[quote=“F.W.”]
I just don’t like the way it made it look. There were no Miami Vice visuals, it was all grainy and dark. I love grainy films but on digital? It’s okay to make amateur short films with it but it’s getting old.
Yes, really. Thief is fucking awesome.
[/quote]
Interesting.
Agreed that Thief is fucking awesome but how is it the best of his flicks, even over Heat?
Heat was just like “HEY I GOT PACINO AND DE NIRO! COME OVER TO MY PLACE AND MASTURBATE!”
At least that’s what I heard…but I hear that A LOT.
Even if it had not been those two actors, replace them with two equally talented but not nearly as well known actors, it still would have blown Thief and anything else he had done up to that point out of the water. The movie is what impresses me, not the pairing.
But have you seen Heat? That last part makes it sound like you haven’t.
I’ve seen Heat. It was dull in every scene except the armored car robbery and the city shoot-out.
[quote=“F.W.”]
I’ve seen Heat. It was dull in every scene except the armored car robbery and the city shoot-out.
[/quote]
I’ve been questioning you all day ;D
And Thief didn’t have a dull scene at all?
Yeah, do you wanna switch it up maybe? Try bad cop for a bit?
I’m just gonna start acting like a punk ass and be smart with you.
Listen, old man, I know my rights and you can’t question me anymore without a lawyer. I’m just gonna sit here and think about CATS.
Gangster pictures were really Cagney/Bogart/Edward G Robinson vehicles - these pictures started with the Warner Bros. where they based these wretched men from actual stories taken from the newspapers. Jack Warner was fascinated by these stories. I haven’t seen the original Public Enemies with Cagney, but I’m surprised the Warners didn’t make this picture. I hope they bring this gangster genre back, god knows we need something different.
[quote=“Lt. BioBasterd”]
Gangster pictures were really Cagney/Bogart/Edward G Robinson vehicles - these pictures started with the Warner Bros. where they based these wretched men from actual stories taken from the newspapers. Jack Warner was fascinated by these stories. I haven’t seen the original Public Enemies with Cagney, but I’m surprised the Warners didn’t make this picture. I hope they bring this gangster genre back, god knows we need something different.
[/quote]
This picture has nothing to with Cagney’s “The Public Enemy”. That was about prohibition era gangsters and criminals. This film is about the depression-era bank robbers John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and so on and so forth. These “public enemies” were not actually considered “wretched men” but heroes to the people. Why? Because in the United States the depression was at the fault of the banks. America had too many and still do, really and they were not Government regulated. So to see a bunch of people sticking it to the banks and the Man, people loved it but soon the G-Men, who were the FBI agents specifically assigned to taking these guys down, became the heroes in pulp magazines and so on.
THE MORE YOU KNOW!
[quote=“Lt. BioBasterd”]
Gangster pictures were really Cagney/Bogart/Edward G Robinson vehicles - these pictures started with the Warner Bros. where they based these wretched men from actual stories taken from the newspapers. Jack Warner was fascinated by these stories. I haven’t seen the original Public Enemies with Cagney, but I’m surprised the Warners didn’t make this picture. I hope they bring this gangster genre back, god knows we need something different.
[/quote]
Something different, I don’t know how well those kinds of films would play today, there’s a whole new kind of gangster out there and he sure as hell ain’t Cagney (can’t believe you havn’t seen The Public Enemy). Unless they were period movies, then you might capture some of the things that worked really well in the 30s.
[quote=“F.W.”]
Yeah, do you wanna switch it up maybe? Try bad cop for a bit?
I’m just gonna start acting like a punk ass and be smart with you.
Listen, old man, I know my rights and you can’t question me anymore without a lawyer. I’m just gonna sit here and think about CATS.
[/quote]
Hardy fuckin’ har ;D
[quote=“F.W.”]
This picture has nothing to with Cagney’s “The Public Enemy”. That was about prohibition era gangsters and criminals. This film is about the depression-era bank robbers John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and so on and so forth. These “public enemies” were not actually considered “wretched men” but heroes to the people. Why? Because in the United States the depression was at the fault of the banks. America had too many and still do, really and they were not Government regulated. So to see a bunch of people sticking it to the banks and the Man, people loved it but soon the G-Men, who were the FBI agents specifically assigned to taking these guys down, became the heroes in pulp magazines and so on.
THE MORE YOU KNOW!
[/quote]
Why that kind of flick wouldn’t work today, the headline picture. Todays gangsters aren’t that kind of gangster. Think Dillinger to Scarface.
I think this is gonna be more like John Dillinger: Rock Star. Looks great!
[quote=“Pete”]
I think this is gonna be more like John Dillinger: Rock Star. Looks great!
[/quote]
He was a rockstar. Perhaps one of, if not THE, biggest American icon of the depression.
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
Why that kind of flick wouldn’t work today, the headline picture. Todays gangsters aren’t that kind of gangster. Think Dillinger to Scarface.
[/quote]
Yeah, but that’s because Dillinger ain’t what a “gangster” he’s a “bank robber” and an “outlaw”. This film will paint him both as a dark figure and a famous figure, which he was. We actually need criminals with more political awareness and more iconic potential these days. All we have is a bunch of poor, uneducated little boys running around with guns and drugs.
[quote=“F.W.”]
Yeah, but that’s because Dillinger ain’t what a “gangster” he’s a “bank robber” and an “outlaw”.
[/quote]
Maybe not technically what a gangster is but as far as alot of people are concerned Public Enemies would fit into the gangster genre. I’ say it does.
[quote=“F.W.”]
We actually need criminals with more political awareness and more iconic potential these days. All we have is a bunch of poor, uneducated little boys running around with guns and drugs.
[/quote]
No fucking doubt.
<LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/rev … FID=136004”>http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136004</LINK_TEXT>
Good news from the Empire website, the review of Public Enemies.
It sounds like it’s on the level. I’m now officially excited.
Also, have you seen John Milius’ Dillinger with Warren Oates? That film is fantastic. Oates resembled Dillinger the most out of any actor who played him.
[quote=“F.W.”]
Also, have you seen John Milius’ Dillinger with Warren Oates? That film is fantastic. Oates resembled Dillinger the most out of any actor who played him.
[/quote]
When I first heard Michael Mann was doing Dillinger I ran out and checked it out. The best part had to be Oates, and the movie wasn’t half bad either.
Have you seen the 1945 one? I checked it out and was shocked to see Lawrence Tierney playing Dillinger!
[quote=“F.W.”]
Also, have you seen John Milius’ Dillinger with Warren Oates? That film is fantastic. Oates resembled Dillinger the most out of any actor who played him.
[/quote]
Yep Ive seen it. It was good. I liked how Oates and Ben Johnson had played The Gorch Bros in The Wild Bunch but in this they were enemies. Nice touch.
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
Have you seen the 1945 one? I checked it out and was shocked to see Lawrence Tierney playing Dillinger!
[/quote]
"Mr Blue is dead?"
Joe: Dead as Dillinger
[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
When I first heard Michael Mann was doing Dillinger I ran out and checked it out. The best part had to be Oates, and the movie wasn’t half bad either.
Have you seen the 1945 one? I checked it out and was shocked to see Lawrence Tierney playing Dillinger!
[/quote]
Yeah, I went through a heavy phase of nothing but crime pictures a couple years back. Anything with Dillinger really fascinated me and that’s added to my excitement for this one.