comment #1

Gaydos says ...

Sometimes the slump isn't by choice but by being "out of fashion," ie challenging the zeitgeist/political mores of the times. I'm thinking of Ken Loach who slumped after "Kes," to come roaring back with "Hidden Agenda," "Raining Stones," "Ladybird,Ladybird" and "Land and Freedom." Of course Alain Resnais is the ultimate: he's been on fire creatively and commercially for the past decade and half, which means he got his mojo back in his 70s!

comment #2

arch451 says ...

Clint Eastwood seemed to be in a slump after The Bridges of Madison County and then he bounced back with Mystic River.

comment #3

Chicago48 says ...

Read the User comments below the opinion. The first one speaks volumes.

comment #4

nodirectionhome says ...

Ive not yet seen PUBLIC ENEMIES, so I can only go off his previous film MIAMA VICE; which if that is considered "losing it", than I only hope more directors delve themselves into obscurity. There are obvious choice for those who've "lost it", i.e Coppolla, Lucas even the beard himself Speilberg, but not Mann. Unlike his counterparts who force their circular methods into square holes, he's consistentley adapting to the changing medium.

comment #5

sumo-pop says ...

Robert Altman was in the wilderness a bit before The Player and Short Cuts. As far as Mann? Slump my ass.

comment #6

lonniechung says ...

Scorsese has been slumping since Cape Fear - The Departed was too much of a softball to be considered a return to form, as good as it is. I think Silence might be a chance to really come back (such a great book). The '80s was not a great decade for Altman, but the next 15 years certainly yielded some real highs (Short Cuts, Cookie's Fotune, ThePlayer, Gosford Park). Mann certainly qualifies in this category, but his failures were mainly cash grabs which he just shouldn't have gone for; material that was doomed to fail no matter who was in charge.

comment #7

AtticusRex says ...

I've seen PE and whilst I liked it I didn't love it. I thought everyone did a great job but I kept waiting for 'true-Mann-moments' and I felt they were far and few between. That said there was great attention to the period detail and some really nice set pieces but I feel this should have been a two parter or perhaps a 3 or 4 hour movie.

Jamming the start of modern crime-detecting with the beginning of the FBI, the beginning of Organized Crime and the one-two punch of Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson into this film about Dillinger ended up giving those other topics short-shrift.

This should and could have been Mann's Godfather 1 & 2. There certainly is/was enough material to draw from.

I love Mann. For me his most perfect film from start to finish is The Insider. Next up Manhunter.

From there in order:

3: Last of the Mohicans
4: Jericho Mile
5: Thief
6: Heat (would be higher but I just didn't like the 'petering' out ending. It needed something bigger.
7. Collateral: (would also be higher but I really didn't buy the ending at all. It wasn't true to the Cruise character.)
8: The Keep (God if only the FX man on this picture hadn't died during the making of this movie. The Keep has perhaps the best opening of any Michael Mann movie ever. It's also a great story that was let down by iffy effects work because of the sudden passing of Wally Veevers who had most of the Creatures look and FX in his head at the time.

Great Idea... Man's greatest horror up against fiction's greatest horror.

Again wonderful, stunning opening. This movie along with it's extra footage and alternate ending should be released on Blu-Ray now, Paramount you listening?

9: Public Enemies
10: Ali
11: Miami Vice

comment #8

renorambler says ...

Sumo is on to something.

I remember an interview with Altman where he specifically talked about intersecting with the values of his audiences and how that only happened at particular moments in his career...Nashville, The Player, were a couple he mentioned.

I think it was in the PBS series called American Cinema.

comment #9

Stringer Bell says ...

How many more threads to go before Jeff recants & calls 'Public Enemies' a misfire. Didn't he do that with King Kong?

comment #10

Wayne says ...

Shouldn't we actually SEE "Shutter Island" first before declaring that Marty's back in a slump?

comment #11

Chicago48 says ...

I am so glad these old warhorses are still around and trying to experiment with film, even though they may fail (Coppola, Scorsecee, Mann, et al)....because the youngun directors are only interested in animation and CGI stuff, stuff that blows up and makes loud noise. No story line anywhere.

comment #12

Irving Thalberg says ...

