Not withstanding, I will revisit this film on home media. This clearly tries to be an epic, but spends most of its time looking like a DVD extra. I read that Mann didn’t bother to treat the digital recording to make it look like film (as he did on his early flirtations with the format – the superb Collateral and the relatively disappointing Miami Vice), and I’m just wondering if the style of film making might better suit one of those other films. As I mentioned above, the film arguably captures action sequences well (it’s almost as if you’re there – you’re that petrified and confused), but most of the time it seems to border on looking like home movies. What isn’t an excessive two-hour runtime suddenly seems an eternity. With focus becoming an issue, the film seems quite tiring to the audience. Sure, there is the occasional beautiful shot (there’s a lovely three or four second shot of Depp walking across the afore-mentioned ballroom), but most of it gets lost. This works well in the heated conflict scenes (of which Mann has many), but less so in the ball rooms and apartments. ![]() The footage looks like it was shot on a store-bought camcorder, and Mann seems to have favoured handheld recording, so there are times when it looks like the Blair Witch Dillinger. Seriously, my girlfriend came out seasick. Someone should have told him that High Definition was not the best way to capture the thirties and that his usual pick-and-mix soundtrack style would not compliment a period piece. ![]() Why isn’t it a brilliant film?įrankly, Michael Mann is really one of the most talented working directors today, but he has a hubris that seems on par with Dillinger’s. However, the script is adapts a relatively narrow focus (it only focuses on a year of Dillinger’s life rather than offering a broad and sweeping approach) and features some fantastic dialogue. The story is as old as the hills – and if you’ve seen even one Michael Mann movie, you know how it plays out. While I wouldn’t consider Crudup a front runner for a nomination, he would make an ideal dark horse candidate for this year’s Best Supporting Actor race. It’s an imitation, but a sincere and whole-hearted one – with the accent to boot. The show is well-and-truly stolen by Billy Crudup as J. Watch out for cameos of various young Hollywood ladies throughout the film (Emilie de Ravin and Leelee Sobieski show up), as well as small supporting roles for veteran performers. Marion Cotillard is also great as the love of Dillinger’s life. This film belongs to one actor everyone else is a guest. The character gets the short shrift (especially at the end), but audiences shouldn’t arrive expected a head-to-head along the lines of Heat. Christian Bale is quietly determined as Purvis. The picture is Depp’s but he is surrounded by a more-than-capable ensemble. ![]() We know he’s a killer we like him anyway. The script and Depp make the character likeable, a PR savvy bank robber who inspired the larger than life tales that continue to this day – but they never lose sight of the charcter’s inherently aggressive nature. His Dillinger is a fantastic creation, a man truly running on borrowed time, a man who thinks and lives for today, but knows today will soon be yesterday. Johnny Depp demonstrates his raw charisma in playing a conventional lead with the same grace and dedication that we’re familiar with from his more experimental roles. ![]() The film is, on paper at least, one of the best of the year.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |