Escape to the Movies: Public Enemies

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

slopeslider:

13lackfriday:

Frank_Sinatra_:

xmetatr0nx:
than untouchables and the better guns are the MP40 and the sturmgewehr 44...

Minus the fact that the Thompson is a icon of the mafia, and criminal weapons during the Great Depression?
See guys this is where I get my suit ideas, soon I'll be buying a Thompson for it.

You got taste.

If, ever, I amass a respectable fortune, the very first purchase I will ever make will be of an authentic, period-1940s M1A1 Thompson submachine gun to mount over my fireplace.
Drum magazine or clip, whichever.

I hate to be 'THAT NERD GUY' , but a clip Is a metal, well... Clip that holds a few exposed rounds ( used primarily in older rifles like the m1 Garand). A box magazine (magazine, mag) Is the rectangular thing most every modern gun uses save bolt-action and belt fed guns.
Hehe on my local Airsoft Organization site some would crucify you for this mistake, but this Ain't a gun site.

If I had to hang a gun up it'd be an H&K Mp7A1.

Thanks for the clarification...
My knowledge of guns consists entirely of what you get out of the average FPS, some WW2 books, and History channel specials.
And you're not "that nerd guy"...you're "that gun nut"...which is a huge improvement because it makes you sound threatening.

Oh that thing?
I've never really seen it in use, aside from it being the staple of the Half-life 2 armory.

I wonder which movie MovieBob was watching, cause I went to see Public Enemies yesterday, and it is the only movie EVER, that I have seen in the cinema, where I have felt that I would not miss a thing if I fell asleep. It was incredibly boring. The acting was good, but the movie was bad. Not worth my money, and I'd give it about one or two out of five stars.

i always like those mobster movies whoe take place around 1950. thumbs up!

Christ moviebob, you know a lot of people LIKED Star Trek, T4, Wolverine and Transformers.
I see it similar to how you said Miyamoto with his "3rd way" idea is to help keep fresh bloodin the Video game market. What was once considered pop culture or cult classic are now being more accessible to the Mainstream audience. This is a GOOD thing. Without fresh blood with new ideas, the franchises become boring and repetitive.
As Kirk said to Scotty (ST3) "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant."

I may go se this in my week off now, thanks bob

patch5129:
Christ moviebob, you know a lot of people LIKED Star Trek, T4, Wolverine and Transformers.
I see it similar to how you said Miyamoto with his "3rd way" idea is to help keep fresh bloodin the Video game market. What was once considered pop culture or cult classic are now being more accessible to the Mainstream audience. This is a GOOD thing. Without fresh blood with new ideas, the franchises become boring and repetitive.
As Kirk said to Scotty (ST3) "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant."

It's not making it accesible to new fans that he's saying, its the bad filmaking people have gotten used to and have accepted as normal. It's letting directors and writers off the hook by justifying every negative in an action movie by saying 'It's an action movie, what do you expect?' and 'It's just giving people what they want!'. We all know of great action movies that dont rely Solely on 'xplosions and slow motion to entertain, yet we just let every action movie off the hook by some low artificial standard the movie industry has forced on us. Why shouldn't they put a little thought into plot loopholes, timelines, 2d and 3d characters, emotions, etc? Obviously they cant rely on them but the inclusion will help slowly raise people's standards in movies, moving them from sheep to an intelligent force producers must reckon with before making yet another 'Tough guy ecorts some weakling' movie. Why shouldn't they put a little more effort into 300 MIL blockbusters other than deciding which tough guy to hire and how much money to throw at CGI Studios?

Im just kinda tired of these movies, my brother is always Renting the newest ones from Redbox, I could've watched many, yet I usually just retire to my Game system right next to the tv he's watching. They just dont motivate me anymore.

(I did like Taken, if he rents that I'll watch with him)

[/rambling]
Oh well. No hard feelings to any of you here, I just needed to get that off my chest.