I bet a lot of filmmakers would be happy to put together a "whopper-sized slump" containing, among others, CASINO.

comment #13

corey3rd says ...

No Direction Home shouldn't be considered a directed by Marty film since he did zero production on the film. He was handed all the archive footage and the interviews done by Dylan's people. He was an editor. D.A. Pennebaker was a director in that film, but if you never yelled, "action" in the course of a movie - can you really claim the title of director?

and Manhunter became a slave to the soundtrack to the point where the action was drawn out too long in order to match the music cues.

comment #14

Ron Mexico says ...

These days Christopher Nolan makes better Michael Mann films than Michael Mann does.

comment #15

cinefan says ...

You can say that any filmmaker is in a "slump" if you don't like their work. From 1998 onwards, Spielberg's films include Munich, Catch Me If You Can, Minority Report, A.I., and War of the Worlds. A lot of filmmakers would kill for that kind of a "slump".

comment #16

JapAdapters says ...

Right on, AtticusRex. I've been digesting and wrestling with the historical inaccuracies of Public Enemies (liked it quite a bit otherwise) and you hit the nail on the head.

What bothers me is not that Mann changes history, because that's what people do when they make movies about a prominent subject, it's that he changed prominent history. It's not like baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd, or the beginnings of the FBI are trivial details, they're each subjects that could (and have) make for their own movie! Mann's disregard for them is the only thing that has -- so far -- kept me from loving the movie.

John Dilliinger was interesting enough without the last man standing BS. He was the first to get shot, and the tipping point where the FBI finally gained steam in terms of being ... well, competent. The thing is, he was also legit REALLY fucking famous and interesting. I actually found it a bit lazy to take the route Mann did.

Still, good movie.

comment #17

Griff says ...

Richard Lester...slumped after 3/4 Musketeers and never recovered, to my knowledge.

comment #18

frankbooth says ...

Yeah, that Shutter Island...what a piece of crap. 10/2/09 was an awful day at the movies for me. I'll never forget it.

I wouldn't quite call Under the Volcano a success, aside from Finney's amazing work. Have you read Lowry's novel? The film is flat, literal and linear, which is all wrong.

Herzog seemed to go into a slump (or flat-out disappearance) between Kinski's death and Grizzly Man, but this may be because so much of his work went unreleased in the USA. He just seemed to fall off the map for a decade or so.

Lynch kind of slumped after the brief, surprise success of Twin Peaks. Wild at Heart, On the Air, Fire: Walk With Me, Lost Highway, Hotel Room. Then he made a kind of back-door comeback with Straight Story ( an atypical film no one expected that was more admired than loved; I liked it, but haven't seen it since) before his return to full-on adulation with Mulholland Drive. It will take some time to judge Inland Empire.

(BUT -- FWWM is now much more highly regarded among film geeks than it was at the time of its release, WaH is pretty entertaining in its wallowing, anything-goes, road-trip to hell kind of way, LH feels in retrospect like the first half of a double-feature with MD, and the episode of On the Air I recently watched on YouTube -- which seemed to be an unfunny train wreck when I saw it broadcast in 1992 -- now looks like some kind of ahead of its time, comic genius to me. So who's to say what constitutes a slump?)

comment #19

lipranzer says ...

AFTER HOURS was 1985, not 82. KING OF COMEDY was 82.

I'd say Billy Wilder had a slump starting from KISS ME, STUPID, until he recovered in the early 70's with THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES and AVANTI.

comment #20

ElstonGunnAICN says ...

Spike Lee's INSIDE MAN and WHEN THE LEVEES BROKE could be considered a recharge. Oliver Stone's W was seen by some as a return to form. Woody Allen has so many peaks and valleys, you could look at it different ways. The last third of Luis Bunuel's career is considered his best work. Louiis Malle had a couple rec-hargings (maybe in between MURMUR OF THE HEART and MY DINNER WITH ANDRE).

comment #21

efbrackett says ...

