Building on the advances of pioneers like Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and Robert ZemeckisMr. Fincher has added a dimension of delicacy and grace to digital filmmaking"
-A.O. Scott, New York Times
So, I agree with you. The digital camera killed the movie. But it's not as simple as digital cameras in general. It's the cameras and lenses he used, and more importantly, the cinematography that he chose. Hell, one of the cameras used in Public Enemies was the same used in Benjamin Button, the Sony CineAlta F23. It worked in Benjamin Button. Just wanted to let you know, there's something to be said there.
It would not have been impossible to film this movie digitally and have it be beautifully shot, not distracting and highly successful. It was Mann's poor choices, unfortunately. And this is coming from a huge Heat and Collateral fan. The digital shots used in Collateral worked great.

This message has been deleted.

I don't mind a flick that is self consciously stylish, as long as the story, and the performances are okay.

Yea I am very puzzled by his choice here too. Maybe he missed out on the digital phase so maybe he wanted to test it. Or he figured he did well with it on Collateral and Miami Vice, so why not P.E. as well. Very myopic of him though.
I am not a Troll, I am an actor who loves films, Jacare Calhoun's official imdb account.(2010)

This message has been deleted.

The problem with all of your excuses for the digital camera shots is that he doesn't
always
use it. There are some shots that are steady and on film. Now it makes no sense at all to have two different cameras to shoot on.

This message has been deleted.

Good Point.
I am not a Troll, I am an actor who loves films, Jacare Calhoun's official imdb account.(2010)

I think the digital camera was harmful only in that it sets up an expectation of accuracy and realism that the script does not deliver on.
The right solution would be an improved and more historically accurate script, not a more romantic visual approach.

Honestly, I was expecting it to be far more noticeable. I actually enjoyed the asthetic value of it. I found Ali was much more grainy (Still loved that movie though). I had heard a lot of isht about PE being shot with a digital camera and how it really took away from the movie and by the time I got around to seeing it, I had forgotten about it and didnt notice until I remembered half way through. Great flick.

well..
dont get me wrong. i totally understand what hes trying. but it just not work for me at all.
there is not a single moment in the movie that you think or feel its real..
that hyperrealism is just not happening.
it looks like the cheapest low budget production from somewhere in europe.
i think we already have enough digital looking stuff nowadays. like people now only taking pictures with mobile phones or cheap digital cameras. and also companies remastering every single movie to make it look sharper on blue ray. i just think it looks fake and ugly.

This message has been deleted.

Mann's films could never feel like TV, he's too evolved a film-maker. But emulsion still captures details between light and dark that digital still hasn't mastered a 100%. Curtis Hanson went for a very contemporary feel in "L.A.Confidential" yet he never once made us feel that the film was not set in period. And he did it on film. It's a creative choice. I for one, miss the natural dusty details one gets on emulsion. Period movies shot on film don't always have to look like a Jane Austen flick. It can be sharp and hyper-real, with just that extra bit of detail in the twilight and night sequences, and ofcourse, dust/natural armosphere.

Poor Michael Mann. He tries to give his movies a more realistic look and feel and people just come out complaining that it didn't look enough like a "movie" to enjoy. Oh well.

i totally agree
although i was not too interested in this film (scriptwise), i figured i may as well sit down to watch this since Depp and Bale are in it
but geez i did not like the camera at all
more authentic and realistic my arse, my eyeline is a lot more steady than that camera
and even when it was not steady for effect, it wasn't even required, it didn't add to the film at all

This message has been deleted.

"The sound was awful"
I wasn't a fan of the digital camera, but the sound effects in that scene were awesome, what are you talking about?
Nuke the whales! (Gotta nuke somethin')

Michael Mann has been on an endless quest to bump up the realism in his films. That naturally means less and less reliance on the style and cliches of camera work and sound design. It means less obviously artificial lighting, less goofy slow-motion. If this is what you mean by "looked like some college student filmed" it, then you may have a point. Students don't have the time or budget to totally f *ck up any sense of being in the real world.
If there were reason for these miseries,
Then into limits could I bind my woes.