SUSkinsFan Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I searched and didn't see a thread on this movie. I saw it last week and though the movie itself was really good and Johnny Depp and Christian Bale game outstanding performances. But I don't understand why Michael Mann shot the movie the way he did. In the scene where Dillinger and his gang are in the shootout with Purvis and the FBI felt like I was watching a re-enactment scene shot for The History Channel. I just felt cheaply done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boysetsfire Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I searched and didn't see a thread on this movie.I saw it last week and though the movie itself was really good and Johnny Depp and Christian Bale game outstanding performances. But I don't understand why Michael Mann shot the movie the way he did. In the scene where Dillinger and his gang are in the shootout with Purvis and the FBI felt like I was watching a re-enactment scene shot for The History Channel. I just felt cheaply done. Really? I loved the way the movie was shot. It was perfect for the time period and genre they were portraying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Saw it this weekend. Excellent movie. The camera work/style took a bit to adjust to, but I liked it by the end - it actually had a documentary/very realistic feel to it which I liked. The sound for the gun shots, etc was amazing and the acting was excellent. Johnny Depp really does become the character in his movies. Oh, and Christian Bale....mmmmmmm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 People say its like the untouchables but reversed, is that true? I'd like to go see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I heard it wasn't really good so I was just planning on waiting on watching it until it was out on DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARLORD1863 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I wanted to really like this movie. I was so looking forward to it. But I couldn't stand Michael Mann's camera work. The hand-held camera work was awful. There was nothing artistic about a shakey picture when a 5 year old could hold the camera much more steady than the guy they apparently had working on the film. I liked the attempt to make it seem like you were there in the room... but it failed. The HD cameras also created a blur whenever there was a lot of motion. The picture was beautiful when everything was relatively still, but once someone turned his head or made a sudden move it left a disgusting blur in the movement's wake. Finally, I judge a close-up shot to be a head that fills up about 50% of the screen. Using that definition, 80% of the movie was nothing but close-ups. BACK THE CAMERA UP. Mann is known for this camera work, especially in the movie Heat... but that doesn't make it less irritating. All of these piss poor directorial decisions gave me a headache and ruined (needlessly) what could have been an excellent film. Never before have I ever felt so negatively about a film over technical stuff like camera work, but it really was that bad. On a smaller note, the movie was not at all accurate. I know I know... it's a big hollywood movie and historical films are never completely accurate. The reason I bring this up is because I saw the HBO featurette about the making of the movie. In it, Michael Mann talked about the importance of authenticity and historical accuracy. Filming at the jail cell Dillinger really stayed in... filming in Little Bohemia where the big shoot-out actually occurred... I thought this was going to be really close to historical fact (or as close as hollywood can get). After seeing the movie it was obvious that Mann chose to go a much different route than he claimed. Little things don't matter to me, it's big events that need to be gotten right. Let me explain a little: ----SPOILERS---- Baby Face Nelson died months AFTER Dillinger, not during the Little Bohemia shootout. In fact, none of the gangsters got killed at Little Bohemia. It was seen as a HUGE FBI failure that would have cost Purvis his job if not for the fact that Baby Face Nelson actually did kill that FBI agent and take his car. The anger towards Nelson allowed Purvis to keep his job, despite the enormous failure. Nelson also went down in a gunfight a bit more badass than was portrayed in the film. Purvis didn't killed Pretty Boy Flloyd. Another agent executed him under Purvis' orders to finish the job. The agent who really killed Flloyd was gunned down by Baby Face Nelson during his last stand in Illinois, again, months after Dillinger's death. Although he was in the field, Purvis was really more of an administrator of men, much like how J. Edgar Hoover was portrayed in the film. Again, historical inaccuracies in the film were quite glaring but it didn't make the movie less enjoyable. Even with the inaccuracies this could have been a very excellent film... if it wasn't for Mann's camera work that distracted me from the story consistently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAARedskin Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I saw this movie a few nights ago and while this is a good movie, it disappointed me. I expected to be wowed, and I wasn't. Good movie yes.......but not a great movie. "The Untouchables" with Kevin Costner, Robert Deniro, and Sean Connery was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gracelander Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I saw this movie on Friday and I was very disappointed. I can't put my finger on it, but I was expecting more, but I felt a little bored at times. I did see the proposal (with the wife) and I enjoyed seeing Sandra Bullock 97% naked alot more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buenosdiaz Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 