This site sure has a lot of Mann masturbators.

comment #22

TATE K. says ...

It seems that Mann's films are never fully embraced when they are first released. The Insider is the closest and it failed to find an audience. Heat has become more highly regarded in the years since. No hope for Miami Vice though.

comment #23

i.villafuerte says ...

Ridley Scott after Blade Runner ('82) until Gladiator ('00), been hit and miss since

comment #24

i.villafuerte says ...

Steven Soderbergh after Ocean's Eleven ('01) until Che this year.

comment #25

Daviddb says ...

Jonathan Demme after Silence of the Lambs...

But back to Scorsese, since when does the period between Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, a period of 4 years, constitute a "slump"? During that time, he made 1 feature film, New York New York, admittedly a failure, though an ambitious one. He also made The Last Waltz, still considered one of the greatest concert films ever made. So how does 1 misfire constitute a slump?

Fellini once remarked that a filmmaker has only 10 years to make their great films. That's a better and more accurate assessment to cite examples of. And yes, there are exceptions: Hitchcock, Bunuel, Fellini himself, Bergman and perhaps Woody Allen had a couple of 10 year periods...but most others? Think about it, it stands up pretty well.

comment #26

Daniel Tayag says ...

Maybe Mann didn't lose it. Maybe everyone else did.

Anyways, did anyone see this screencaps from the Che UK Blu-ray: http://www.hundland.org/hd/c/c.htm#che

They look damn gorgeous.

comment #27

Chicago48 says ...

RT = 64% up from 59%.

Bonnie & Clyde = 97% on RT, however, someone mentioned that when it was first released it got negative reviews.

I think Mann's picture will end up like B&C, another depression era gangster movie, that won't be appreciated until maybe 5-10 years out.

However, this is the best Depp has been IMO in a long time. I refuse to see him in a movie where he plays a children's character, a Disney character and with costume makeup. He should be working with Scorcesee, Lumet, Coppola type directors; he should have DiCaprio's movie parts. Get rid of Tim Woods.

He has enough money to risk taking smaller "artsy" roles.

And I'm tired of critics saying that Marion wasn't good. She was the best thing in the movie IMO.

comment #28

Joe Gillis says ...

"Then came Scorsese's whopper-sized, 13-year Cape Fear-to-Aviator slump ('91 to '04). Then he re-charged and surged back with No Direction Home, The Departed and Shine a Light. Now he's slumping again."

Ok, them's fighting words. He had a "Whopper-sized...slump" between '91 and '94? How you figure that? Cape Fear is a ridiculously entertaining pulp thrillers (it's Scorsese's Sam Fuller/De Palma homage, for God's sake), and The Age of Innocence, Kundun, and The Aviator are unqualified, across-the-board masterpieces. Most directors would kill to make movies that good. Plus, Bringing Out the Dead is one of the most underrated flicks of the past twenty years! Only Casino and Gangs of New York disappoint, and I'd wager it's because they're merely "good" as opposed to "spectacular," which we've rightly come to expect from Scorsese.

Your most boneheaded quote, though? "Now he's slumping again." Really? This is an example of you being deliberately provocative, even at the expense of logic. How can you he's entered a new slump when he hasn't released anything since The Departed, which you claim was him in his upswing? Bit premature to say he's entered a new downslope, innit? I know you think you know what you know and that ain't hay, but most serious filmgoers would SEE his new movie before judging it sight-unseen. Previews, Mr. Wells, just do not count.

comment #29

Chicago48 says ...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-05/how-public-enemies-kills-its-gangsters/

Stanley's take^

comment #30

George Prager says ...

My 70something parents enjoyed PUBLIC ENEMIES, so it can't possibly be the clusterfuck that all of these naysayers are making it out to be.

comment #31

Mark says ...

I think Mann's picture will end up like B&C, another depression era gangster movie, that won't be appreciated until maybe 5-10 years out.

It didn't take 10 years for B&T to be nominated for every major Oscar. If anything PE wil be more like Heat, which people were initially mixed on. Then as they considered the daytime shootout and diner scene, and how good those parts were, their minds began to smooth out the rough edges of most of the remaining parts.