Give me the Al Capone and John Dillinger gangsters over these modern ghetto thugs any day. Sure they were just as greedy and violent back then but they still had that sense of class and charm too.

erikvduyn:
Now this one, I liked. Gone is the excessive swearing and shouting. Gone is everything bad basically, except the audio quality that's still less than perfect.
And is it just me or did parts of the video get displayed incredibly short?

Well the thing is with MovieBob is that he's a fanboy, not that there's anything wrong with that I'm a fanboy myself of a great many things, and when you give said fanboy's like myself and Bob something that destroys something we loved like Transformers we tend to go over board, that being said a fair bit a his reviews seem to be in satire much like a Yahtzee for movies, now we can all tell that Bob knows what he's talking about when he does reviews like this one, up, and a lot of his earlier stuff on Youtube.
Ohh this looks like fun,

Chipperz:
You know something? I stopped watching the second I knew this was going to be another Transformers fanboy bitchfest. Get the fuck over it!

Now if you had bothered watching more than two seconds instead instead of overreacting (ah irony at its finest) you would have realized that this wasn't a review like his Transformers one, this review was more smart than his rant that he does a fair bit, one last thing tell me what he said that was wrong in his Transformers review? Don't reply right away watch it again and write down a few points then reply to me.

what was I gonna say?.. Oh yeah, this looks like a great movie I was gonna see it anyway, good review Bob.

I have to disagree with Bob on this one. The decision to shoot on digital was a bad one. It works on certain shots, the scene being light by a flare comes to mind. It would have been virtually impossible to shoot that scene with merely a flare if it was shot on film. But for other, more intimate scenes, the high frame rate and the hand held camera work make the film look like an amateur movie. Early in the scene in which Dillinger first meets his girl, he speaks to one of his cohorts, the color temperature changes from shot to shot despite it being played as the same light source. I can't help but think that Public Enemies would have looked better with at least a steady cam and shot at 48fps (or as close to it as the camera could get to).

The sound levels were all over the place too. Admittedly this could have been a problem from the theater I went to (rather likely seeing as how there was a small piece of trash on the gate of the projector through the entire thing). Voices would go up and down mid sentence. One scene had a clearly audible air conditioner running in the background.

It could have been that I was too distracted by these admittedly forgettable mistakes to really enjoy the movie. But the nail that seals the Public Enemies' coffin was that I didn't care about any of the characters. I didn't care for Dillinger who seemed to force himself onto Billie it what can only be described as 'rape' with out the sex. I did not care for Christian Bale's character whose name I didn't even bother to remember because he was such a small player in the movie. The only fun I had were the scenes in which Dillinger temps fate by walking into the office of the very police force that is chasing him and asks for the score of the baseball game.

This movie doesn't look like there is much more there besides the few gun scenes shown in the preview. Of course I am going to see it, but I don't think its gonna be wow or anything. And the fact that you hated on Revenge of the Fallen and Star Trek, the two best movies of the year while praising Evil Dead Drag Me to Hell is quite hilarious.

jabrwock:

carnkhan4:
what is it that attracts film-makers to this sub-genre ever since it first emerged in the '40's?

It's the "bad ass but still classy bad guy" type thing. 1930's gangsters were high-profile playboys, businessmen, they enjoyed fine art, built mansions, and generally acted like they were high society. Unlike most other robbers that blow it all on booze and drugs and burn out, these guys lived the high life. I mean, imagine being robbed by a guy in a suit and tie, who tips his hat to the women on the way out?

Yes and no.

The appeal of American gangster on film is very complex, and goes far beyond the (mostly imagined) high-class Robin Hood complex.

Gangster movies are largely movies about the American dream.
Gangster movies are traditionally about poor men who become rich through hard work (even if it's illegitimate wealth). These characters are usually oppressed outsiders, often immigrants, who do all they can to rise to the top. This dynamic appeals to Americans, who are often raised on the idea that through hard work they can achieve anything, yet find that in real life it's a much more tricky prospect. Gangsters are fantasy figures that make it big on their own merits.

