Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Public Enemies Look

Sanjin Jukic said:
Public Enemies is not going to be box office at its opening week.

Estimates box office mojo results are:

Wednesday, 1st opening day
$8,165,025

-- / $2,460
$8,165,025 / 1

Thursday, 2nd opening day
$6,675,000

-18.2% / $2,011
$14,840,000 / 2

After opening day the movie income is already climbing down.

Maybe it is connected with all that "bad movie look" that the most of people are talking about here.

It draws a conclusion that MM and DS "met wrong guys" who provide them technology to shoot that movie.

Maybe next time "duo" MM+DS should try to reach some of RED guys to make its new project that could look in theaters and at box office much better.

The PE budget was about 100 000 000 USD.

Just count the movie is already running for its money and in that case is a long way to get money back even with international and DVD sales.

But who knows maybe Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Marion Cotillard would help a little bit but who knows...???!!!
Click to expand...

So it seems that after only 19 days of release, Public Enemies is actually doing quite well....

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=publicenemies.htm

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES
Domestic: $79,639,205 83.7%
+ Foreign: $15,550,027 16.3%
= Worldwide: $95,189,232

Makes it the second best in terms of box office for MM films. And only 19 days since it was released.

http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michaelmann.htm
 
Steve G said:
So it seems that after only 19 days of release, Public Enemies is actually doing quite well....

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=publicenemies.htm

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES
Domestic: $79,639,205 83.7%
+ Foreign: $15,550,027 16.3%
= Worldwide: $95,189,232

Makes it the second best in terms of box office for MM films. And only 19 days since it was released.

http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michaelmann.htm
Click to expand...


Steve G,

still no profit, just a sort of money back, but don't be a picky :dita:
 
Finally got to see the flick at our local screen.

Never before have I felt so detached from a story. In the biggest shoot-out scene, all I could think of was "video" and "360 degree shutter". It just did not feel real or cinematic at all, all the magic of cinema was gone for me.

Sure, I have a trained eye by now, but if I feel this so strongly, it must also have a subconscious influence on at least part of the audience.

Edit: Just for clarification; I had not read anything about the film beforehand, and only found this thread afterwards.
 
i think i must be the only person who enjoyed the look and feel of public enemies. I thought i was in for something special from the opening scene, the picture was so clear, the shutter didn't bother me. I read an interview with mann and he said the ex1 shoots could not be picked out, but i knew which ones they were and they didn't look good. Over all i liked the look and feel because it was an experience, going to the cinema should be an experience, and not just another action flick.
 
Yeah I enjoyed the movie in general but I also noticed all the time they used the small videocam. Some shots got normal film-like look and some had this home-video look. That was kinda disturbing because it was very clearly visible. But otherwise a nice movie.
 
Are the shutter effects more pronounced when projected digitally? I would have thought the transfer to film would have ultimately covered most of the video shutter look up.
 
I only commented because Mann said in an interview it was indistinguishable from the F23 and it wasn’t. It didn’t distract me from the story and maybe that’s what Mann meant but there was a grain difference between the cameras.
 
Fine, but that doesn't change the fact that I saw it, checked up on articles afterward, and he discussed the scenes where he used the EX, and I saw the difference every time in the theater for all the scenes when he mentioned the EX being used (according to what I read primarily for in the car stuff, and a few super-close scenes in places they couldn't fit the F23.)

It wasn't a huge difference, but I don't know many people (especially people like most of us here that obsess over this stuff), who couldn't tell the difference between the footage.

I am sorry, but a camera with an inferior codec that uses interframe compression on a bitrate of about 4MB/s, with 8-bit color, versus the F23 at 10-bit, with vastly less compression at about 110MB/s. I could definitely see the difference when they were projected on a 50 foot wide screen.

It wasn't a truly massive difference especially with how quick the editing was between them (didn't have a lot of time to really study them). But the F23 DEFINITELY performed better, and noticeably so.
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
I just think you guys are seeing what you want to see and drawing conclusions for yourselves.
Click to expand...
I like to watch movies knowing as little about them beforehand. With Public Enemies I only knew that it would be starring Mr. Depp.

