I mentioned in an earlier post that I really enjoyed
Public Enemies but I have found (since raving about it) that the vast majority of people who have seen it have not been impressed. It makes me a little sad. Not because they disagree with my opinion (I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that others don't share my views) but I find it very disappointing when I get really excited about a movie and share it with others, only to be shot down when they return from the film.
For instance, I was raving about
Public Enemies at work last week so this weekend one of my co-workers went to see it. The look on his face as he approached my desk today...no good.
I think the problem with raving about a movie is that you set others' expectations too high, causing them not to enjoy the film that you loved. Time and time again I get really excited about film and I leave the theatre thinking "meh." Now, I would like to say that I will be able to temper my reactions for the benefit of my co-workers, friends and family (plus anyone who's silly enough to read this self-serving blog). But I know that I won't. So maybe we'll just leave it at "take my positive reviews and opinions with a grain of salt."
Here's the thing about this movie in particular: while I understand that people might not care for the film, I have found their reasons for disliking the movie in many cases to be trivial and silly. For instance I heard one reviewer on the radio last week citing the way they shot the film (in this case in high definition and colour rather than, one would infer, black and white) made it inauthentic.
Inauthentic. Really?
The film takes place over the last year of Dillinger's life from 1933-34. If we remember our film history the first "talkie" (film with sound) wasn't released until 1927 and "talkies" were only just becoming popular in the 30's. If this reviewer is looking for something more authentic then he's really looking for a black and white film with crackling sound and old world movie stars. To say nothing of a script which minimizes the violence of the main characters and glosses over most of the relationships in favour of the plot line; since the medium at this point was still in its early evolutionary stages.
While we're at it can I just mention, that in real life there are no edits? Hope you like a 365 day film; Genius. Sorry that was a little catty. Okay, that was a lot catty.
Please don't misunderstand my intentions in making the above point (i.e. I love black and white films and there's quite a lot to be learned from them). I simply believe that you can come at familiar subject matter without having to always employ the same conventions of filmmaking (black and white film for the past, fuzzed out edges during dream sequences, smooth and ethereal images during a daydream etc.).
I think that in this case (as with Star Trek, though
as I've mentioned I wasn't a fan of the technique) the filmmaker has made a deliberate choice with regards to the style of the film. The idea was to make us understand just how charismatic this man must have been and just how dangerous he and his associates were. By making the images and sound as clear as possible and recreating in detail the various areas of their world, Mann (Michael, Director) is able to suck the audience into the 30's and allowing us to experience the whirlwind journey with the characters.
Certainly it is not a perfect film but I have to say there were quite a few more great moments than bad ones (for me anyway). If you're expecting the untouchables, don't be. But the movie is a solid entry in the "g-man" movie hall of fame.
-Sio
I saw this poster and the only thing I could think of was: how on earth it Ewan McGregor going to pretend to be in love with that?!