Gangsters are figures who are in a unique place to comment on society.
As figures outside the mainstream, meaning people who cheat the system instead of playing along, gangsters can comment on the cracks in society. The Godfather is about generational gaps, redefining family and the changing place of immigrants in the '70s. Scarface commented on the excess of the 1980s. The Departed mirrors the feelings of guilt and distrust America has gone through after 9/11 and the war in Iraq. (Think about it--wiretapping, informants, secret agents, unfeeling government handlers, etc.) However, at the end of this critique of society, most gangster films can end with cultural norms reasserting themselves by the gangster either dying or losing what's important to him. Thus the gangster is a character who can critique the failures of the system but still reassert its importance in the end with the message that fighting society isn't a good idea.

Gangster films are a valve for venting frustration.
There's a reason that many of the eras I mentioned in the last section were periods of dissatisfaction and uncertainty. The '40s, '50s and '90's weren't great times for gangster movies (movies with gangsters as the protagonists) but the '60s, '70s, '80s and this decade have seen gangster-driven movies flourish. Organized crime figures are inherently populist characters fighting the system, the "little man" who's refusing to get ground down, and has the bravery to stand up and live like a person rather than a part of a machine. The inherent hypocrisy of this, that the ordinary man is most often the victim of organized crime, is usually sidestepped by filmmakers in favor of striking blows against perceived symbols of establishment corruption like money-laden banks, crooked politicians, dirty cops and less savory criminals such as drug dealers and pimps. These films especially flourish during bad economic times, since the average viewer can vicariously live out the fantasy of walking into a bank and taking all the money he wants rather than worrying about layoffs, shortened budgets and unpaid bills. There's a reason gangsters became popular heroes during the depression, and with the economy like it is, I'm sure moviegoers will get a deep satisfaction from watching Dillinger clean out the vaults. If Public Enemies is a success, watch for more anti-bank gangster films. There's already a strain of this in Hollywood-- look at The International and Drag Me To Hell.

I'm going to stop here, but I've only scratched the surface on the place of the gangster in the American psyche. Part of it comes from being a young nation who doesn't have many age-old folk heroes like Europe, so we tend to "kidnap" historical figures like David Crockett, Wild Bill Hickock and even less savory characters like Al Capone, and elevate them to folk-hero status as representatives of American virtue and vice.

Even so, the perception of criminals as anti-establishment heroes goes way, way back and is by no means an American invention. During hanging days in 18th century London, well-wishers filled the streets, throwing flowers to the condemned and buying them drinks, and the reasons they did that were the same ones listed above.

On another note, good job MovieBob, liked this one much more.

One hell of a reveiw.

I completely agreed with everything this guy said about this movie! I really enjoyed it, go watch it

You know Bob, you're a strange one.

For the most part, I think we have a very very similar taste in films. You can talk about a movie the same way I would to my family and friends, and can appreciate a film for more then the FX and headlining actors and actresses that seem to sell more of the tickets then the actual film itself.

But then you have an unbridled hate for other movies that I simply label as 'kick back' flicks where you just watch to see shit blow up, regardless of acting ability, story, or cliche.

I suppose we all have our certain 'twitches' for films that guarantee our love or hate of a movie (or series) based on one simple fact, actor, or director (For me, it's Ben Affleck. I refuse to watch anything with him in it). So here is a decent review and recommendation for a movie that I've been looking forward to, not too long after you utterly smash a movie I was also looking forward to as one of those 'kick back' flicks (And I still, politely, disagree).

So you're weird. That's just the way it is.

Also: Get a new mic, man! And stop recording in the bathroom! Throw some blankets on the wall or something and get a better mic! Put down the eighth-inch jack mic and go get a nice XLR mic with a little mixer board, or a USB mic! The sound quality drives me crazy!

Just watched it, and it is very good. Some of the dialogue was very quiet and at one piont I didnt recognise half the characters but the shoot outs are frigging awesome and Depp and Bale are well cast.

Well... I'm curious. I was before, but now that I've heard someone's opinion, I'm moreso now. I might be seeing a movie with a friend tonight, and she wanted to drag me to Drag Me To Hell, but I'm assuming that it's not in theaters anymore... correct me if I'm wrong, please.

