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

Worst cinematography in recent memory.

posted 14 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.

[–] FnDan 14 years ago

Dante Spinotti was the cinematographer on Public Enemies...as 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.

[–] hawks_senator 14 years ago

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.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SKCA 14 years ago

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.

[–] mac1165 14 years ago

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.

[–] rl-10 14 years ago

Give me a break. Soap opera? Have you seen a soap opera?

Not even close.

This is a highly stylized film, well crafted cinematography that is classic in style.

Watch Bonnie and Clyde, its not much different, except for the color.

[–] cptnspoon19 14 years ago

This movie was nothing like Bonnie and Clyde. The actors had chemistry in Bonnie and Clyde. The story went somewhere in Bonnie and Clyde. I never wanted to do something else while watching Bonnie and Clyde.

This piece of crap went on for almost two and a half hours and I got nothing out of it. Okay, I got that Marion Cotillard is gorgeous, but I already knew that. The color scheming was inconsistent from shot to shot, which may be artistic to some of you, but was just plain lazy to me. The music swelled at the worst times with little emotional impact. I didn't feel anything for any character. Every character was two-dimensional and ill-conceived, even though they were based on real people. The only scene worth a spit was when Dillinger walks right into the detective's office and asks the score of the game.

I will grant you that there were some pretty shots, but those were few and far between. Pretty pictures don't really make up for lack of depth or story, at least in this case.

[–] chev_chelios-640-705566 14 years ago

Are you sure because to me you think you know about Cinematography. Haven't you seen the indoor scenes of the film with poor lighting and if you look closely you can see some digital noise. If you know it's well crafted for it's cinematography, then do you know a thing about Exposure Latitude ?

Click or Copy and Paste this link below about Public Enemies Cinematography :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nORvZFccM7s

But the film itself is good, with brilliant acting and screenplay. But crap cinematography

[–] chev_chelios-640-705566 14 years ago

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 14 years ago

I'll say again...

The cinematography is not actively bad but I don't think the film gains a great deal from it. In any case the film has much bigger problems.

I'm glad you decided to pimp the Milius Dillinger to save Cigar Joe the trouble of squawking its praises in yet another thread.

"If life gives you lemons, choke on 'em and die. You stupid lemon eater."

[–] frozenotter 14 years ago

I couldn't agree with you more! My fiancee' & I were complaining about that saying it had the quality of an A&E special or a BBC made for TV movie. What I found weird was every once in a while, the cinematography looked big budget & professional.

[–] buzzcovington 14 years ago

Yep... you hit the nail on the head. Sometimes it looked fantastic, and at other times, I felt like I was watching a Dr. Who show from 1983. Just terrible, and made me run right here to IMDB as soon as it was over to see if anybody else was griping about it. I guess they were!

If you're scared, say you're scared....
-==Buzz==-

[–] film_ophile 14 years ago

backofthemind and boardkill, WHEW! I knew it wasn't just me. I completely agree with you on all the definciencies of this surprisingly subpar outing. I wonder what happened to Michael Mann's judgement. Was he having a personal crisis so he handed off the whole thing to other people? Maybe this was a real life version of Woody Allen's director in Hollywood Ending.

The worst cinematography I have ever seen.What started to clue me into it was that at the beginning, I thought I recognized David Wenham as one of Depp's sidekicks. But no matter how i tried ,throughout the entire film, to get a real look at Wenham's face, I could not. Instead it was shadows and someone else's head or a tree or a door.Through the whole film. But then I finally did see him. In the credits.

Ad hoc, Ad loc, Quid pro queeee,
So little time and so much to see

[–] spock_cow 14 years ago

I too noticed the 'video look', which kept me from being immersed into the movie. I also was put off by the extensive use of hand-held - it's just shaky for no reason.

I felt like I was watching an experimental or student film.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Anscules 14 years ago

thought the film looked absolutely great, but that's where it ended for me. mann hasn't made a good film since the insider.

"Rampart: Squad 51."

[–] tetrahex 14 years ago

If you saw the bluray you'd see it was not just the lighting, it was the lousy HD cameras mann uses. Even with the extra resolution it looks cheap, because fundamentally the image is poor, like a movie made with a camcorder. Bad lighting does go along with the cheaper digital cameras, its just a matter of how they work. The lighting cannot makeup for the deficiencies of the camera. Beyond being a second rate film the horrible look just distracts you constantly throughout the film. Mann needs to really stop with this nonsense.

[–] ergomane 14 years ago

I have to agree, the cinematography was lausy, it was like watching a TV movie, especially the action scene in the cabin by the forest. And lighting was extremely lausy. Just watch Untouchables by DePalma and you will see difference how that era should have been filmed.

Only thing that almost saved the movie was the Billie, the girl in red. She acted surprisingly well, or maybe others didn't act at all.

[–] butterflygurl618 14 years ago

I completely agree with your last point, ergomane.

I couldn't stand the cinematography, color, or the fact that I couldn't understand the horribly subpar dialogue most of the time. I debated leaving after about thirty minutes of watching, but Marion Cotillard was the only reason I stayed. She did a great job with what faint outline of a character was given to her.

Mann simply didn't communicate his purpose for making this film--did he want to make a historical drama on the early days of the FBI? A cat-and-mouse film between Purvis and Dillinger? A romance? He went in so many different directions that I could not tell what he was trying to achieve.

Plus, I could have done without the first hour of the film. The story became much tighter once Dillinger escaped from prison in the stolen car.

[–] pulpfaction06 14 years ago

I had no problems with anything from this movie. I was use to the cinematography from Miami Vice, I didn't see why it was so bad. I could see things fine, I liked how it looked, and the darkness added to it, felt more like this was trying to be more realistic, like he didn't want it to look like it was lit for a movie, I don't know. I saw this never thought twice about how it looked, I thought the whole movie was well done, and then suddenly all this backlash, and complains, that quite frankly seem kind of unfounded, as I can't see them while i watch the movie. In theaters or on DVD.

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

[–] carrot-16 14 years ago

are you kidding, i wanna shoot like that.... it looks so real.. like im watching a play, but its not a play - it's a film and it's freaken awesome!!

[–] judd_clarke 14 years ago

Yes, the cinematography sucks. Michael Mann is obviously a talented director but before every scene he must tell the lighting director to switch everything off. And then ask the cameraman to shake it around a bit.
This does not make him a genius, fanboys.

www.igloooftheuncanny.blogspot.com

[–] Anzerion 14 years ago

are you kidding, i wanna shoot like that.... it looks so real.. like im watching a play, but its not a play - it's a film and it's freaken awesome!!

When the film looks like a play, that's a problem. I don't want to feel like I'm watching real life take place. I want to feel like I'm watching something fictional. This felt like someone was holding a high-end digital camera around all the actors, as if they were filming a documentary. I don't like that at all. I don't want to feel like I'm in the picture. I want to feel like I'm 'outside' or 'above' it, watching from a distance, sometimes close-up, but always "out" of the picture, if that makes sense.

Just poorly shot, all around.