Apple has just posted the first trailer for the new film,
Public Enemies, which arrives in theaters on July 1. Click below for your first look at this new film which stars Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Marion Cotillard.
In the action-thriller
Public Enemies, acclaimed filmmaker Michael Mann directs Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Academy Award winner Marion Cotillard in the story of legendary Depression-era outlaw John Dillinger (Depp)-the charismatic bank robber whose lightning raids made him the number one target of J. Edgar Hoover's fledgling FBI and its top agent, Melvin Purvis (Bale), and a folk hero to much of the downtrodden public.
DVD News
1 Comments
68 Comments
I see your point, & with your profession would have to give you the debatable point. Your profession is photography, & mine is stunt work which I do frequently here in my homeland New Zealand. Who knows, we may have even bumped into each other on set of Wolverine down in Queenstown!
However, I based my comments on experience, & I have found that when we shoot our blocking tapes with hi def digital, we can go up to 8, 830 pm without assisted light, where as when we look at film footage they occassionaly get us on when doing behind the scenes stuff, we almost disappear into the darkness!. I guess I really meant light exposure. I have seen shot for shot film & hi def digital, & we rarely need half as much light than we need for film, it just seems the allowance for light exposure with digital is more forgiving. But you're the professional in photography, so I give you the benefit of the doubt.
To answer your questions on why directors like the man himself Spielberg (my personal fav with Cameron & Lucas) using or not using digital, I can only assume was rhetorical what with the plus' & minus' mentioned & concurred. I can also say that a huge decider is the cinematographer &/or the DoP, who onset can be real difficult to deal with when trying to get from them how they want action shot vs how the action director wants the action shot :)
Either way the points you raise are informative & a far cry from the "feel" you were pointing out in your original question, which I gave my opinion. Like I said, I can understand your grief, especially with your profession, it must be like comparing photos from an over the counter instamatic to a shot from a high end Canon!
To date, there was not a movie that I have seen that has come out in digital that in respect to the finished film, didnt help set the tone. Your mention of Apocolypto was a worthy note, & I have to say in the first 10 minutes I felt the same as you (especially with the practical effects when CG could easily have done the hunted/killed wild boar) but when it got to the scene of conversations in the village, I felt like I was watching live footage of a village because of the doco look, which in rich deluxe film would have given it a lush look, but would have always reminded me I was watching a film. in addition I guess that filming in the actual jungle could have been an arse to lug the heavier film cameras through the jungle :P
In closing, I have to say- I still believe a good movie is not based on the format it's shot in, & your original pointers clearly give the opinion that digital ruins a movie.
PS:If you've been here to do photo shoots on 30 Days of nights, any of the LOTR movies, Laundry Warrior (now named Warriors Way) then I really do need to insist we meet in person, cause I've worked on all of them. Working on one now called Seizure as head action choreographer, so if you're down here in the next 2 years to do some work on it, be sure to let me know.
And side note, I agree digital is worse than film, but the movies still gonna kick ass.
At any rate, I was meaning that you had no life, to sit there and time stamp it. It was joke... You know, "Haha" kinda deal. Get over it.
Age has nothing to do with anything, so that phases me not.
The reason why I dont post every single day like some of you is because I have a job traveling the world taking photographs for a living! I've been to 10 countries in the last 3 months, sorry if I cant fit my Movieweb postings into my schedule on a regular basis, its pretty easy if you are in high school. Besides, who wants to post when there is almost certainly an immature, wiseass comment from people like yourself right behind it?
And what is with this double-team bullshit with Shelley? What are you guys dating? Oh and Shelley the best part about you ripping on me is that I was most recently on the set of Wolverine (which is clearly your most anticipated movie of the year) taking pics while I was living in New Zealand, and the best part is that I am not even remotely making that up. I would have loved to talk about it with you had you not been such a bitch too.
The only reason why I time-stamped the moments that look like SHIT is because I thought it would be helpful for people who didn't know what to look for.....which took a whole 30 seconds to do! Wow. Way to show your age guys!
michael mann is also a great director.
Your HOBBY is to sit there, and write down points in a FUCKING TRAILER, where you thought it looked crappy? No... Dude, that's not a hobby... I freely admit to not having a life, and I have no problem with that. YOU however, have taken having no life to an ultimate high, my friend.
I really like how you n00bs come on here, and tell veterans like VIS, ComradeHenson, Rad, and myself that we should leave the site. As Shelley said, you have no reviews, no lists, and no comments. Why are YOU here, if all you're going to do is rip on movies, hmm? I'm official, dude, and I'm here to stay.
this summer looks great and is directed by michael mann who
directed heat.
