And Cotillard is HOT.

Really, it turns out that it's just Heat. It's kind of gospel that men in my age group love Heat, but I don't. I like the one big gunfight and the 5 minute Pacino/DeNiro conversation, but the other 2 1/2 hours I could do without.

So, it turns out that in the span of 5 minutes I have gone from being anti-Michael Mann to a Michael Mann fan. I still think he's kind of a humorless robot though. Hell, even Lars von Triers who makes the most depressing movies in the world puts some humor in them.

Still overall I guess I just think I don't like Michael Mann as I appear to like way more than I don't like. Either way I was seeing Public Enemies tomorrow night anyway. I might have to rent the Miami Vice. Should I watch theatrical or director's cut? Anyone have an opinion on this?

I don't know what Assimov means by "Mann's movies are what movies SHOULD NORMALLY BE LIKE...". That's kind of a pompous statement since directors work in various different ways and genres to achieve very different results.

But, hey, that's my problem not Mann's.

Sadly I knew Malden best from Streets Of San Fransisco and his, wassit Mastercard commercials? "Don't leave home without it".

Anyway, Karl Malden was one of Hollywood's finest and most likeable actors.

"You don't think Jesus is down here on the docks with you. Well, I'm telling you he is!"

"Don't waste my motherfuckin' time!!!"

"I just had coffee with McCauley HALF AN HOUR AGO!!!"

I really like the sound of this flick. Looking forward to it.

I wonder if the guy who played Ralph would have a long autograph line at the HEAT convention? Probably not. Poor dumb sap.

So much so that it was FUCKIN' DISTRACTING! Seriously I couldn't focus on the movie because I would focus on what was going on. About an hour and a half in I finally was able to pay attention so either I got used to it or they calmed down with that crap. There could have been a good movie in there I dunno. The last half seemed pretty good. I could make out that the performances were there. But I didn't get a sense of who John Dillinger was or why people liked him. I mean he didn't look like Johnny Depp in real life right? Otherwise I saw no reason for his popularity and I didn't even see that he was popular within the film. But again it could have whizzed by me while I was looking for my air-sick bag. (And after reading Capone's interview with Mann I knew to sit further back. It didn't help.) A lot of the time I spent in the beginning was questioning why someone would do that. Why put together that cast and get all the bells and whistles just so you can't see them properly. At one point I started to feel bad for the design team because I didn't feel like their work could be appreciated, until the end. This was what was going through my head instead of whatever plot was in front of me. I mean it should be obvious from what I just wrote but for me the visuals are of the utmost importance in a film. So to not be able to make out what's going on is bad, really bad. Also you can't help but think of 'The Untouchables' when watching something like this and although that story was meh, it looked friggin' great. Doesn't help to think of that when you're looking at a fuzzy orange Depp.

When the first trailer came out everyone was complaining about how shitty it looked and I didn't see it. I didn't catch on. Maybe because it was on a small screen but I get it now. But again only in that first half of the movie because later it seemed like they started to figure out how to light at least some of the night scenes. But some of the scenes looked like re-enactment videos from crap like E! True Hollywood stories or something. Why is it so hard to make digital photography look good at night? And if it looks so bad why use it? I'm not a filmmaker so I don't know.

On the whole, I don't know how to rate this movie. Or how to fit it in a list of movies this year. I don't know if it's a 8 or a 3. I don't know if it would improve on second viewing if I could manage to choreograph myself to shake in synchronicity with the film thereby making it seem to stand still. I just wish you could fix that for the DVD or something because I really sort of feel like I don't know what I saw. It was kinda like when Johnny and Benicio went into that crazy carnival in 'Fear and Loathing' and Benicio couldn't get off the carousel. I felt like that. And at the end of the film something made me want to go home and watch 'Johnny Dangerously' for the hundred and umpteenth time. The worst part is I thought this was going to be my favorite movie this year.

If you don't decide soon i'm just gonna have to put you down for a 5.5

Apart from the shaky cam, what did you think of the rest of the movie, plot, performance, script, pacing, etc?

by lockesbrokenleg Jul 1st, 2009 05:03:21 PM

Dude, you made a bogus comment and you got called on it. Man up and move on.

As with the colonial Northeast in Mohicans, L.A. in both Heat and Collateral, the south in The Insider, Zaire in Ali....Mann makes Miami the main character....and i thought that Farrell and Foxx were great in it....so there.

And as far as the pussies around here complaining about "movie was too long"...It's a crying shame mainstream Hollywood panders to the Twitter Generation, who can't handle a movie over 80 minutes. Sadly, the days of the epic film are dying. Wherever have you gone, LOTR, GODFATHER...

Will I have to see it and make up my own mind? That's so last-millenium.

