Things I Would Like Very Much to See

A Christopher Nolan-directed James Bond movie.

Public Enemies - An Alternate View

Compared to Sarah, I really enjoyed the movie. That said, I think that, while I may not agree with all of her points, many of her complaints are fair. Though it didn't strike me at the time, I think her characterization of Bale's character is accurate. The love story is as "meh" as you could expect (never Michael Mann's forte), and you don't walk out with any particularly strong emotional ties to any of the characters. The movie is also definitely as much about now as the 1930s, not just in terms of heavy-handed interrogation techniques, but also in terms of the economy (people celebrating Dillinger for attacking the banks that had gotten them in the mess isn't so far from people celebrating things like Madoff's arrest or anger at AGI). I also enjoy many Michael Mann films, and admitted as we left (when some who saw it with me were underwhelmed) that you know what you're getting with him generally, and you know whether you like it or not.

However, there are a couple of things I think that make it better than Sarah felt it was. First, the one acting job that really stuck out for me was Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover. It wasn't just that he got the speech mannerisms dead on. I really felt that he did an excellent job in showing what a power-hungry and manipulative leader he was, and he did as much with his characterization through body language (particularly in the way he bristles when being accused before a Senate committee of having never arrested anybody) as he did when he spoke.

I also really liked the scenery - yes, it was period pieces, but the way Mann used the environment/lighting/framing to shift the mood of the film overall was excellentl. There's a constant sense of growing ambiguity/darkness as the film shifts from the the big, blue, sunny sky of the Indiana plains at the beginning, and then used those aforementioned elements to make the movie darker and darker as time passed. And the gun battles were amazingly choreographed and shot (no pun intended), marking Mann's best work since Heat. The battle at the lodge was particularly impressive, and was hands-down the best I've seen since the showdown at the end of L.A. Confidential.

The other thing that I think makes this a really notable movie is that it's the first live-action movie filmed digitally where I could actually see some of the potential for that method of filming. Previous digital movies (Benjamin Button, I'm looking at you) left me saying, "what's the big deal?" It's like directors haven't figured out what to do with it yet, or how to take advantage of the format. With Public Enemies, you finally start to get a sense of what digital formatting offers. The film had a clarity and beauty that other films lacked (though the prison against the open sky in the opening sequence is a fairly breath-taking shot). The night-time scenes were the best evidence of digital's potential, though, as Mann was able to make nighttime look more brilliant (without appearing falsely illuminated) than any movie I've ever seen. It wasn't so much a matter of camera angles or lighting tricks (though no doubt those entered into the equation some) - it was clear that the digital format just made for better filming for those scenes, and they have a beauty unlike any beforehand (though to be clear, that doesn't mean they are the most beautiful night-time scenes).

I suspect general opinions about the movie will come down to the differences that Sarah and I have over it. If you're looking for a great story, compelling characters, or a convincing love-story, you're going to be underwhelmed. If you enjoy Michael Mann movies for what they are (and if you don't, there's nothing wrong with you), and can appreciate the way in which somebody seems to finally be figuring out how to use the digital format for a more brilliant and beautiful film, then you will probably highly enjoy it.

Public Enemies

I had heard mixed reviews, so wasn't expecting anything great from Public Enemies. I like--don't love--Michael Mann movies, but I do love Johnny Depp, so I gave it a shot.

I can't say that I hate it, but I can say that it is the least substantial, least subtle movie I've seen in a while--and that might even include Twilight.

Starring Johnny Depp as John Dillinger, packed with excellent actors and helmed by a skilled director, Public Enemies should've been a glorious gangster romp. Or it could've been a sober, thoughtful story about crime and the Depression and right and wrong. But aside from a few scenes of overzealous police officers abusing Dillinger associates in hopes of information that were clearly, heavy-handedly meant as metaphors for our current torture debate, the movie is nothing but a series of somewhat repetitive set pieces, bank heists that are nothing but some stylized movements and entirely too much gunfire, and a love story that has exactly zero tension.

