criterionforum.org

Director's have and always referenced their own and others films. I see some pretty blatant references to Michael's past work in the trailer, but it was nothing that took me out of being excited for it.

It's nothing Hawks didn't do almost 60 years ago.

Depp's line about we're here for the bank's money not yours may be a reference to Heat but it is also an homage to Bonnie and Clyde. Moreover this type of gesture and feeling is in keeping with many of the myths about these bank robbers and gangsters who operated in the Midwest in 1933 using the goodwill of the public generated by the press to mask their own selfish intentions.
I am excited to see how Mann will handle this unique and extremely important moment in American history. My only concern is the casting- Depp is too pretty to be Dillenger as is Bale to be Melvin Purvis. However, I have trusted Mann in every choice and direction he has made, so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

King Prendergast wrote:Speaking of Heat, anyone else notice Mann's obvious "quoting" of his earlier film in the trailer? Two examples clearly stood out to me: the sliding of the money bags on the floor is a direct homage to Val Kilmer doing the same, and Depp's line, "We're here for the bank's money not your money," is straight from DeNiro.

Another of Depp's lines is right out of Heat too - "I hit any bank I want anytime. They got to be at every bank, all the time." Jon Voight said something awfully similar to DeNiro in Heat, talking about how the police can shoot and miss, but DeNiro can't miss once.

Personally, I love it when a director nods to an earlier film, and Heat is certainly worthy of homage. Also, Michael Mann does stuff like this all the time. Heat is essentially a remake of a TV movie he made some years earlier, and Robert DeNiro's character is essentially a more refined version of James Caan's character in Thief.

One can certainly see this as part of a trilogy for Michael, starting with Thief, then 14 years later coming out with Heat...and again 14 years later coming out with this film.

Conchis wrote:

King Prendergast wrote:Speaking of Heat, anyone else notice Mann's obvious "quoting" of his earlier film in the trailer? Two examples clearly stood out to me: the sliding of the money bags on the floor is a direct homage to Val Kilmer doing the same, and Depp's line, "We're here for the bank's money not your money," is straight from DeNiro.

Another of Depp's lines is right out of Heat too - "I hit any bank I want anytime. They got to be at every bank, all the time." Jon Voight said something awfully similar to DeNiro in Heat, talking about how the police can shoot and miss, but DeNiro can't miss once.

Personally, I love it when a director nods to an earlier film, and Heat is certainly worthy of homage. Also, Michael Mann does stuff like this all the time. Heat is essentially a remake of a TV movie he made some years earlier, and Robert DeNiro's character is essentially a more refined version of James Caan's character in Thief.

In Thief, Caan says, "Are you talking to me or did someone else just walk into the room?" This is also said by Pacino to Crowe in The Insider where the two are at dinner in the Japanese restaurant.

There is an interview with the cinematographer in the new issue of Sight and Sound that explains why the film looks so bright and polished. I think his argument that they used the techniques of the 1930s newsreels in terms of lighting and staging should calm some nerves that Mann and team are simply trying to make the film look as if it were glossy period film in the tradition of Brideshead Revisited or Atonement.

New Trailer.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:New Trailer.

Mmmmmm. Calexico. I guess they couldn't find an Audioslave song to put in the trailer (I wonder what Mann's reaction to Cornell's new solo album is. If it's on his radar...)

Some of the lighting looks similar to the style Robert Richardson used in the earlier parts of Scorsese's Aviator.

jbeall wrote:A glowing review from Manohla Dargis.

Well, that all-but-assures it sucks.

Ebert also enjoys it.

[quote="Manohla Dargis" "]Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies” is a grave and beautiful work of art.[/quote]
Tomorrow can't come fast enough!

I'll be seeing it tomorrow as well, foggy. Ebert's review was surprisingly inspiring. It sounds like it's everything I could have ever hoped for it to be.

John Cope wrote:I'll be seeing it tomorrow as well, foggy. Ebert's review was surprisingly inspiring. It sounds like it's everything I could have ever hoped for it to be.

I know, it's looking very promising! I'll be at the first local screening, and am just praying (for once) that it's going to be digital rather than 35mm...

Well, it's pretty great, but I'll have to let it sink in before I go overboard. Dargis & Ebert are very sensitive towards what Mann is trying to do, and make a number of very salient points. Karina Longworth might as well be on another planet:

Public Enemies is essentially a really expensive mumblecore film with ADR and guns — and the M-word comparison is not merited solely by its conspicuous form. [...] It's not a bad film, it’s just badly made.

The mind boggles.

It looks tremendous. Mann is so sensitive toward elements - the way cigarette smoke awkwardly collects in a brightly lit room, the way the wind affects movement on a street at night, the way grey clouds gather, the way light defines space... To borrow an idea from Sontag, he's more concerned with proving, rather than analysing, the actions of these characters, which is probably what seems to be rankling a number of reviewers/critics at the moment...

See on digital if possible.

I'm very curious about Manhattan Melodrama now - is anyone here a fan of it?

Does anyone know where I can find a list of theaters in Milwaukee or Chicago that offer digital projection?

foggy eyes wrote:I'm very curious about Manhattan Melodrama now - is anyone here a fan of it?

