This is the best reason for going to the movies that I have seen in a long time. Very accurate period piece. The only drawback is a very corny concluding scene.
Quote from: CBStew on July 05, 2009, 05:52:09 PM
This is the best reason for going to the movies that I have seen in a long time. Very accurate period piece. The only drawback is a very corny concluding scene.
I thought the movie was pretty bad. It was boring. It was really difficult to tell characters apart, and Bale and Depp had very little range with their characters. Everyone played mean or narcissistic. Maybe I'm too young, and this is a good period piece as you say, but I did not enjoy it.
Quote from: Weebs on July 05, 2009, 10:58:37 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 05, 2009, 05:52:09 PM
This is the best reason for going to the movies that I have seen in a long time. Very accurate period piece. The only drawback is a very corny concluding scene.
I thought the movie was pretty bad. It was boring. It was really difficult to tell characters apart, and Bale and Depp had very little range with their characters. Everyone played mean or narcissistic. Maybe I'm too young, and this is a good period piece as you say, but I did not enjoy it.
I thought that the most interesting character was J. Edgar Hoover as played by Billy Cruddup. Too Bad that the part was relatively small. But you are right, the male characters generally were one dimensional, except that some of the secondary law enforcement thugs were given some personality. Marie Cotillard's (sp?) part had some depth.
Quote from: CBStew on July 06, 2009, 09:22:43 AM
Quote from: Weebs on July 05, 2009, 10:58:37 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 05, 2009, 05:52:09 PM
This is the best reason for going to the movies that I have seen in a long time. Very accurate period piece. The only drawback is a very corny concluding scene.
I thought the movie was pretty bad. It was boring. It was really difficult to tell characters apart, and Bale and Depp had very little range with their characters. Everyone played mean or narcissistic. Maybe I'm too young, and this is a good period piece as you say, but I did not enjoy it.
I thought that the most interesting character was J. Edgar Hoover as played by Billy Cruddup. Too Bad that the part was relatively small. But you are right, the male characters generally were one dimensional, except that some of the secondary law enforcement thugs were given some personality. Marie Cotillard's (sp?) part had some depth.
I agree, Crudup was the best one in there. My biggest problem is I just felt like nothing happened. It only took place through a very short period near the end of Dillinger's life, so all we learned was he was a narcissistic prick who (SPOILER ALERT) gets shot and killed, and Purvis was angry and seemed to have some sort of personal vendetta against Dillinger, apparently because some guys he barely worked with were killed. The bank robberies could have been a lot of fun, but there were all of 2 or 3, and they only lasted a couple minutes. Also, it's amazing how many guns were fired in that movie, just to have all but maybe 5 or 6 bullets miss their targets. I know it's a true story and they can't just kill random people, but then Mann shouldn't have filmed the movie like it was Miami Vice set in the 1930s.
Quote from: Weebs on July 06, 2009, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: CBStew on July 06, 2009, 09:22:43 AM
Quote from: Weebs on July 05, 2009, 10:58:37 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 05, 2009, 05:52:09 PM
This is the best reason for going to the movies that I have seen in a long time. Very accurate period piece. The only drawback is a very corny concluding scene.
I thought the movie was pretty bad. It was boring. It was really difficult to tell characters apart, and Bale and Depp had very little range with their characters. Everyone played mean or narcissistic. Maybe I'm too young, and this is a good period piece as you say, but I did not enjoy it.
I thought that the most interesting character was J. Edgar Hoover as played by Billy Cruddup. Too Bad that the part was relatively small. But you are right, the male characters generally were one dimensional, except that some of the secondary law enforcement thugs were given some personality. Marie Cotillard's (sp?) part had some depth.
I agree, Crudup was the best one in there. My biggest problem is I just felt like nothing happened. It only took place through a very short period near the end of Dillinger's life, so all we learned was he was a narcissistic prick who (SPOILER ALERT) gets shot and killed, and Purvis was angry and seemed to have some sort of personal vendetta against Dillinger, apparently because some guys he barely worked with were killed. The bank robberies could have been a lot of fun, but there were all of 2 or 3, and they only lasted a couple minutes. Also, it's amazing how many guns were fired in that movie, just to have all but maybe 5 or 6 bullets miss their targets. I know it's a true story and they can't just kill random people, but then Mann shouldn't have filmed the movie like it was Miami Vice set in the 1930s.
[fork]You must have missed a lot out on the curb.[/fork]
Quote from: Weebs on July 06, 2009, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: CBStew on July 06, 2009, 09:22:43 AM
Quote from: Weebs on July 05, 2009, 10:58:37 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 05, 2009, 05:52:09 PM
This is the best reason for going to the movies that I have seen in a long time. Very accurate period piece. The only drawback is a very corny concluding scene.