Back to the topic, Coen brothers were slumping this decade before No Country. .

comment #32

Sonny Bunch says ...

Going back to creative recharging periods, the Coen Bros. had a pretty solid string of misses recently: Between 2001 and 2007 they made one interesting failure ("The Man Who Wasn't There) and two unwatchable messes ("Intolerable Cruelty" and "The Ladykillers") before coming back strong with "No Country for Old Men" and "Burn After Reading." Heck, depending on how you feel about "O Brother, Where Art Thou" you could argue that the slump started after "The Big Lebowski" in 1998.

comment #33

MDOC says ...

All talk of Mann "losing it" is silly, every film is a must see. But, can someone explain to me how Manhunter is a good movie? My favorite is when people say it's better than The Best Picture winning Silence of the Lambs. Seriously? I love Mann and Peterson but not here, Manhunter is at best a bad TV movie of the week. Help me understand.
On another note, I was watching Jaws last night (it's a bit of a 4th tradition), I never noticed how the scene where Brody, the mayor, and the town officials talking on the mini ferry is all one shot. When people talk of Spielberg's genius they think of shark attacks, aliens on bikes, and dinosaurs. For me, it doesn't get any better that that scene of 4 men talking on a moving boat.

comment #34

drbob says ...

Sonny Bunch: I am absolutely willing to defend "O. Brother," and even "The Ladykillers." "Intolerable Cruelty" not so much.

comment #35

Scott Mendelson says ...

It's funny how many of these 'slump films' I actually quite enjoy. I love Bringing Out the Dead... it's one of Scorsese's best films, in my opinion. And, I absolutely adore After Hours. Comic trappings not withstanding, what an insanely intense movie that is. I also genuinely enjoyed The Lady Killers, as I consider it the last time that Tom Hanks truly tried (unless you count his two-scene cameo in The Great Buck Howard just this year).

comment #36

Sonny Bunch says ...

drbob: I like "O Brother" as well, though I can understand why some people don't...honestly, my favorite of the movies during the stretch that I mentioned in "The Man Who Wasn't There," which I put alongside "The Hudsucker Proxy" as an absolutely fascinating genre-blending movie that just never pulls it together for a coherent whole.

comment #37

StoneFan1 says ...

Calling Scorsese's post-GoodFellas period as a "whopper sized slump" must go down as one of the dumpest things Mr. Wells has EVER said. Talk about not having any taste in movies. WOW! "Bringing Out the Dead" is the weakest one and I think it just might be Scorsese's most underrated film. "Cape Fear" Best Picture nominee, "The Age of Innocence" Best Picture nominee, "Casino" Best Picture nominee, "Kundun" Best Picture winner, and "Bringing Out the Dead" Top 20 film in 1999, which was one of the best (i.e. toughest) years for film movies in history. IF that's a whopper sized slump....Holy Cow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

comment #38

StoneFan1 says ...

Also, MR. WELLS, some of these "slumps" you mention are only ONE FILM...that CAN'T be a slump. You talked about Scorsese after "Taxi Driver"...well, he only made ONE film between that and "Raging Bull." I don't think you understand the meaning of a slump. As far as film directors go, I'd say a slump MUST BE at least three consecutive bombs.

comment #39

Ghost072 says ...

Mann is not in a slump and the Coen brother's O Brother and Man Who Wasn't There easily make up for the weakness of Cruelty and Ladykillers, IMO. Also second the love for Bringing Out The Dead.

I'd say Polanski's stretch between Chinatown/The Tenant/Tess and The Pianist was pretty iffy, even though I did really like Death and the Maiden and watch Frantic whenever it is on.

comment #40

Mark says ...

Let's just say that directors, like most artists, are hit and miss. Trends of creative periods and/or dormancy may be ascribed, but also consider that scripts and talent find the hot guy. I think trends pertain more to writers, and so the directors who write their own scripts (M. Night, Lucas, Coen Bro., etc.) are especially hurt by dormant periods. The smart ones turn to Cormac McCarthy or take things to a different continent to find a new voice.

