I watched Public enemies just yesterday while trying to work.
I enjoyed this film for tow main reasons: Christian Bale and Johnny Depp. These are both very talented actors playing the good cop and the good bad guy respectively. This film however, was nothing Oscar-worthy.
I read some of the forums on this and people complained about the quality of the cinematography. I think what people don't understand is that the live quality of the filming was done to make the audience feel like they were in the story, as it becomes more realistic.
I have to admit, I was a little thrown by this when I started watching it because usually only some low-level indies use this type of filming. I think that this made the film stand out to me that the cinematographer would make a choice like that. It seems pretty daring.
Also, some people complained about the use of lighting, that often characters were covered in darkness or that the light was so bright the the camera was blinded. People honestly act as though it was a mistake that people didn't notice until too late. The use of lighting would be what I call 'artistic' and I think that people were expecting more conventional cinematography in this film because of its blockbuster status.
Both the lead characters, Melvin Purvis and John Dillinger, are made to look like heroes, even though they are enemies on opposite teams. Purvis is trying to capture and execute Dillinger, meanwhile both those characters seem like the only ones who put some value on life. They're likeable and endearing in the way they both deal with Dillinger's girlfriend, played by Marion Cotillard.
I guess the characters aren't really well fleshed out, but because of the action in this film, there isn't much time for it.
Overall, I would encourage people to watch this film, but it wasn't a spectacular unconventional movie.
I would give it a 6.5/10, mostly because the acting was good and the whole style was well done.
I enjoyed this film for tow main reasons: Christian Bale and Johnny Depp. These are both very talented actors playing the good cop and the good bad guy respectively. This film however, was nothing Oscar-worthy.
I read some of the forums on this and people complained about the quality of the cinematography. I think what people don't understand is that the live quality of the filming was done to make the audience feel like they were in the story, as it becomes more realistic.
I have to admit, I was a little thrown by this when I started watching it because usually only some low-level indies use this type of filming. I think that this made the film stand out to me that the cinematographer would make a choice like that. It seems pretty daring.
Also, some people complained about the use of lighting, that often characters were covered in darkness or that the light was so bright the the camera was blinded. People honestly act as though it was a mistake that people didn't notice until too late. The use of lighting would be what I call 'artistic' and I think that people were expecting more conventional cinematography in this film because of its blockbuster status.
Both the lead characters, Melvin Purvis and John Dillinger, are made to look like heroes, even though they are enemies on opposite teams. Purvis is trying to capture and execute Dillinger, meanwhile both those characters seem like the only ones who put some value on life. They're likeable and endearing in the way they both deal with Dillinger's girlfriend, played by Marion Cotillard.
I guess the characters aren't really well fleshed out, but because of the action in this film, there isn't much time for it.
Overall, I would encourage people to watch this film, but it wasn't a spectacular unconventional movie.
I would give it a 6.5/10, mostly because the acting was good and the whole style was well done.
Cool, I didn't know that the cinematography was like that! Sounds interesting.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny; the boy just watched it yesterday as well.