I thought the movie was pretty bad. It was boring. It was really difficult to tell characters apart, and Bale and Depp had very little range with their characters. Everyone played mean or narcissistic. Maybe I'm too young, and this is a good period piece as you say, but I did not enjoy it.
I thought that the most interesting character was J. Edgar Hoover as played by Billy Cruddup. Too Bad that the part was relatively small. But you are right, the male characters generally were one dimensional, except that some of the secondary law enforcement thugs were given some personality. Marie Cotillard's (sp?) part had some depth.
I agree, Crudup was the best one in there. My biggest problem is I just felt like nothing happened. It only took place through a very short period near the end of Dillinger's life, so all we learned was he was a narcissistic prick who (SPOILER ALERT) gets shot and killed, and Purvis was angry and seemed to have some sort of personal vendetta against Dillinger, apparently because some guys he barely worked with were killed. The bank robberies could have been a lot of fun, but there were all of 2 or 3, and they only lasted a couple minutes. Also, it's amazing how many guns were fired in that movie, just to have all but maybe 5 or 6 bullets miss their targets. I know it's a true story and they can't just kill random people, but then Mann shouldn't have filmed the movie like it was Miami Vice set in the 1930s.
Most well-done bank robberies last at least 15 minutes or so, just so the cops can show up and there can be more shooting. They really should have dragged them out longer I bet.
You're a real dope, you know that?
Saw this tonight and wasn't a very big fan.
First, they used digital video quite liberally throughout which isn't a terrible thing--digital video obviously has its good applications. It's a lot cheaper as a medium, but the end result is just that; the movie looks really cheap, almost like you're watching a TV show or something. Looking back, it might not have been the digital video itself, but rather the person behind the digital video camera as it always seemed really shaky. I also found it really jarring when they cut from something shot on film to something shot on tape. It took my focus away from the movie and got me thinking about the cameraman instead of the action. This was especially the case during the shootout sequences when there were special effects/explosions/muzzle flashes going on.
Second, it was too long. There wasn't nearly enough plot movement to warrant two and a half hours. Oddly enough, I wasn't too familiar with Dillinger's story looked down at my watch when Dillinger was first captured and thought it was going to be a really short movie. I don't know where I'm going with that. I just really needed to pee and the movie just would not end
Quote from: ChuckD on July 10, 2009, 03:10:32 AM
Saw this tonight and wasn't a very big fan.
First, they used digital video quite liberally throughout which isn't a terrible thing--digital video obviously has its good applications. It's a lot cheaper as a medium, but the end result is just that; the movie looks really cheap, almost like you're watching a TV show or something. Looking back, it might not have been the digital video itself, but rather the person behind the digital video camera as it always seemed really shaky. I also found it really jarring when they cut from something shot on film to something shot on tape. It took my focus away from the movie and got me thinking about the cameraman instead of the action. This was especially the case during the shootout sequences when there were special effects/explosions/muzzle flashes going on.
Second, it was too long. There wasn't nearly enough plot movement to warrant two and a half hours. Oddly enough, I wasn't too familiar with Dillinger's story looked down at my watch when Dillinger was first captured and thought it was going to be a really short movie. I don't know where I'm going with that. I just really needed to pee and the movie just would not end
I'm pretty sure Michael Mann does this for almost all of his movies. I know Miami Vice and Collateral were both filmed the same way. It worked for Collateral, but not the other two. Granted, it might just be because the other two were shitty movies.
Bump. Finally saw this movie. It was entertaining. Yes, the characters were one dimensional, but I assume that's how all people were back then. Who am I to criticize them. Wish they wouldn't have thrown in the fictional scene where Dillinger was in jail and he met Melvin Purvis and they had a conversation. The politics behind this all should have played a bigger role in this. Including Pervis's suicide after leaving the FBI. Maybe needed more Alien guns.
Quote from: BH on December 18, 2009, 08:53:36 AM
Bump. Finally saw this movie. It was entertaining. Yes, the characters were one dimensional, but I assume that's how all people were back then. Who am I to criticize them. Wish they wouldn't have thrown in the fictional scene where Dillinger was in jail and he met Melvin Purvis and they had a conversation. The politics behind this all should have played a bigger role in this. Including Pervis's suicide after leaving the FBI. Maybe needed more Alien guns.
I lol'd.
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 01, 2010, 10:34:01 AM
Quote from: BH on December 18, 2009, 08:53:36 AM
Bump. Finally saw this movie. It was entertaining. Yes, the characters were one dimensional, but I assume that's how all people were back then. Who am I to criticize them. Wish they wouldn't have thrown in the fictional scene where Dillinger was in jail and he met Melvin Purvis and they had a conversation. The politics behind this all should have played a bigger role in this. Including Pervis's suicide after leaving the FBI. Maybe needed more Alien guns.
I lol'd.
So did I, but I didn't really understand what he meant. I can't wait for the hiccups to hit me when I finally
do get it.