Though I am reminded of Sickboy's take that the Pianist and Quills simply represent a blip on an otherwise uninterupted downward trajectory.

comment #41

Jeffrey Wells says ...

The Fascist Geek-Movie-Lover Handbook says you're absolutely required to love "Cape Fear," "The Age of Innocence,""Casino, " "Kundun" and "Bringing Out the Dead." You have to be the contrarian. But all fair-minded, self-reliant film buffs -- i.e., film lovers with their feet on the ground -- admit and know that while these Scorsese films are clearly above average and have certain merits, they're mostly irritating, bothersome, irksome, second-tier, almost-but-not-quiters.

I tried to give Casino a fresh viewing with the Bluray edition the other day -- I still can't stand spending all that time with Sharon Stone's shrieking harridan, and it makes no emotional sense that Robert De Niro's otherwise shrewd-minded casino operator would put up with her bullshit as long as he does.

I never felt that Scorsese's Cape Fear was anywhere near as believable or effective as the 1962 J. Lee Thompson version with Peck and Mitchum -- it has its moments but has never been regarded as anything more than a reasonably decent/diverting Scorsese paycheck movie. Kundun was pure torture then and it still is now -- it's agonizing - I wanted to shoot myself. (Why did David Chase have a Sopranos character yell out to Scorsese as he goes into a New York nightclub, "Marty...Kundun...I liked it"? The line wouldn't have worked if Kundun wasn't fairly universally despised.) I actually found the ending of The Age of Innocence to be fairly moving, but that line about it being "a movie about lace and cufflinks" stuck for a reason. Bringing Out The Dead did nothing to or for me when I saw it way back -- it's a heart-of-darkness New York ambulance movie of no particular importance or meaning. To me.

None of these films are top-grade Scorsese -- I appreciate that they're admired by impassioned fringe types but they're basically treading-water, pissing-and-missing movies. Scorsese trying like hell but off his game. In a word, slumping.

And if you're slumping, you're slumping. The slump doesn't have to manifest in a series of movies. Who said that?

Scorsese's New York, New York was, as Pauline Kael wrote, "an honest failure," but only a delusional type would claim he was working with a full head of creative steam when he made it. It was a stylistic/nostalgic homage-to-big-studio-musicals movie but there was a lot of emotional chaos and cocaine and whatnot feeding into the whole.

comment #42

Joe Gillis says ...

Ah, that's the Jeffrey Wells I know and love! Backing his insipid and thoroughly unsubstantiated ramblings with a counter that groups all his critics into a misguided and elitist club. God forbid someone like a movie on their own!

Well, check this, motherfucker. I love Cape Fear because it's entertaining. Because it's a big-budget thrill-ride that brings little more to the table than a compulsion to entertain and does a damn fine job at that (plus, its logical failings are WAY less egregious than the flubs in something like Transformers). I love The Age of Innocence because it's so beautifully, sadly tragic, because it's a more visceral study of the damages of class distinctions than anything Merchant-Ivory ever pulled off. I love Kundun because it's one of the most startlingly lovely color films produced, and because it's that rare movie that nails the conflict inherent in realistically trying to live a life of peace. I love Bringing Out the Dead because it's a movie that stares unflinchingly into the heart of darkness and finds that, against all odds, love and compassion and humor still reside therein. I love The Aviator because it is as finely wrought a story of madness and obsession as I've seen and because it's a gorgeously filmed valentine to Old Hollywood (and Powell and Pressburger!) that revels in its period trappings.

And, in none of these is Scorsese off his game. The filmmaking prowess and energy on display is as passionate and vital as ever. Full disclosure: I may find Casino and Gangs of New York ultimately unsatisfying, but there's real verve inside them nonetheless.

THAT'S why I like these flicks. I can't speak for anyone else, just myself. And it's nothing to do with including myself in some bullshit contrarian club you concocted to stave off criticism.