I know I am. Warner's "Myrna Loy and William Powell Collection" is a overlooked but pretty good box set. Everyone should own it. But I must confess that I'm a sucker for everything-Myrna Loy. So thank you , Michael Mann !! Seeing those close-ups of her in such a big screen made my day. =P~

Superb Matt Zoller Seitz video essay on Mann (more to come): Zen Pulp, Pt. 1.

I'm a bit mixed on this. A slightly draggy first half is redeemed by a fast-moving and crisp second half, but ultimately the characters don't have the depth of those in Heat, LA Confidential, Badlands, etc. Bale's is especially thinly-drawn, and there's little of the psychological push-pull between Purvis and Dillinger which Mann's older flicks were so adept at pulling off. The Depp/Cotillard relationship is worse still: pure cliche, and she only comes to life late in the film once separated from him. Add to this the sometimes irritating digital photography (Barmy, I'm finally with you on this), and it's a curiously uninvolving and passionless crime tale that's easier to appreciate than to really enjoy or love.

Certain scenes though are wonderful, especially some getaway business at a traffic intersection, and Dillinger's stroll through the police division's offices. There's a sense of poetry, awe, and humor in those sequences that the rest of the film often lacks.

Full disclosure: I was also underwhelmed by Heat on first viewing and eventually came to adore it, so I certainly will want to revisit this soon. But I saw it a few days ago, and nothing has really stuck with me, certainly not emotionally.

Just got back from it, and definitely not sure what to make of it. I may have to watch it again a second time but for what it's worth, my gut response was one of disappointment. Compared to The Insider in particular (my favourite Mann and the joint best film of 1999 with All About My Mother) and Heat as well, I found long stretches of Public Enemies curiously and disappointingly uninvolving. In my opinion, it's also not helped by the camera work: I don't mean the look of the film per se; on the contrary I think shooting on digital video gives it an immediacy that the more glamourous look of 35mm wouldn't have provided. I felt that it enhanced the "you are there" feeling which Mann seems to strive for. Night-time scenes especially really benefit from this: the chase through the woods was one of the few extended sequences of the picture that really pulled me in. Daylight scenes on the other hand can look incredibly sharp in some shots (I'm thinking of the early scene in which Purvis shoots a man from long distance) and noticeably less so in others - I'm by no means an expert but 35mm seems more consistent.

Anyhow, what bothered me was that so much of the film was shot in medium to extreme close-ups and when the camera movement isn't always the smoothest either, it can really pull you out of the film. Does anyone feel that it was overdone? I also found the staging of the shoot-outs disappointing: it's no surprise when someone like J.J. Abrams or Chris Nolan botches their action scenes by shooting too close to the action but I didn't think that Mann would do the same, especially when he pulled off fantastic setpieces in Heat. Finally, I felt that the characterisation was pretty much one-note, certainly with Cottillard's character (though she gives a good performance) and Bale's FBI agent. Unless I have completely missed some nuances in the script and/or am misreading what Mann intended to do in this film, I found none of the characters particularly intriguing.

Mr Finch wrote:Compared to The Insider in particular (my favourite Mann and the joint best film of 1999 with All About My Mother) and Heat as well, I found long stretches of Public Enemies curiously and disappointingly uninvolving.

Sounds like Miami Vice, which was the good kind of uninvolving.

Maybe it's just my imagination, but it seems like Mann thought the gorgeous digital photography in that film was too lush and too glamorous for this subject and tried to scale things back even more, which a very bold choice for a period piece like this. Some of it still looks beautiful, but I don't know....

I am not an anti-digital crusader in all cases; I think some films like Inland Empire and Collateral are better because of it, but it distracted me in this one. It's not so bad in scenes when there's a lot of movie-like artificial lighting, and when a lot of 1930s artifacts are on screen, but when the lighting looks more natural (especially in daytime scenes) I couldn't help thinking: "this looks like it happened yesterday" or "this looks more like something from a making-of DVD extra than it looks like a film". It's not an altogether logical reaction but it's one I kept having.

This movie got my blood pumping quite a few times...

Spoiler

Dillinger in the dark of the woods, thinking the guys down but then he's not there at all. The look on his face was a very good "I may be fucked here" in my book.

...and while I wasn't impressed with any of the performances they didn't really distract me from the movie save for a few bad Bale moments. Depp was sufficient but I wish he had been a little more creative than just doing a pretty rote calm/collected/cool guy. His reckless behavior seems more suited to a slightly louder and grittier sort.

Meanwhile I'll be catching Manhattan Melodrama on TCM in a few.

Foam wrote:I couldn't help thinking: "this looks like it happened yesterday" or "this looks more like something from a making-of DVD extra than it looks like a film". It's not an altogether logical reaction but it's one I kept having.

That's exactly how I felt. I was also taken out of the movie by Diana Krall's singing, which sounds like Diana Krall, NOT a singer from the 1930's. I enjoyed it, but not as much as "Miami Vice" (or "Heat", obviously). I need to give it some time to sink in before forming more concrete thoughts.