But I might convince her to see this.

patch5129:
This is a GOOD thing. Without fresh blood with new ideas, the franchises become boring and repetitive.
As Kirk said to Scotty (ST3) "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant."

I'd rather see young minds working with FRESH IDEAS and new franchises, instead of recycling old, beloved franchises. We should not have to tolerate crap, if Bob thinks the movies sucked then so be it, doesn't mean you have to agree with him. But from what I've seen I can testify that two of them really did suck (I fell asleep during Star Trek, wish I had fallen asleep during Transformers)

And just to make sure I'm understood here, I am REALLY REALLY HAPPY about MovieBob fridays - finally, someone to try and fill the void left by Ebert/Roeper/Phillips. MovieBob isn't of their caliber (yet) but he's much much closer than the Bens... I'd like to see Movie Bob and Ben Lyons in a fist fight, or anyone vs. Ben Lyons honestly.

IMO, this movie totally blew. No, the shots aren't "interesting" or "innovative"; the movie looked like a shot-for-history-channel-reenactment-PBS-special. It was horrible. And they could have condensed the first hour of the film into 5-10 minutes. My advice: wait until it comes out on dvd and rent it first or just skip it.

ZeroMachine:
Well... I'm curious. I was before, but now that I've heard someone's opinion, I'm moreso now. I might be seeing a movie with a friend tonight, and she wanted to drag me to Drag Me To Hell, but I'm assuming that it's not in theaters anymore... correct me if I'm wrong, please.

But I might convince her to see this.

Drag Me To Hell is still in theaters, I think, but it wasn't that great. Neither was this movie, though. Go see Up.

Scourch:
I have to disagree with Bob on this one. The decision to shoot on digital was a bad one. It works on certain shots, the scene being light by a flare comes to mind. It would have been virtually impossible to shoot that scene with merely a flare if it was shot on film. But for other, more intimate scenes, the high frame rate and the hand held camera work make the film look like an amateur movie. Early in the scene in which Dillinger first meets his girl, he speaks to one of his cohorts, the color temperature changes from shot to shot despite it being played as the same light source. I can't help but think that Public Enemies would have looked better with at least a steady cam and shot at 48fps (or as close to it as the camera could get to).

The sound levels were all over the place too. Admittedly this could have been a problem from the theater I went to (rather likely seeing as how there was a small piece of trash on the gate of the projector through the entire thing). Voices would go up and down mid sentence. One scene had a clearly audible air conditioner running in the background.

It could have been that I was too distracted by these admittedly forgettable mistakes to really enjoy the movie. But the nail that seals the Public Enemies' coffin was that I didn't care about any of the characters. I didn't care for Dillinger who seemed to force himself onto Billie it what can only be described as 'rape' with out the sex. I did not care for Christian Bale's character whose name I didn't even bother to remember because he was such a small player in the movie. The only fun I had were the scenes in which Dillinger temps fate by walking into the office of the very police force that is chasing him and asks for the score of the baseball game.

This times ten. I couldn't agree more. My biggest gripe is the hand-held camera shots. Half the time I had to look away because the camera was so shaky. My second gripe is the audio quality. As stated above, it did jump up and down in quality mid-sentence.

The pacing in the movie was abysmal as well. I know you can't drag it out, but god damn, the time it took for Billie to get in bed with John was ridiculous. I just didn't care enough for any of the characters aside from Dilinger's partner in crime, whose name escapes me right now. The one that told him to let go. I'm definitely letting go of this movie, thats for sure.

Also...the part where he walks into the police station was just dumb. I know what they were trying to get at, and I don't know if he really did it or not, but it was just so silly.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I think Moviebob's standards were just dropped so dangerously low that the next movie that was at least somewhat decent would be amazing in his eyes.

Chipperz:
You know something? I stopped watching the second I knew this was going to be another Transformers fanboy bitchfest. Get the fuck over it!

