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.

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.

This message has been deleted.

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.

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!

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

I didn't finish watching this movie and I am from that part of Indiana. I wanted an enjoyable movie to watch. This is the worst lighting have ever seen in a movie. Painful to watch.

The film was shot on film for some dark interior scenes that don't have any digital noise. But I agree with you Michael Mann needs to work with the right cinematographer.

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.

This message has been deleted.

I can't come around with digital film-making, unless you don't have sufficient founds to afford film.
Make no mistake It's not the format, rather all in how it is executed.

This message has been deleted.

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

"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".

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.

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'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.

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

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

I agree with cowboymovies on the beautiful cinematography. This movie should at least get an Oscar nomination for the superb "dipped in coffee" effect.

This message has been deleted.

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:

1. I've always been captivated by stories of outlaws and lawmen and the Great-Depression era.
2. I've heard a lot about Babyface Nelson and John Dillinger since my childhood.
3. MICHAEL MANN
   If you believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, put this as your signature

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.

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.