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

loved the lighting. i actually don't think you needed high key lighting or whatever the everything-is-lighted lighting is called in this movie cause it's not like there was much plot or necessary-to-hear exposition going on. whatever mood/tone this lighting added was worth it, it did not obscure anything because there was nothing for it to obscure

yes christian bale's accent sounds ridiculous but his accents are terrible in everything he does. the one here is less worse than his gigglable dark knight/batman begins one

reply

It seems like they used a different type of camera after they break out of jail and hideaway in that house in the woods that gets shot up. After that the lightning looked worse, and very yellow and the quality of the picture got worse. It looks like something that would air on Nickelodeon in the 90s.

reply

Mann was the wrong one to direct this. Many of the camera techniques used work well in modern day action flicks but don't in period films. In fact, they looked terrible in this. I also would have liked to have seen this picture shot in sepia tone.

reply

@OP

Nothing to do filming in HD


Saw it on DVD as well... and I think the bad cinematography has ALOT to do with shooting on HD.

First off, Video is a much much much more difficult format to light because video has a shallower field of contrast (it goes to pure white much faster than film). We see a lot of 'hot-spots' in the movie...but even worse...video denies us the RICH BLACKS that a carefully chosen 35mm film stock would have given us.

Secondly. Because you can tell the film is shot in video (this is especially evident during the shoot outs) it sends a confusing message to the audience because there WAS NO video during the 1930s...we're getting an image that looks and feels more 90s-ish than 1930s-ish. This is more of a stylistic disagreement than a technical one but what works for a film like 'Collateral' may not be appropriate for a period film.

I'm not discounting HD as a viable format for shooting a movie, I'm just saying it's GROSSLY inappropriate for a period piece...especially one that takes place during the era of the ganster picture.

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

reply

...so every movie set before the invention of film camera should be criticised for being confusing to the audiences? Poor cinema lovers, how disappointed will they be when you tell them there was no camera during the Roman empire... They will never see 'Gladiator' in the same light again ;)

reply

the shots do make this film look like a low budget indipendant film

but as for christian bale? i think he worked really hard for this job
he even got coaching from another skilled actor...

keanu reeves :D

reply

So do many of the films made before 1975.

So what?

This film did not look low budget... it looked of its time period.

reply

In that time period they didn't put a super close up on Christian Bale WHILE he is hurrying to catch Johhny Depp!

If they wanted it to be like in the time period, they would have made the camera angles singular like in a play. have every scene with shot from the fourth wall, don't shoot from every possible angle (including behind people's back)

reply

AGREED THE CIEMATOGRAPHY WAS BAD, ALONG WITH THE STORY (WHICH IF DONE RIGHT COULD HAVE BEEN QUITE GOOD) AND EVERYTHING ELSE, ONE OF THE MOST BORING FILMS IVE EVER WATCHED VERY HARD TO SIT THROUGH, AND I REALLY LIKE DEPP. BUT THIS WAS CRAP. -5*

reply

I saw the movie in theaters. Hated the cinematography and filming! It ruined the movie for me.

reply

Yeah, I've got the DVD and let me tell you you're right
Those HD cameras suck, optical quiality sucks too. (it seeems more a cel phone camera).
And it sound like *beep* I'd bet it's live audio, they never did a proper re-recording mix.

There's a huge difference between shots in 35mm (if there's anyone) and HD, really huge!!!

reply

I also really disliked the cinematography here.
It was just a dull, mind-numbing visual experience.

reply