Chris Tobar , Jul 04, 2009; 05:46 a.m.
I just saw the movie "Public Enemies." The acting was good, and the plot was okay (I'm not really concerned right now with whether it was historically accurate).
But what really threw me was just how it was shot. There's something kinda "off" about it. It didn't look right. I won't give away anything from the movie. But the shootout scenes somehow just looked really fake...the lighting didn't look right, the camera bounced around a lot, and somehow it looked like the perspective was a little off too. I can't quite explain it, it just didn't look right. It really looks like it was shot using a handheld video camera. In the shootout scenes, I felt like I was watching an episode from a tv show like "Cops." It looked very amateurish.
I was actually really disappointed. It just didn't look or feel like a time period movie at all. I seriously felt like I was watching an episode of "Cops" or something on YouTube...except with everyone dressed in 1930's costumes. It just didn't look or feel right. There have been a lot of awesome time period movies made lately, but this one is just missing something.
Did anyone else get the same feeling? I'm trying to see what was different about it, and it just looked like how the movie was shot. It really looked more like video than a real movie. Maybe it's because I was kinda expecting a movie like "Road To Perdition" with a really authentic, epic feel to it. This one just seemed to fizz out. Not just the style, but even how it was shot. The shootout scenes reminded me of "Blair Witch Project" but without the creep factor. It just looks really amateurish.
Has anyone else seen the movie? And did you get the same feeling?
Karen F , Jul 04, 2009; 06:56 a.m.
The idea of a Johnny Depp / Christian Bale movie that 'didn't look right' and has 'something kinda "off" about it' seems highly implausible, if not impossible. please... say it isn't so!
Michael Raddatz 
, Jul 04, 2009; 07:10 a.m.
I'm getting your same impression already, just from the ad clips. For all the care Mann took in the authentic period prep, I'm seeing emphasis on his close action style, ... which seems to forgo the juicy atmospheric smoldering scene setting I was hoping for, and makes it look cheap and cartoony. Can't wait to see it.
Tom Aellis , Jul 04, 2009; 07:47 a.m.
Ditto to Michael, the trailers I've seen really looked "off" to me as well.
Chris Tobar , Jul 04, 2009; 08:00 a.m.
I saw the trailer in the theater when I was watching another movie and it looked pretty good at the time. That was what got me interested in the movie, and I was looking forward to it for a while. But I have to say a lot of the scenes just looked really crappy...it seriously looks like it was shot with a hand held camera. The framing was too tight, the camera bounced around too much and sometimes it looked as though the point of view was totally random and I wasn't sure what they were trying to convey to the audience. If they were trying to make it look "edgy" it did NOT work at all. The shootout scenes just looked like a home video, like something some kid would record with a handheld digital camera and post on YouTube :(
Just imagine "Cops," like the cameraman chasing after a cop to tape him while he runs after a suspect...except with everyone being dressed in 1930's clothes. And that basically sums it up.
Tim Holte 
, Jul 04, 2009; 08:46 a.m.
They filmed much of the movie here in Milwaukee and other parts of Wisconsin. They did use small digital cameras, often hand held according to people that watched them film. I have not seen the movie yet, even though it is playing at a theatre a few blocks from me.
William Livingston , Jul 04, 2009; 08:49 a.m.
if i recall correctly, this movie was shot in digital, not film. also, think handhelds were used. do this explain the look?
William Livingston , Jul 04, 2009; 09:01 a.m.
see movie review in todays ny times on line-front page
Chris Tobar , Jul 04, 2009; 09:27 a.m.
Well, I guess that's why then. I just looked it up on Google. The funny thing is, I kept thinking to myself I wonder if this was shot on digital?
There was just something really off and fake about it, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I've read a few reviews, and some people are saying that it looks like a home movie or a Discovery Channel re-enactment. That's exactly what it looked like to me! If you just want to see an action movie, then it's fine. But if you want to see an interesting time period movie...then forget it. I think you'll be disappointed :(
The bouncy camera and tight framing thing has been done for a long time, and way before digital cameras. But when you combine that with the digital...it just looks horrible. It looks like a home video or something you'd see on YouTube.
I don't know what that writer at the New York Times was thinking though. It sucked.
Charles Watkins , Jul 04, 2009; 09:28 a.m.
As a medium becomes easier and less challenging to employ, our moves to it's perfection grow weaker.