I agree about Bale, odo19. I thought Bale had the better scenes. The one with Cotillard, you know which. And all his reactions to his guys F'in up. Especially when that one dude showed up hat in hand. I thought that guy was gonna get his lights trashed for sure from the look on His Lordship's face.

I understand why you and others don't like the look, though. I just do like it. A lot. I love film cinematography, too. IMO, both styles serve different purposes very well, and they each have their merits.

My vote: Continue the theme of escalation...and include Superman. See the "DISTRICT 9" trailer if you disbelieve that Superman CAN blend into Nolan's Mann-influenced style.

P.S. A friend of mine complained about historical fact-fudging, so I asked him for an example. The one instance that seemed to bother him to no end was the color of the dress of the woman who betrays Dillinger. So, I looked it up. You can't really blame a movie for historical inaccuracy when history is often historically inaccurate. When I told my friend what I found out, he called me unprofessional and said he was finished with me. Then he asked one of our mutual friends to call me a prick.

As to Michael Mann's influence on Batman, I love it. (The box office of THE DARK KNIGHT speaks for itself.) Yet, I do realize that some people are resistant to such superhero fantasy being so close to a life-like reality. Believe it or not, there are SOME people who actually prefer a more playful interpretation, with visuals that reflect the fantasy. Some people want artistry within fantastic visuals and highly choreographed action. And those styles have great potential, too. But I'm not going to sit here and choose sides...because I do appreciate what both sides have to offer, just as I can appreciate the blending of styles. In the end, it is the final product that matters.

As for Nolan's next Batman flick, I get goosebumps for the great potential it has. I see the potential of a Batman movie SO incredible...that it could eclipse both the critical praise and the box office success of THE DARK KNIGHT. For me, the key to such success is a combination of three reasons: 1.)Escalation. 2.)Superman. 3.)Plausibility through visual interpretation.

Escalation: It HAS to happen. Batman is NOW the villain (though we know different). Visually (as an artist, myself), I would take advantage of this...in the design of Batman's costume, as Batman is more feared/fearsome than ever. (Note: I would make Batman's costume more creature-like to reflect the public attitude,...the ears more like the '89 costume, with the suit having built-in musculature, though perhaps less human.)

SUPERMAN: As a character within the DC Comics universe, Superman is your answer to Ledger's incredible performance as the Joker. Do NOT... I repeat, do NOT... allow acting talent (or past performances) to influence the story to come, no matter how great this influence may feel.

Plausibility through visual interpretation: Simply put, the style needs to remain consistent, despite the inclusion of Superman. --Some people disbelieve that this blending of material can be done successfully,...because Superman, as a character, dips far more into the realm of fantasy. But I disagree. (And the trailer for "DISTRICT 9" should be enough to prove my point.) And I have enough faith in Nolan to take us to that place, and to blow away the expectations of those who disbelieve.

FINAL THOUGHTS: I have these visual flashes of a movie that doesn't exist,...of the once standing Superman falling to the ground, on his side with his head against the cave floor, a turned sideways P.O.V. shot of the approaching Batman. With my mind's eye, I "see" a movie that begins with the terrifying image of Batman, as the villain,...which escalates into the inclusion of Superman, as the hero,...into the eventual discovery of truth and a new friendship established. And wouldn't it be interesting if the true villain was revealed to be Gotham City's NEW Mayor, Rupert Thorne (for those of you who know your Batman history)? Can't you imagine a crooked Mayor requesting the help of this so-called Superman of Metropolis,...which leads him to using Superman like a dog (with lives at stake), in an effort to take down the Dark Knight once and for all?

Good luck, Mr. Nolan.

JDP what you mean? Don't get this line? (nice post btw).

Judging by past talkbacks at AICN, I'm sure there are those who believe that the talent isn't there, for the casting of Superman. But if I had my say, I would urge Nolan to utilize Routh as Clark Kent/Superman, while having no connection to SUPERMAN RETURNS (and including a more familiar design of Superman's costume).

For me, "THE DARK KNIGHT" stands head and shoulders above the rest. However, in my opinion, as much as Nolan got right with BATMAN BEGINS, the things that Burton got right with his own visual interpretation outshines the lessor leap of Nolan's original outing.

That's just my opinion. (And I recently picked up the BATMAN ANTHOLOGY on Blu-ray.)

One major problem is the lack of character introduction and development for ANY supporting characters. With the exception of Depp, Bale, and the lead actress, the rest of the characters are window-dressing. People are constantly either showing up on screen or dying and I was constantly asking myself, "Who was that again???"

Besides that tho, I really cant say why I didnt like it... Depp is good. Bale is good. But I cant say that I was extremely interested in what was going on during the movie for most of the time I watched it. It just wasnt all that interesting and I dont know if that's the fault of the screenwriter or the director or what but something was missing. I dont even know if I would want to see it a second time...