You probably SHOULD have watched the review so you didn't make such an ignorant statement. He mentions it maybe twice in the review and it serves the purpose of tieing together good ideas and bad ideas. It is a legitimate review strategy used by most critics.

xmetatr0nx:
Ugh i got sucked into another movie bob review...

Ok no this wasnt better, even slightly, than untouchables and the better guns are the MP40 and the sturmgewehr 44, sadly they arent ever put on film because of their unpleasant backgrounds.

He didn't say better gun, he said iconic. And yes, the Thompson is iconic with gangsters. The MP-40 wasn't in production until after this film is set (And the 44 even later again.) And it's a gun of German manufacture, so therefore there is no reason for it to be in an American gangster film. There lack of being present in a film like this has nothing to do with the fact that they where designed by the Nazi's. Your inane statement is ridiculous and I'm sorry but when I read it I had to rebut it.

Back on topic; excited to see this movie now. Thanks for the heads up moviebob you never lead me astray.

Im just sad I live in Aus and we STILL haven't got "UP" playing in cinemas down here :'(

So it seems several are complaining about the hand held versus this or that and other things. The thing that I think some people don't get with this movie is that they go into it with this what I call after being in a film class a modernized Hollywood technique. People go into the movie thinking "Oh yes, this movie is going to be like tons of high quality shots, graphics,etc". WRONG my friend.

This movie it was obvious that Hollywood took a good turn (in my opinion) to take it towards the documentary type perspective. I saw some complaints on this but it was done this way intentionally. It's not an ACTUAL full fledged gangster movie like some think. John Dillinger wasn't actually a gangster. If you are thinking gangster like Mafia hit men and the capos, you're wrong. Dillinger was a bank robber. Bank robber and Gangster are two entirely different things. Yes, they both occurred in the 40s, yes there were subtle small flaws to this movie. What movie doesn't have a goof or a flaw or something in it?

I personally loved this movie because it brought back the old Hollywood cinematic feeling. Dark shots, very little special effects...

I gotta agree with Vid20 too, the gun has nothing to do with the Nazi's. Sure the war was going on but so was the depression, so was the Mafia, so was bank robbers. The 40s doesn't just include a World War.

Dillinger was not by any means whatsoever a great guy. His friends, and lover was the only thing he cared for. However he did respect the people because they respected him. Another thing that some of you aren't seeing is that in the 40s a lot of Mafia/Capos/even bank robbers had women literally throwing themselves at them. It wasn't just the women, and if you know the story of Dillinger then you know he literally had the public on his side hiding him.

Further more when he was killed in real life, people were rioting in the streets over it, and trying to get as close to the action as they could. Bank robbers in the 40s though they were hated by the Feds/Cops, a lot of people respected them because they ran the towns. They brought in stores, tourists, etc.

As I said, if you don't like anything but overly done special effects in a movie then sure you'll hate this movie. Don't waste your time. However if you know the story of Dillinger, like old Hollywood style movies, you should check it out. I'm not guaranteeing you'll like it but I personally think Johnny and Marione did amazing jobs. Personal opinion.. I could go on and on about the movie actually and still not spoil the movie.

Damn don't know why I watched it..

Not that there's anything wrong with 'Movie Bob', I just don't like the idea of reading film reviews. I prefer to know very little about a film before I watch it otherwise I wont enjoy it.

this movie looks awsome-i cant wait to watch it - hope its as awsome as it looks in the previews

Typically, I HATE shaky-cam for the most part. But Michael Mann knows how to use it sparringly and in this case it's a good "shorthand" way to give us a sense that we're in the "present of the past" rather than watching a flipbook of old photos like most movies set in this era.

Kikosemmek:

What was good about the movie:

Production - I felt like I was in the 1930's. Thoroughly appreciated the care that went into the costumes, accents, detail and setting.

Sound Design - I've never heard guns sound so good in a movie before. The shootout in the forest sounded like it was happening two rows down from my seat.

Dialogue - The characters, especially Johnny Depp's, were clever and sharp in speech. They all did a great job with their accents, which beefed up and romanticized everything they said. The court scene with Dillinger's Lawyer had a great monologue.