But i don't think he does the smile too great..if you don't know what i mean search Dillinger on Wikipedia and you'll see a pic of him doing his signature grin to the side.
But other than that and the fact they didn't make this trailer as breath taking as the short one at the oscars(They forgot the song 2)...I LOVE THIS!
OH also..i dont really see BALE as purvis..although i'm not sure the pictures of pervis that i've seen are official.CAN'T WAIT!!!!!!!!
Digital does have going for it the fact that it is cheaper, like you said, and that it is faster to work with, but this is not a low budget film and for me getting through a movie shoot faster and more cost effectively doesn't make it a better movie.
To answer your question, the very first thing I look at when researching a movie is who is directing and what the story is about, I dont care if Johnny Depp and Christian Bale is in the film or not, although having good actors can make or break the film......period. Also, when you said that the quality of the movie is not based on the format...thats an opinion, not a fact. There is no question that certain films, like Cloverfield, had to be shot with a different type of look, in this case the Sony F23 provides the perfect digital home video camera look, while obviously allowing it to be blown up for the big screen, but that is because it NEEDED it. What's the point of having that look if you are doing a period film? What was the point of doing that on Apocalypto? If anything it's distracting. And if film is just for movies that "give a sense of escapism" (which I thought that was the point of all movies) is just sci-fi fantasy "like X-men and 300" then why did Brian Singer shoot Superman Returns digitally? Why did George Lucas shoot SW episode 2 & 3 digitally? And what is even more interesting is, if digital is so great why did Brian Singer return to film when Shooting Valkyrie after shooting Superman in Digital? Doesn't make sense man. Also, you didn't really seal your argument about the Red One because the only difference between that and most other digital cameras is that it is a disk-basing system as opposed to being shot on HD-Tape, it still has the flaws in depth and light of the other digital cameras. And I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just trying to get your point of view on what you are saying and why. I will agree with you on this though, digital is making progress and hopefully it wont be too long before you cant tell the difference anymore, but for now it looks like complete shit and shouldn't be wasted on movies with high-potential like this.
Basically it comes down to this in my opinion, Digital makes movies look more and more hyper-realistic, almost like a T.V. reality show, whereas film continues to bring a softer more "painting-like" look to the big screen.
Lastly, Vampire2000 last time I checked this was a movie website devoted to people who want to talk movies. I didn't know that we had to worry about douche-bags like yourself coming in and ripping on us for our hobbies. If you got a problem with it then I suggest you leave this site and leave your prick-ass comments to yourself you emo freak. Besides, I'm the one who needs to get a life? For fucks sake, have you seen your profile?
I can understand your POV, but I dont agree with it. Digital vs film has many plus' on it's side. It recieves light alot better than film, which is one of the reasons Mann went that road, with the amount of night shooting he was doing in both Collateral & Miami Vice. This is easily seen in the scene with Crockett & Tubbs driving down Miami with the POV on the hood looking through the windshield, in the bacground you can still make out clearly the iconic palms, & even night clouds. This amount of apperture is crucial in scenes like the end with the outdoor shhot out.
Another advantage is the reality it conveys. If you're a fan of movies like Quarrantine & Cloverfield, the attempt to have that "on the spot" filming is enhanced with this digital format because of the relation the audience can have with its fimiliar atmosphere.
Lastly, the production costs. 35mm film is extremely costly, with 60 seconds worth of shooting on 600feet of film...that's an entire film case. So bloopers & screw ups literally cost hundreds. Then the ability to edit on the go, instead of capturing & then colourgrading ONCE the film had been processed. That's time, therefore man hours, therefore cost.
The deluxe look that film gives is great for movies that give that sence of escapism, like Xmen or 300.
With cameras like Oakleys Red Camera, then it's just a matter of time when we can enjoy the best of both worlds when ever we want, but if you're gonna go watch a Michael Mann movie & expect 35mm film, I think you should expect to be let down. He seems to have made his choice. I think only a studio & particular producers would force him to use 35mm film again...but then, Mann got where he is doing what he wants, so let's leave him to it.
A good movie is about story telling, not the format it's filmed in...let me guess, you LOVE Blu Ray & have a full HD theatre at home? & you were looking forward to this movie because it starred Depp & Bale, & not because Mann was directing? If that's the case, I can understand your disappointment.