And if these films work for me, Mr. Wells, if they reach me on some profound/personal level, does it make me deficient? No. Does it make you? No. It's just a different experience, a different way of engaging with the material. Only wrong here is turning a discussion on cinema into a personal attack on the people watching. My word isn't law. And contrary to popular belief, neither is yours, Jeff.

comment #43

StoneFan1 says ...

My, My...what a rant from Mr. Hollywood Elsewhere,

"I tried to give Casino a fresh viewing with the Bluray edition the other day -- I still can't stand spending all that time with Sharon Stone's shrieking harridan, and it makes no emotional sense that Robert De Niro's otherwise shrewd-minded casino operator would put up with her bullshit as long as he does."

EXCEPT that in reality he DID stay with her. The film had to reflect that in same way. The craziness of that character is that he had the hubris to think he could change her, trust her, and make her love him! I thought Stone was great and I don't think he "shrieked" that much considering how much drinking and drugging that character was doing.
In any event, who cares about her? She's a small part of the overall experience. What about the detail in that film? Right up there with "JFK," "Zodiac," "The Insider," "Nixon," and "All the President's Men" in my opinion. I love films that try to be documentaries, while I HATE actual documentaries with a passion. "Casino" was like reading an Esquire magazine piece. It was fantastic from start to finish. I just love it! I'm sorry that you don't get it.

Maybe this is a generational clash here, but there's only about 20 mins. from the original "Cape Fear" that anybody can watch without laughing their asses off. It's corn ball from start to finish. The ending on the house boat works because of Mitchum and Mitchum only. When he breaks the egg and then uses the yolk to cover Bergen's upper body...THAT IS GREAT. Everything else causes people under 40 to laugh AT the film.
Scorsese's "Cape Fear" NAILED the teen angst of the early-90's perfectly. Not to mention nailing the Bill and Hillary Clinton-type baby boomer marriages that were breaking apart at that time. That's not even getting into the De Niro stuff. The score is better used, editing, sound, script, acting, costume design, makeup...everything is better than the original minus the great black-and-white cinematography of the '61 version. That scene between De Niro and Joe Don Baker outside the restaurant is better than the original version by itself.

"Bringing Out the Dead" did nothing for you, fine, okay, whatever. "Milk" did nothing for me. Ditto "The Departed," "Ask the Dust," "Miami Vice," "Pride and Glory," etc. Any number of films that you've pumped up over the years that left me COLD...stone cold in fact. But I won't judge you for liking those films, but you seem to have NO PROBLEM labeling people because they don't like a certain set of films. I'm sick of it.

Scorsese's REAL slump has been this decade. Not the 1990's. Minus his documentaries, his narrative films have been nothing but Oscar whoring at its worst. "The Departed" was like watching somebody trying to do a send up of prime Scorsese. It was sad, painful, and a slap in the face to all of his real fans. Now, he can't seem to make a film without using Mr. Girly Man in the lead role. How sad.

I've noticed a real bias amongst some film journalist against movies that have troubled production histories. "New York, New York" is viewed by many of a certain age group to be this terrible miss-fire from "Marty." While I happen to love every frame of it. You're not giving the film a fair shot because you know how much coke Marty was doing at the time or who he was fucking, etc. That doesn't matter. I think its right up there with "A Star Is Born." Of course, it helps when these films are successful, doesn't it? I noticed all the negative attacks on "Titanic" by punks like you stopped once the film became a success. Nice to see you guys show what tough guys you are by going after easy targets.

If none of this 1990's out-put is "top-grade" Scorsese, then he has NEVER had a top-grade out-put. What a dumb, short sighted remark to make.

"Kundun" is pure torture to those that have attention spans shorter than George W. Bush's!

"impassioned fringe types"...Takes one to know one, buddy!

comment #44

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Deficient? No. Removed from reality a bit? Off on your own aesthetic-processing beam? Maybe. But that's allowable.

comment #45

Joe Gillis says ...

