The lighting was a big problem for me. The entire film was dark as hell, and it didn't enhance the film at all. It didn't add to tension or atmosphere. It just made it hard to see what was happening, and the relentlessly shaky cinematography, absolutely an example of the dreaded shaky cam phenomenon, didn't help matters any.
When I go to the theaters, I always sit in the absolute last row, and I was still trying to lean back into the wall to get further away from the screen.
Not only was the camera almost never still, but like I said, the framing of so much of the film was atrocious. It felt like watching a movie on your TV and you didn't notice you accidentally hit the zoom button on your remote, so the frame looks a little too zoomed-in. The whole time in the theater, I wanted a big theater remote to hit the zoom-out button.
When you can afford to, I encourage you pay to go see it at a proper theater. Try an Arclight, you won't be disappointed unless you don't know what you're looking at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt68
Because he made the film, I'll always compare Mann's efforts to Heat, his greatest.
That's an egregious mistake to make. I can see why you would make it but you should avoid it. Then again, maybe you don't want to so maybe I shouldn't be wasting my time.
__________________
Shit toast from a shit toaster.
Manhunter is disappointing and slow...a far cry to the psychological tension and the acting accumens of the cast of Silence of the Lambs.
Though, online, people tend to nuthug Manhunter, so I'll probably have to rewatch it (been five or more years, same for Silence of the Lambs) just to put in some more words.
Its still just as slow as you remember it. Huge fan of the book, I found it to be a vast disappointment even after multiple viewings spaced over many years. The pace is more painful than the fate of Freddy Lounds, and its made worse by the score. Noonan was good I agree, but the pace of this movie draws the life essence out of anything remotely viable, for me at least.
Im curious to hear who else in this thread (aside from Bullitt) thinks Cox was the better Lecter over Hopkins.
The Reader was an enjoyable, solid film. Definitely worth a watch.
__________________
Luck often enough will save a man, if his courage hold.
I'm on the fence with Manhunter/SotL. SotL used to be one of my favorites but the last 2 times I watched, not only did it not hold up parts were down right bad. Hopkins was good but Foster (who I am a fan of) was actually pretty bad. I know that may be an unpopular opinion but I can't help it. It was like a eureka moment when I thought "she didnt do as well as I thought" and now every time I see it it seems like she gets a little worse.
Its like the first time I realized Stve Miller inhales into the mic before ever line. First i was like "huh? thats weird, I never noticed that before."
Now I can barely listen to some songs.
__________________
In some places they play football. In Alabama, we live it. ROLL TIDE!!!!
What was the name of the scottish guy who played Hannibal in Manhunter?
__________________
"Do know what's really scary? You want to forget something. Totally wipe it off your mind. But you never can. It can't go away, you see. And... and it follows you around like a ghost. "
The Devil's Advocate (Keanu Reeves, Al Pacino) is an underrated movie. I hadn't seen it in years, but enjoyed it today. I really like the delivery and story in this film. 8.5/10.
I think 8/10 is the highest I could try to justify for this movie, but I personally loved it.
__________________
"Something to believe in...
...is something to become."
When you can afford to, I encourage you pay to go see it at a proper theater. Try an Arclight, you won't be disappointed unless you don't know what you're looking at.
Well the film seemed very poorly lit throughout, so even if there'd be an improvement if I went to a better theater, I doubt it'd be so significant as to essentially relight the film.
And no theater can calm the camera down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Gun Fish
That's an egregious mistake to make. I can see why you would make it but you should avoid it. Then again, maybe you don't want to so maybe I shouldn't be wasting my time.
As a stand alone piece of film, I thought Public Enemies was disappointingly lacking in a lot of ways, and when compared to Heat, it's made worse considering how great a film a filmmaker the caliber of Michael Mann should've been able to make out of that story with that character and with that cast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gogoGomi
Im curious to hear who else in this thread (aside from Bullitt) thinks Cox was the better Lecter over Hopkins.
I don't think Cox was better than Hopkins. I just think Manhunter as a film is much better than Silence of the Lambs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edco76
I'm on the fence with Manhunter/SotL. SotL used to be one of my favorites but the last 2 times I watched, not only did it not hold up parts were down right bad. Hopkins was good but Foster (who I am a fan of) was actually pretty bad. I know that may be an unpopular opinion but I can't help it. It was like a eureka moment when I thought "she didnt do as well as I thought" and now every time I see it it seems like she gets a little worse.
I never loved Silence of the Lambs, so I didn't have a cooling response, but I do have the same reaction as you where it gets worse with each viewing.
__________________
CLASSIC FILM 101: www.sherdog.net/forums/f48/classic-film-index-894553/
"I think it's an act of self-robbery to watch films today without understanding where film has come from."
Well the film seemed very poorly lit throughout, so even if there'd be an improvement if I went to a better theater, I doubt it'd be so significant as to essentially relight the film.
You should listen to yourself.
You're like these guys watching movies via streaming bullshit internet who think they're doing themselves some kind favor with a shitass medium. After the puke-slaught to the senses TRANSFORMERS 2 was, you're lucky you had the wherewithal to sneak into PUBLIC ENEMIES at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt68
As a stand alone piece of film, I thought Public Enemies was disappointingly lacking in a lot of ways, and when compared to Heat, it's made worse considering how great a film a filmmaker the caliber of Michael Mann should've been able to make out of that story with that character and with that cast.
Shut the fuck up, Donny. Don't be a live-in-the-past chingaso, man.
You ever hear the term pearls before swine? You disappointed yourself by expecting something you weren't even deserving to watch. I'm glad you didn't like it.
__________________
Shit toast from a shit toaster.
Although both are really good films, I'll take Angel Heart over The Devil's Advocate. I really didn't expect to like Angel Heart as much as I did. However, when it comes to the villains of each movie (don't want to spoil it), I'll take the one in TDA. But of course, Rourke > Reeves (although Reeves wasn't bad in TDA).
__________________
UFC Main Events - Where getting your ass kicked means you've won the fight.
