comment #1

Mark says ...

HE - All PE, All the Time.

Woman likes colorful w/ a sense of humor. Mann likes neither.

comment #2

p.Vice says ...

I'm so relieved Anne Thompson has declared herself an expert on audience expectations. Could someone ask her to please drop me a line and let me know what I'm looking forward to in this movie because I sure as shit can't figure it out.

comment #3

markj says ...

Anne Thompson loves Star Trek and Twilight, 'nuff said.

comment #4

Ghost072 says ...

"Woman likes colorful w/ a sense of humor. Mann likes neither."

You're hoping that if you keep repeating this claim it will become the truth, I take it?

comment #5

Colin says ...

I don't want this to sound sexist, but Twilight was engineered for women to like it. That was bound to happen. But what was wrong with Star Trek, markj?

comment #6

StoneFan1 says ...

I don't care if Johnny Depp watches his own movies or not, BUT BUT BUT I do have a problem with him not watching contemporary films. Sure, we're not in the Golden Age of Hollywood anymore, but you've still got to have an idea of what's out there and which actor is doing great work, etc.

comment #7

Abbey Normal says ...

Yes markj, please explain why her approval of Star Trek, one of the best-reviewed films of the year, is some kind of strike against her taste.

You seem more determined to announce your opinion about Star Trek than to make a reasoned comment about Anne Thompson's taste level.

comment #8

sumo-pop says ...

So Miss Thompson suggests that Mann Make the 30s look like any other directors version of the 30s? You know Heat was not overwhelmingly loved by critics in it's time but now...

comment #9

hawthorne says ...

What does Depp do when he shows up at the premiere of his movies? Just walk the red carpet and leave before the movie screens? somehow I just don't buy this.

comment #10

GKLondon says ...

Mark, Star Trek is good. Twilight I know less about it than I care about it, so that's that.

Plus, if you don't dig on Jeff's jonesing for a particular film, go read something else. I love that Wells gets psyched for films and harps on about them. As long as it's films like There Will Be Blood, Zodiac or films that other sites seem to ignore, it's all fine with me.

Go read Perez Hilton or some other dumb c*@t.

Plus, have any of you seen yourself on TV or in a movie? I did a red carpet once and I fucking ran down that thing so I'd never have to see how shitty and idiotic I probably look.

comment #11

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Now we have to guess what famous person GKLondon is.

comment #12

GKLondon says ...

No you don't, I was in Dubai at the film festival a few years ago with a documentary I edited and produced. Not a big deal at all. Just lucky to be invited and put up in a nice place by rich Dubai folk.

comment #13

Edward says ...

There are some beautiful things being shot in HD. I can't wait to see "Public Enemies." I'd love to hear from someone with technical knowledge about whether the Viper is considered an HD camera.

comment #14

Strictly From Hunger says ...

Jeff, I'm curious: was PE projected digitally at the screening you attended? I'm hearing conflicted reports about whether or not the film looks good, and I suspect that has something to do with projection, so I want to make an informed decision about whether I see it digitally projected or not.

comment #15

Chase Kahn says ...

I saw it in 35mm tonight and it looked perfect. Honestly, I don't see what's not to like about "Public Enemies".

I don't think it's a masterpiece -- except visually, it is about as perfect as it gets. I guess the only knock on it is that it's exactly what I thought it was going to be. Nothing wrong with that. It's a breathless, stunningly shot gangster film, elevated by its super-clean HD handheld photography and it's numerous tommy gun showdowns.

I think there's enough here for the low-thread count goons and certainly enough for Mann-heads and other viewers who prefer their summer entertainment more dense and mature.

It's a testament to the film's quality that my theater experience was absolute HORRIBLE.

comment #16

Kanye West says ...

Kanye to hawthore: Many, many, if not most "talent" do that very thing.

comment #17

Breedlove says ...

I've heard several movie stars over the years claim that they never watch their own movies, or haven't ever seen certain films they starred in. It's always annoyed me. It doesn't make any sense. All those months of hard work, why would you not take 2 hours to watch the film? get over yourself. It seems insulting to the director, crew, other actors etc. on some level. If I was Michael Mann or Tim Burton or whoever it would annoy me to pour my heart and soul into a movie and have my main partner on it say he can't be bothered to even watch it. There's something vaguely condescending about it. It seems like an attempt to look cool.

Someone asked a good question...I'm a moron with all this technical shit, I don't understand most of it, but...should I make an effort to see PUBLIC ENEMIES projected digitally? If that's even an option?

comment #18

DM says ...

As a rule, I don't care for HD or the majority of digital processes used, whether it be a grainy mess like "Inland Empire," or a glossy mess like "I Know Who Killed Me." Nor do I particulary care for the way PE looks. It just doesn't fit with the story, or rather, the epic style of the story, to me at least. However, the one I do like is the Viper Stream camera and 4:4:4 cinematic process, (I think that's what it's called), that David Fincher shot "Zodiac" and "Benjamin Button" in. Not only does it look fantastic, neat and clean and smooth, but it could almost pass for film, like a High Def version of Panavision/anamorphic lenses, complete with sporatic, yet similar-styled lense flares. If I was a director, I would readily jump at the chance to use for my film. Possibly much less stressful to learn than film, (though no less complicated), not too mention the fact that you can view the dailies on set, making it much easier to go back and correct things you're not happy with. It's a shame Mann didn't choose the same cameras as Fincher, as it would've greatly enhanced the film. As it is, PE looks like a dizzying mess. Just watching the trailer gives me a fucking headache.

comment #19

Terry McCarty says ...

