Public Enemies

[Caliane]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

I guess the story wasn't that bad, it was just very bland. There wasn't any effort made to really connect you to the time period. Cinderella Man, for example, really stuck you in the Great Depression. Public Enemies was set in the late 20s, early 30s but it could have been set anywhere at anytime. Also, for being about John Dillinger, they don't do hardly anything with it. It could have been about an entirely fictional bank robber and you wouldn't know the difference. His cohorts really, really, blended into the background. We get introduced to Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd but they aren't much better than super hero cameos in comic book films. Sure, we know the names, but who are they and what drives them? You just do not have any reason to care about anyone.

What I could not stand, and what gave me a headache, was the terrible blocking of the scenes, camera shaking, and hand-cam bullshit during action sequences. I don't want to see the close-up of someone's back shot on obviously lower quality film stock during a gun battle. Show me what is actually happening from a vantage point that isn't ass. And hold the fucking camera steady.

But we don't need to know more about Baby Face Nelson.
From what I understand he hates cows, and may be manic depressive.

[Vorph]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

The only problem with Collateral is that last twenty minutes or so. It was a great story up until Tom Cruise's character is trying to catch Jamie Lee Fox on foot. The really good dialogue all dries up and we get stuck in a slasher film chase for most of the finale. I wanted a conclusion based less on action.

Heat's still my favorite movie despite this, but I would've loved it (and Collateral) so much more if the bad guys had won. Collateral's ending almost ruined the movie for me, as it wasn't just Cruise losing but him turning into a complete fucking retard that made you wonder how he ever managed to make it past his first hit.

[Simas]

I ate a neg for saying Heat isnt classic. Citizen Kane is classic. Godfather is classic. 2001 is classic. Heat is not.

I enjoy Heat but lets be real.

[Ossoi]

Movie's don't have to be 30years old to be classics.

Heat is a classic.

[Simas]

Originally Posted by Ossoi

Movie's don't have to be 30years old to be classics.

Heat is a classic.

Granted. Pulp Fiction is classic. Heat still isnt. Its good but there wont be books about it, it wont be required viewing in any film classes, it wont be commonly mentioned 20 years from now, hell it isnt commonly mentioned now. Perhaps we have a different idea of classic.

[Vorph]

I would say that the shootout scene alone makes Heat a classic.

[Ossoi]

Originally Posted by Simas

Granted. Pulp Fiction is classic. Heat still isnt. Its good but there wont be books about it, it wont be required viewing in any film classes, it wont be commonly mentioned 20 years from now, hell it isnt commonly mentioned now. Perhaps we have a different idea of classic.

Wrong on all counts.

Amazon.com: Heat (BFI Modern Classics): Nick James: Books

From the "British Film Institute Modern Classics" series....

[Simas]

Same series has an Eyes Wide Shut book. Thats not classic either. Theres a few others I disagree with as well. And Brits dont count. I am surprised there is a book about it though. Next youll have to provide a film class syllabus with it on there.

If I were to make a list of the 20 best films (best, not my favorite) from 1990 on Heat wouldnt be on it. I dont think itd make it on my 50 best. Well have to agree to disagree.

[Ossoi]

Originally Posted by Simas

Same series has an Eyes Wide Shut book. Thats not classic either. Theres a few others I disagree with as well. And Brits dont count. I am surprised there is a book about it though. Next youll have to provide a film class syllabus with it on there.

If I were to make a list of the 20 best films (best, not my favorite) from 1990 on Heat wouldnt be on it. I dont think itd make it on my 50 best. Well have to agree to disagree.

Wait, so a film has to be required viewing on a film course to be a classic?

Retarded statement.

"Brits dont count"? - considering the author is a former editor of Sight and Sound (the film academic journal) I would argue his opinion is infinitely more valid than yours.

As for your 50 best films? Is this an argument about whether you like the film or whether it can be judged a classic.

[Kaige]

This argument is classic.

[Heylel Teomim]

Heat redefined the modern heist movie. Everything to follow owed it something. It's like how the Matrix redefined scifi.

Just because your opinion differs doesn't make you right. Heat is most definitely a modern classic.

[Bizanich]

This movie was not very good....at all. I was bored almost immediately after the jail break scene, and that's unreal in terms of attention span.

I can't put my finger on why I didn't like it. Dillinger's woman being boring? Maybe. Waste of Bale as Purvis? Possibly.

It was just a bad movie.

The shoot out scenes were fine and the tension building to the finale was excellent, but the rest....ugh.

It hurts me to say this due to Transformers glaring plotholes and a myriad of issues, but Public Enemies was worse then Transformers.

[Drave]

This movie should have been sooooooo much fucking better, DAMNIT.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The first 30 minutes of pointless scenes do an absolutely horrible job of introducing/developing/explaining Depp, his crew, and Bale's character.

Choppy, shaky camera work gives the audience no real chance to develop a solid identity of each character. There's plenty of them, but you're well into the movie before you get to grasp who's who.

Depp's character's dialogue feels weak; no planning for bank jobs, no real sincerity to his crew (it was there, but weak), or ruthless instinct (only a glimmer of what you see in the trailer).

I can honestly say I'm very disappointed in what could have... should have easily been a classic flick. All the pieces are there... probably left on the editing floor.

Bruce Willis' "Last Man Standing" was a better flick.

[homsar]

Originally Posted by Drave

This movie should have been sooooooo much fucking better, DAMNIT.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Bruce Willis' "Last Man Standing" was better flick.

Last man standing was amazing

[Grozmok]

I don't know why people were hating so hard on this movie. It only had two glaring flaws, for me: a) TERRIBLE camera work/cinematics... to put it in perspective, Bourne 2's camera work is 10x better than this film's. b) Bale's performance was, imo, terrible. It lacked any substance whatsoever. He showed no emotion at all, and honestly, if he had been wearing a cape, I would have sworn he was Bruce Wayne.

I was impressed mainly by the accuracy, the huge buildup of suspense, and Depp's performance. People are also hating on Depp, but I thought his acting was incredible; it was hard to tell it was even him acting.

The action scenes were done extremely well, but the camera fucking KILLS it. Not to get spoilerish, but 3/4 the way through the movie, there is a HUGE action scene which you pretty much can't tell what the fuck is going on, the camera is god awful. I felt like I was watching Cloverfield/REC/etc.

All in all? 7/10 is being generous. I thought this movie gave Depp a chance to really shine, as he's mostly in comedy/silly movies; it's nice to see him in a pure drama/action and perform incredibly well.