---

Conclusion: crap. Avoid this movie.

Uh...on that alone it's a good movie. If there's anything else it already beats half of this year's turkeys.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Kikosemmek:

What was good about the movie:

Production - I felt like I was in the 1930's. Thoroughly appreciated the care that went into the costumes, accents, detail and setting.

Sound Design - I've never heard guns sound so good in a movie before. The shootout in the forest sounded like it was happening two rows down from my seat.

Dialogue - The characters, especially Johnny Depp's, were clever and sharp in speech. They all did a great job with their accents, which beefed up and romanticized everything they said. The court scene with Dillinger's Lawyer had a great monologue.

---

Conclusion: crap. Avoid this movie.

Uh...on that alone it's a good movie. If there's anything else it already beats half of this year's turkeys.

i love sarcasm. :]

I didn't hate it, and I didn't love it. If I had to give the thing a rating I'd say 2/5. It feels too fast paced at times and hard to tell who's who at some points in the film. Another thing about it that bugged me is that everything object around them seemed to be too shiny despite it being set during The Great Depression.

I thought this movie was not that good. I was annoyed that the camera shots would switch from being slightly grainy to pristine in the same scene. Good choices for sites to film on, but I saw credit card stickers on some of the store fronts. All in all, I think it is just a generic action film.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Uh...on that alone it's a good movie. If there's anything else it already beats half of this year's turkeys.

That it is better than other movies doesn't make it good to watch, in my opinion. If there simply aren't that many good films around right now, a better thing to do would be to not go to the movies.

The situation isn't that dire, though. Up, Drag Me to Hell and The Hangover are great movies to watch, and coming out soon are District 9, Funny People, 9, and Inglorious Basterds, all of which are exciting prospects to me.

atv_chic_18:
So it seems several are complaining about the hand held versus this or that and other things. The thing that I think some people don't get with this movie is that they go into it with this what I call after being in a film class a modernized Hollywood technique. People go into the movie thinking "Oh yes, this movie is going to be like tons of high quality shots, graphics,etc". WRONG my friend.

While I am one of those people who complained about the hand-held technique, I think you misunderstood my position.

My criticism is that the hand-held camera did not allow me to see the faces of the characters engaging in dialogue for the first half of the movie, nor let me appreciate the action sequences. On top of all of that, my eyes eventually started hurting as I tried to keep up with the constantly shifting vantage point. It's one thing to put style and originality in your shots. It's another thing to make your movie literally unwatchable. Half-way through the movie, I still couldn't recognize the main characters when I saw them, because I was denied the formative early period of associating actor with character, and face with voice.

To give you a point of contrast, I adored Cloverfield. Unlike most people who, like I do now, complained about the hand-held shots, I thought they made the movie. The cinematographer kept the unpolished and amateur feel of a home documentary while still letting me see what was going on and who was saying what. I didn't miss one detail, and I thought it was fantastic.

What I'm criticizing isn't the technique, namely, it's the execution thereof. Public Enemies simply didn't pull it off.

This is a much better review then the last one. He is calm, controlled, and *gasp* intelligent in this one.
As has been said before the sound quality still needs work and some images and text go by so quick that you have to rewind, but otherwise it is good and if I hadn't already seen the movie I would go see it.

This review is good and the movie itself is great. I loved it.

Kikosemmek:

The_root_of_all_evil:

Uh...on that alone it's a good movie. If there's anything else it already beats half of this year's turkeys.

That it is better than other movies doesn't make it good to watch, in my opinion. If there simply aren't that many good films around right now, a better thing to do would be to not go to the movies.

The situation isn't that dire, though. Up, Drag Me to Hell and The Hangover are great movies to watch, and coming out soon are District 9, Funny People, 9, and Inglorious Basterds, all of which are exciting prospects to me.

Well, I'd agree with you about 9

no personal opinions on the movie but it's good to see that moviebob has been reading his comments, and cutting down on the fanrage accordingly

I saw the premier. 2 days before it came out brotha!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here