There's some chemistry between Depp and Marion Cotillard (as Billie Freshette), but from the minute they meet, Dillinger is telling Freshette that she's going to fall for him and she gets precious little choice. She walks out on him when he tells her to wait once, and gets petulant one other time, but other than that, the absolute lack of any development to their relationship makes an ending that I'm sure the screenwriter thought was fraught with emotion fall flatter than roadkill.

Indeed, there's really no tension in this movie whatsoever. You know from the start how it ends, and there's no indication ever that Dillinger might give up robbing banks, or that he has any qualms about it. Sadly, there are plenty of points that could've been made--the contrast of Dillinger with the uber-violent Baby Face Nelson, perhaps, or more interaction between him and Christian Bale's Melvin Purvis, the stone-faced cop whose entrance in Naziesque knee boots and slicked hair was certainly intentional.

Bale has two emotions in this movie: dead-faced calm and a sudden, confident smirk. The space between them is so huge, particularly because his calm doesn't play as thoughtful, but rather just as blank. He's largely wasted in the role, where at least Depp gets to vamp a bit and to let a little bit of the Jack Sparrow joy show through. Billy Crudup makes an unexpected appearance as a perfectly creepy J.Edgar Hoover, and I would've loved to see more of him, but like most of the cast he was introduced and then forgotten much too quickly.

Characters die with absolutely zero emotion either because you're given no chance to care about them (most of them) or because it's so heavily foreshadowed that you've already written them off by the time they bite the dust. (Sample "Sometimes you just know it's your time, and it's my time." Next scene he's bleeding out in the back of a car. Shocking, that.)

Unlike some critics, I like the digital video the film was shot on, enjoy the grainy feel of it. Mann and his cinematographer Dante Spinotti do some absolutely gorgeous things with the camera in this movie, and it's disappointing that the story doesn't live up to the scenery, so to speak.

Public Enemies isn't about anything, which on its own is fine--I'm all for popcorn movies and would've loved nothing more than a gangster version of Pirates of the Caribbean, with Depp throwing himself into Dillinger the way he did Jack Sparrow and his supporting cast feeding off his frenetic energy to lift a movie way above its source material. Conversely, the economic situation right now is absolutely ripe for Depression-era comparisons, and the movie completely fails to make a single connection aside from the aforementioned torture.

I didn't see Miami Vice, but the feeling I get from Public Enemies was the same slick, soulless one I pictured from the Vice ads, with pretty people posing against pretty scenery. That's not to say it's unwatchable, just that I'm disappointed because I keep comparing it to the movie it could've been.

Greatest Living Actor? Actress?

While trying to pass time at work yesterday, I came across a blog that said Robert DeNiro is the greatest living actor. (I unfortunately don't remember where I saw it - some down-home blog like this one. Nonetheless, here's a poll from 2004 that also said it was DeNiro, followed by Pacino). I didn't think much about it at the time, but it's an interesting question.

Is DeNiro really the best living actor? Certainly, his work at its peak (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Heat) is among the greatest ever, and he salvaged a lot of movies that had no business being anywhere near as decent as they were (Awakenings). But he's done a lot of crap, especially in the last 10 years (Righteous Kill, Godsend, The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle). I realize some of this is terrible script-writing and/or directing, but it's also terrible choices on his part and not exactly amazing acting. Ditto Pacino. Does that recent history take away from his status? Are there others out there who perhaps have a relatively smaller body of work, but of a higher overall quality, like Daniel Day Lewis or Philip Seymour Hoffman?

So - who is the greatest living actor?

And is Meryl Streep the greatest living actress? (I have a harder time coming up with a good alternative here, though I could just be tired).

Milk (part deux)

I'm not going to repost my whole review since Erik already blogged about it, but Karthika and I went to see Milk tonight, and I wrote about it over at my blog, if you'd like to go look.

Now, if any of you are wondering what to get me for Christmas, I would like one James Franco...with a big bow around him. Thanks. :D