I certainly did not know what kind of camera was used - I only looked it up afterwards as I excited the cinema feeling disappointed by the 360 shutter.

So, no - I din't see what I wanted to see. I wanted to see an entertaining action film. I saw a collection of video clips with good actors.
 
I don’t think shooting digital was a right or wrong decision for the subject matter. If you walk out of the cinema feeling you have experienced something different then the movie has been a success. In this case I felt Public enemies was unique and interesting.
 
*hat enters ring*
Maybe I'm an upstart hack little kid (mid 20's). Maybe I'm one of those people that don't know what the hell they are talking about (very likely), but after seeing Public Enemies I am willing to stick my head out and say it looked awesome, DV is great, I love DV, more DV, weeee DV.

I'm complete serious when I say I really liked the way the film looked. DV for me, is starting to have a "feel" to it that film just doesn't have that feel doesn't seem to be associated to documentary films or other DV flag bearers. After seeing a number of DV films shot by A list “professional” film makers like David Lynch and Michael Mann, I have come to appreciate its awesomeness and immediacy and energy that DV has.
I look at the arguments against DV and statements like 'it looks amateur' and they seem like gut reactions to something that is different and new (well not that new any more). Maybe I'm wrong but it seems almost like a xenophobia or at the lease very a smug reaction to something that doesn't deserve to be chastised or abused at all. Its just an experiment in art, be a little open mind for heavens sake, I guess you guys must eat at apple-bees. *zing*
 
:beatdeadhorse5:

Most people obviously don't care about camera choices. Some do, and again here some like certain choices, others don't.

I'm still earning most of my income from shooting DVcam, and I certainly do not look down on that format. But it certainly has its limitations, and when shooting narrative and if budget allowed for a (technical) better camera, I would not dream of using DV.

scott william said:
I don’t think shooting digital was a right or wrong decision for the subject matter.
Click to expand...

My point simply is that in the case of Public Enemies the 360 degree shutter simply did not work for me. I am embracing digital cinema and the democratization it (hopefully) brings along - but it has to be used right. I have great respect for Spinotti - I am just disagreeing with the 360 shutter.
 
Lachlan Ward said:
*hat enters ring*
Maybe I'm an upstart hack little kid (mid 20's).
Click to expand...

I'm mid 20s show some pride man!

Martin Weiss said:
I'm still earning most of my income from shooting DVcam, and I certainly do not look down on that format. But it certainly has its limitations, and when shooting narrative and if budget allowed for a (technical) better camera, I would not dream of using DV.
Click to expand...

Oh hell yeah, I'd be over at panavision asking for those G series anamorphic lenses.
 
I actually found it quite hard to watch and focus on the images during the first bank robbery. That distracted me for the rest of the film. And although i was intrigued by the low light stuff in the Wisconsin motel place it wasn't really my cup of tea.

Doc.
 
i just saw it on the big screen. projected from a 35mm print...........

it looked like crap. i couldn't attach myself emotionally to the film at all. half of it looked ungraded/(on purpose bad?) with weird motion circadence. and i just couldn't stop noticing the bad camera work.... all the DVX100 indie features i've got in my dvd collection look amazing compared to this piece of crap.

also the sound was up and down and pretty below par... the chick was awful, Depp was great and Bale wasn't acting :)

maybe Mann used Bale's time machine and went dogme 1930's style and that wasn't Johnny Depp at all???!?!??!

patrick jennings
 
The cinematography did not do the film any favours and lowered the overall effect the film had on me. I was disappointed with how it looked... saw it at the cinema on what is usually the best screen in the house and it looked awful. Particularly in the woods shoot out, it look like it was filmed with a 100 dollar DV cam. This film should of been shot on RED... or even traditional film, the richness of cinematography wasn't there. Shame really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top