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

Worst cinematography in recent memory.

posted 15 years ago by backofthemind
131 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] vbelyshev 15 years ago

i found cinematography specific to this movie, and i actually liked it. it made the movie much more realistic to me, rather than well lit scenes which would be called scenes. it was a movie that paralleled movies (dillintger in the theatre). i liked it, i enjoy good cinematography, but i enjoyed this too

Time is Luck. The Luck has ran out.

[–] markquinn1989 15 years ago

I couldn't disagree with this topic more!!! I thought the cinematography was magnificent in a truly remarkable film. I don't know why so many of you are moaning about the film being shadowy, leaving us unable to see the character's faces. I felt that Michael Mann's camerawork and use of lighting here is no different than in Collateral & Heat but what differs is the fact that this film is set in the 1930s, a time when cities weren't as illuminated as they are now. Also, the shootout at the motel is in a forest at night so why shouldn't it be dark to add more realism to the location (which is actually where the real shootout took place).
I thought that the cinematography really captured the time very well and as well as that, I thought it was one of the best films of 2009. Good script, great cast, who played their respective roles to perfection and a tremendously tragic score.

[–] yoyodamoose3 15 years ago

I also liked the cinematography... I havent seen the dvd thouh i've seen it in theaters twice

[–] daggotht 15 years ago

Maybe you watched it in theaters.

I watched it on DVD and it was kinda bad.

Not trashing the movie though. I liked it. But I thought the camerawork combined with HD cam, on DVD anyway, was pretty bad.

Good movie though.

[–] fps_Twenty4 15 years ago

@Markquinn1989

Please never take pictures...ever. It's not about the photography being 'too dark.' Alot of great photography IS dark and shadowy (There Will Be Blood). The motel shootout is terrible because everything goes to 'black'(an ugly video-black) too 'quickly.' The contrast ratio is just too shallow.

If you liked the movie, that's fine. Blind people have the right to an opinion just like the just of us.

"Destroy what is Evil... So that what is Good can Flourish"

[–] MariMcCabe 15 years ago

but they all looked like they'd had those haircuts the day before shooting.

Um, how can you tell? And what would you suggest instead, they have those haircuts done for a longer period before shooting ... as that would make a difference?

[–] daggotht 15 years ago

I watched it on DVD and really hated the camera work and HD cam. I thought I was just being tired but I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw it.

It's too bad because I kinda enjoyed the film other than that. I would 've expected more from Mann, whose movies I usually like a lot.

Oh well. I guess it was better in theaters.

[–] playgames 15 years ago

"If you want to see a good film about Dillinger, rent John Milius' "Dillinger" with Warren Oates, who actually looked somewhat like the man."

Yes Warren did it right.

[–] greybabydaddy-1 15 years ago

obviously you didn't see Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem.

it was so dark i couldn't make out what was going on.

"7 and 3 is 9" - Annie Hall

[–] xWilliamMunnyx 15 years ago

I thought it was an exceptional move from Mann who is actually one of the most gifted filmmakers of his generation IMO.

I thought the hand held approach allowed for shots that would have otherwise been impossible to shoot, when you were watching the gang you felt you were there with them, in the car with them. The HD approach took away the 4th wall feel and the polished gleam of a Hollywood movie, and instead made it feel far more lifelike. You could see the threads of Dillingers suit, you could see the pores of his sweating worried skin.

It offered the biography of a famous villian in a way that felt up close and personal, accessable and unpolished.

Jessie James is an example of a wonderful biographical story and looks amazing, however that trusty 4th wall is firmly in place and youre not offered the opportunity to get as close to Jessie as Mann allows you to get to Dillinger.

If this was not a biographical story i dont think Mann would have felt the need for the naturalistic approach. I feel he was offering the audience an experience and an access to a historical social figure that hadnt been done before by utilising these techniques.

This wasnt about making a period version of Heat.

"It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WEKurtz 15 years ago

I agree 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Horrible cinematography!!!!!!!!!!!

[–] pulpfaction06 15 years ago

I've seen a lot of films, and i'm sure everyone here has too. And the cinematography isn't bad here. I never felt I couldn't see things properly, everything always looked good. And I liked the fact that when i saw it in theaters it looked like the people were right there. I don't see a problem with that. Everything worked out fine. I just don't get any of the arguments here. and I've watched it a dozen times, never noticed a thing wrong with it. I can't help but feel all of this stuff is just exaggerated. Or you had a bad copy or saw a bad print, or you don't have a very good television, yeah it's dark at times, maybe some stuff is a little hard to see but not overall and not everything. Thought this movie was great.

Christopher Walken: "Im the anti-christ and you got me in a vendetta kind of mood." (True Romance)