Colin wrote:
But what was wrong with Star Trek, markj?

I can tell you. It's like a line of dialogue in Alan Alda's SWEET LIBERTY come-to-life: Defy authority, destroy property and take women's clothing off (to undies only to keep the PG-13).

Had its moments, but really too much pandering for me.

comment #20

Edward says ...

I'll admit that I watched "Inland Empire" on HD on Demand on a 42" plasma, but grainy mess? It was stunning. I never knew digital video could look so beautiful. I might be wrong, but I don't think it was shot on HD, but on a consumer grade digital Sony camcorder with the automatic settings turned on.

comment #21

Tristan Eldritch2 says ...

I really dislike the idea that David Fincher's use of HD thrumps everyone elses, simply because it looks more like film. I love Zodiac, and really like Button, but those could have been shot on film, and really wouldn't be markedly different experiences. Lynch and Mann are carving out new aesthetic territories for the digital medium, and that it more exciting than the still in Kansas, softly softly approach Fincher takes.

comment #22

markj says ...

My problems with Star Trek (which i'm well aware i'm in the minority with) stemmed from:

A) A lame story and screenplay.
B) No cinematic sensibility shown on the part of the director or cinematographer.
C) Being a third-rate copy of Star Wars.
D) Having virtually nothing to do with the philosophical and literary aspects of Star Trek.
E) Simon Pegg turning in one of the worst screen performances of all time.

I'm well aware this was dumbed down for a mass audience who turn their noses up at science-fiction but i'm still amazed that people hold this film up in such high regard.

comment #23

lawnorder says ...

A) Wrong.
B) Way wrong! Film looked amazing. Great technique using the lens flares. Great shots, great composition.
C) Don't care.
D) He was fine. Could have done without his CG creature/pet.

comment #24

bibliotechnician says ...

Just because a period movie is not shot like a period movie doesn't mean it automatically ruins the atmosphere for the viewer. In fact, it may enhance it. I think that's what Wells was trying to get across.

And i completely agree with markj. Star Trek was a pandering, sloppy mess that did everything Roddenberry carefully avoided. Sure, many of the movies and TV shows were boring, but never this pandering and dumb. When the young Kirk spun the vette off the cliff, i was half expecting the CG gophers from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to gasp in horror. As someone mentioned about "Heat," many movies gain acclaim and respect through the years. I think Star Trek will have the opposite effect.

comment #25

Steven Kar says ...

I thought that the villain in Star Trek was weak and boring.
And the movie had not one original thought or idea. People who liked it were pretending like it was the first sci-fi movie ever made.

comment #26

Chase Kahn says ...

"Star Trek" is obviously overrated. It's a nice movie -- almost irresitably entertaining, but it has loads of problems starting with Orci and Kurtzman's script and ending with the overexposed Leonard Nimoy and Beastie Boys.

comment #27

DavidF says ...

Tristan - I think one thing you're missing about Fincher's use of digital is that he uses so many FX. When you're working so much in digital anyway there is something to be said for eliminating that one layer of "analogue."

Zodiac looks like it could have been shot on film but I suspect shooting it digitally made it a lot easier for all concerned given all the "secret" effects.

As for Star Trek - it wasn't the second coming but it was a grand summer film and the best Star Trek production of any kind in over a decade.

The more I've read about Roddenberry the more I get the sense that he had a very narrow (and possessive) idea of what Star Trek was. He HATED Star Trek II and, I think, pretty much everyone of the movies until he died (shortly after seeing a rough cut of VI).

Some of the things Roddenberry hated? Guns. Conflict between the crew (he'd NEVER have allowed Kirk and Spock to fight on the bridge). Anything that implied Starfleet was miliatristic and, generally, anything that makes Battlestar Galactica or any other post-Star Trek sci fi successful and emotionally true.

So, while I agree Star Trek should be a bit more thinky and a bit less actiony I have faith Abrams et all will be able to stretch more in a sequel. I always thought the "Starfleet Academy" idea, recasting everyone, was stupid but I think they did a damned fine job and the haters can suck it.

Yeah.

comment #28

Ghost072 says ...

"People who liked it were pretending like it was the first sci-fi movie ever made."

I loved Star Trek because it was a great action movie, while also being a great relaunch of the characters. Kirk has never been cooler and the humor was a welcome addition. I also love real sci-fi, but frankly, I never considered Star Trek to be real sci-fi and this movie didn't change my mind (anyone that knows anything about blackholes knew that within the first 5 minutes).

comment #29

Skip McCoy, American says ...

"All those months of hard work, why would you not take 2 hours to watch the film?"

Because you're a coked-up neurotic mess?

comment #30

Chicago48 says ...

Just saw it at a screening and it's perfect Mann. Very Heat-ish. But what I really liked was Johnny Depp as a romantic, in love with a woman. When was the last time he played a role like that? I can't remember when. He and Marion Cotilliard look so much in love....they should team again.