MovieChat Forums > Public Enemies (2009) Discussion > Worst cinematography in recent memory.

Worst cinematography in recent memory.


I did not see Public Enemies in a theater, only on DVD, and what I saw on DVD was the worst cinematography and lighting I can remember in mainstream contemporary cinema. Not only was it shot primarily in closeups as if it were made for TV, but the lighting seldom allowed you to see peoples' faces. Lit from the rear, everything in shadow, and looking as if the film had been dipped in a pot of coffee. Nothing to do filming in HD, just BAD lighting and camera work. As for the script, where was the character development? Why did all the gangsters look alike to the degree you couldn't tell one from another. Johnny Depp's a fine actor, but he didn't have a script with which to build a character. And not only did every man in the film have the same haircut, but they all looked like they'd had those haircuts the day before shooting. As for the miscasting of Christian Bale, all I can way is "where did he get that accent?" This film makes me long for "Bonnie and Clyde," a film in which you could actually see the actors' faces and in which the characters actually had human interaction. If you want to see a good film about Dillinger, rent John Milius' "Dillinger" with Warren Oates, who actually looked somewhat like the man.

reply

I will agree with you about all the gangsters looking alike in the film. It was hard to tell the difference. As far as the camera work, Michael Mann can do no wrong.

reply

I also found difficulty in telling some of the gangsters apart . I also found the shaking / moving camera rather irritating as well . It was as if it was trying to give it a "real" or "documentary" feel to it : I don't think it really needed it.

reply

To me, going handheld is directors trying to add "immediacy" to scenes using the camerawork instead of doing it through their direction.

reply

Glad I was not the only one that HATED this film.....as far as cinematography goes....and story was no winner either.....and I consider myself a Depp fan.

reply

Dark Shadows, Depp's worst performance IMHO -_-

reply

What?!? I really liked Dark Shadows, it was far far more enjoyable and entertaining than this boring pile of crap. This film sat in my download folder for 3 years because of the bad reviews Ive seen but finally I decided to watch it and it was just as bad as people had said. I couldn't even finish it it was so dreary, boring, and had cheap looking filming or camera work (a TV movie quality to it which ruined basically everything). It didnt matter how Depp acted, the film was already a total loss for me.
Dark Shadows on the other hand, incredible atmosphere, filming and style like most of Burton's films, a much better pace over-all to the film, Depp's acting was silly like back in the Scissorhands days. But can I fault him for that? No. Its perfect for the type of film it is. Dark Shadows was greatly enjoyable and an entertaining movie experience for me, an 8/10. This junk was basically unwatchable, a 3/10 at best.

reply

Comparing Dark Shadows to a mature underrated film like this is like comparing a pizza to a car. No more, no less.

reply



Comparing Dark Shadows to a mature underrated film like this is like comparing a pizza to a car.


...Dumbest thing I've read in a while.



"Sorry detective. There was a fish... IN the percolator."

reply

This film sat in my download folder for 3 years because of the bad reviews Ive seen

What bad reviews? This movie got positive to good reviews mostly.


"Tell yourself whatever you need to hear, you're the only one listening."

reply



Oh Johnny Depp. No it didn't.


"Sorry detective. There was a fish... IN the percolator."

reply

Dark Shadows, Depp's worst performance IMHO -_-



Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!

His worst performance was in A Nightmare on Elm Street, but even that wasn't really bad since he was just a kid.

BTW you're WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.

reply

Okay fine stickler, one of his worst. You're insane if you thought Dark Shadows was any good.

reply

I completely agree with you; it was so hard to watch this movie because of all of the things you said.... ugh that camera work was HORRIBLE!

reply

I agree the cinematography was awful. Being from Wisconsin and the Midwest where the film was primarily shot, this was really disappointing. It seemed they shot during the spring and early summer with everything dead. The structures and buildings seemed well done for the time period.

The story really never really went anywhere, it seemed to go from a "Catch me if you Can" to a "Bonnie and Clyde" (if Bonnie was lukewarm about Clyde and didn't partake in any criminal activity) with no real activity. Like the colors in the movie, all aspects of the film seemed dull (less the acting).

reply

Oh man.. I thought i was the only one with this problem..
Whats the point of making movies in high quality when they are so damn dark? I mean.. I just wanted to fall asleep.. What a snooze fest..

reply

Looks like a TV Movie. What camera did they used? It's a petty that cinematography is too bad, because this movie has great production values.

reply

I'm getting the impression that a whole lot of people out there in IMDb-land just don't understand that if you've only seen a movie on DVD or Blu-Ray, then you've seen a fundamentally different movie than people saw in the theaters. Producers and directors have almost no control over how the transfer from theater formatting to video formatting is done.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply

You are completely correct, movies in a theater and on dvd or Blu-ray are quite different things. In this case however, the move was awful in the theaters. I watched it at a brand new theater with state of the art equipment, and it was god awful.

Granted I have not seen the dvd or Blu-ray versions of the movie (I simply don't want to put myself through that again), I doubt they can be much worse than the theater version. And if they are, people really need to demand a refund.

I might be extra picky, having a photography education, but the lighting in this movie was terrible. The whole movie looked like it had been shot with an old dv-cam from 2000, and lit with cheap construction lamps.

Had it not been for the fact that I watched it with friends, I probably would have left before it ended. It was far too long, the story didn't make much sense and felt very inconsistent, and the shoddy camera work and awful lighting just made it the complete package of stink.

reply

I agree but i saw this movie in the theatres and it was truly the ugliest film i've ever been subjected to watching, which is a shame, it pulled me out of the plot.
Dull colours, basically no lighting, crappy grain everywhere and on top of that totally unnecessary jaunty hand held shots that frame for instance someones foot while in the middle of a conversation. How, exactly, does that help storytelling?

reply

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.

reply

I agree it was shot horribly, it felt like oh heres a camera let me just do whatever with it while i run around.

reply

[deleted]

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.

reply

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.

reply

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:)

reply

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.

reply

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.

reply

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

reply

[deleted]

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

reply

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

reply

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

reply

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.

reply

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

reply

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.

reply

"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 spotlight...many 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".

reply

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 :(

reply

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.

reply

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

reply

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!

reply

>>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.

reply

[deleted]