I take no offense at being "off on [my] own aesthetic-processing beam." Like you said, that's allowable. But you had to include the "removed from reality a bit" crack. At the end of the day, Scorsese doesn't matter. His movies are just movies. How I process them is different from how I process the real world (taxes, work, love, etc.). You can learn from art, certainly. But to suggest my grasp, or anyone's, for that matter, of the real world is in question because of how I view movies, well...that's messed up, plain and simple. I love movies, don't get me wrong. But the real world plays at rules that aren't conducive to a 90-180 min. arc. Trying to convince yourself otherwise, that's delusional.

comment #46

frankbooth says ...

I just saw MDOC's comment about Manhunter. Not THIS debate again.

I think it's safe to say that most serious film fans now prefer Manhunter to Red Dragon, and possibly even to Silence. Look around for some of the arguments, because I don't have time to reiterate them. But you either get it or you don't. If you're put off by the fact that an Eighties film looks like it was made in the Eighties, I don't know what to say.

So I was mildly annoyed, and then I saw THIS remark:

"...but there's only about 20 mins. from the original "Cape Fear" that anybody can watch without laughing their asses off."

-- and my jaw dropped.

I like some things about the Scorsese film, and find it very entertaining -- but it's a stylized cartoon, and DeNiro is Freddy Kruger.

Mitchum is scary without breaking a sweat. He's a lazy crocodile who'll drift up and bite your head off. DeNiro is the Tasmanian Devil from Looney Tunes. Talk about a performance you can safely laugh off...

"Everything else causes people under 40 to laugh AT the film."

The same people who are making Michael Bay so rich?

comment #47

nemo says ...

John Huston made Wise Blood (1979) in the middle of his slump.

Hitchcock made The Paradine Case, Rope, and Stage Fright during his.

Far from the best from either director, but still better than most people's best.

Martin Scorsese made New York, New York during his slump. And The Color of Money is nothing to be ashamed of either.

comment #48

frankbooth says ...

If you're still reading, MDOC, take a look at this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2071909

comment #49

MDOC says ...

Thanks frankbooth, admittedly it's been a few years, maybe I'll give Manhunter a second look. I was really underwhelmed though I just remeber Peterson yelling out loud by himself.

comment #50

agelva says ...

Stanley Kubrick went through a slump between....wait....never mind....not the best example I guess.

comment #51

frankbooth says ...

Well, MDOC, it's been so widely imitated that it can be hard to appreciate how different it was. (To be fair, you could say the same of Silence.) The cop who's half-crazy himself and is better-suited to catching bad guys because of it; the amount of detail spent on the killer and his dual life; and of course, Hannibal, who was unlike any character I'd ever seen up to that point. (It probably helps to have seen Cox before Hopkins or reading any of the novels.)

Yes, there are some Miami Vice visuals, too much pink clothing, and some egregious pop music (though In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida -- the whole ending, in fact -- are genius). And Petersen's performance is right on the edge between intense and method-comical. But if you can see it with fresh eyes, it's pretty great.

comment #52

frankbooth says ...

One more thing and I'll shut up: Edelsteins' suggestion of Fiennes for Will Graham instead of in the Noonan role is intriguing and maybe even brilliant.

comment #53

bluefugue says ...

I'd say Spielberg's slumps are equivocal, as are his successful patches post-'70s. I daresay he hasn't made film since Raiders that wasn't disfigured in some way or another (well, maybe ET, but I never liked ET much). But War of the Worlds and Munich contain some of his best filmmaking.

comment #54

Geoffsongs says ...

The thing about BONNIE & CLYDE, though, was that critics initially hated it, and Pauline Kael persuaded most to give it another look with her passionate defense of the film. Is there a Kael for PUBLIC ENEMIES? Is there any critic with the power to persuade in a similar Kael-like fashion within today's oversaturated internet blob of voices? Is the new film worthy of such a defense? Nobody seems to flat out hate it the way critics initially reacted to BONNIE & CLYDE. Rather, the reaction seems so-so, lukewarm, passive. Some, like Wells, are obviously ga ga over it. It will be interesting to see how the film is looked at years from now.

comment #55

Gaydos says ...

Geoffsongs: Damn i hate to have to do this again, but the kael legend of bonnie und clyde is tripe.

Please note:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117888921.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1&query=gaydos+kael+bonnie+clyde