just came back for this...not bad...not a waste of time lol felt a little long...but good story...what you would expect from the genre and the girl was hot so thats always a plus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDSKINZ-RIDEORDIE Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I just got from seeing this movie as well. Im kind of stuck in the middle. Wasnt bad but wasnt great neither. I liked a lot about this film. It did seem a long. I shouldve went earlier in the day, maybe it wouldnt had felt that long. And is it me or did it seem like the gun shots were loud as hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhouse Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I will sound like a 14 year old girl saying this but....Johnny Depp is awesome! I did get a sense of disappointment when I left the movie theater after watching it but it was still a very good movie. Maybe it's because I overhyped the movie in my head a lot more. I can't really judge camera work since I have no clue about that subject but I thought it looked good. Much better than when he tried that **** in Miami Vice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I would compare this movie to American Gangster, bunch of great actors but it just never seem to fit. Alot of stuff going on but at the end you sort of feel empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big#44 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I would compare this movie to American Gangster, bunch of great actors but it just never seem to fit. Alot of stuff going on but at the end you sort of feel empty. thats how i feel too. i still liked it though. one thing that i noticed is that you never know who you are supposed to root for. at points the movie sets up like dillinger is the side your supposed to be rooting for but on the other hand hes a bank robber. then i felt like i was supposed to root for purvis and the cops because they are traditionally the "good guys". after billie's "interrogation" scene you kind of despise the cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 People say its like the untouchables but reversed, is that true? I'd like to go see it The untouchables movie was not nearly as good as this movie. The untouchables follows Elliotness's pursuit of Al Capone ending in 1931. Ness worked in the Treasury department organization which would become the FBI. This movie follows Melvin Purvis's career. The agent who replaced ness in 1932. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I would compare this movie to American Gangster, bunch of great actors but it just never seem to fit. Alot of stuff going on but at the end you sort of feel empty. The reality of it is though that they changed the facts to try to simplify what really happenning. In the movie they changed the order of the folks Pervis captured/killed in order to avoid discussing the confrontation between Hoover and Purvis which defined the entire anti crime effort of the 1930's. This is one of those strange stories where reality actually makes for a more involved and significantly more interesting tail than fiction. Purvis got all the glory for Dillinger(July 22, 1934) and Hoover resented it. Hoover had intended for the Bureau and himself to get the praise. To Hoover's annoyance, Purvis then had the gall to then track down Pretty Boy Floyd and kill him(October 22, 1934). This time, the pictures had Hoover and Purvis, but Purvis was not forgiven. Hoover was very tired of seeing headlines about Melvin Purvis in bold type. Purvis didn't seem to get the message and set his sights on Baby Face Nelson(November 27, 1934). As the agents closed in on Nelson, a gun fight erupted which ended in the death of agents Sam Cowley and Herman Hollis. Purvis vowed he would get Nelson and he had: Nelson died shortly after the gun fight from wounds he sustained from the agents. Hoover was very jealous of publicity. He never forgave Purvis for hogging all the glory for the gangster killings. Eventually Purvis was harassed until he resigned from the Bureau. Then after Pervis was gone, Hoover went on a one man public relations campagne and personally arrested the highest profile criminals himself to secure his own public relations pre-eminance. The face of the FBI. Alvin Karpis the third famous bankrobber and Public Enemy #1 after John Dillinger was killed, was arrested by J Edgar Hoover who flew in to New Orleans just to make the arrest in 1936. After other FBI agents captured Karpis, Hoover stepped out of his car and officially made the arrest. The following week Hoover went to Tolido Ohio and arrested Harry Campbell, another Karpis-Barker gang member. Harry Brunette(bank robber), Louis "Lepke" Buchalter ( of murder inc. ) were also guys who Hoover personally arrested to solidified his "experience" and reputation as American's #1 G-men... This of coarse is after Eliot Ness and Melvin Purvis were pushed out of the beuro to clear room for Hoover to replace them in the nation's imagination. I couldn't believe the Movie put Anna Sage who betrayed Dillinger in a white top with orange skirt. She's the famouse/ infamous "Woman in Red"..... She wore a red dress to stand out from the crowd so the FBI could spot Dillinger. The movie also didn't mention... (1) Anna was only paid half the reward money on Dillinger's head although she was promised the entire sum. (2) Anna was deported to Romania even though the FBI had agreed to let her stay in the US for her assistance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike21 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I'm about 3 quarters of the way through right now. This is some seriously boring ish minus a couple gun fight scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.