sadgwebbregister

You'd have to be really terrible to take such a talented cast and make such a terrible movie. The higher you fly, the further you fall comes to mind. I can't even give it the ole' for 13year olds, by 13 year olds. Completely tone deaf.

This reminds me of a bad album put out by a proven, talented band. These guys are very funny, but there didn't seem to be any adult in the room when they made it to tell them 'that's too crude' or 'you just killed off your best character right off the bat.' You can kill the guy, but let him make the audience laugh at least 2/3 through the movie. Like Seth Macfarlan (so?) western- too many potty jokes and too much violence. Many 13-16 year old boys will rate this movie very high.

Wow, this probably could of been worse, but how, I'm not sure. I mean, this movie is really dumb, even for those who like movies written, directed, and produced for 13 years old... like the three Star Wars prequels bad.

I hope I don't attract any trolls with this comment, but those of you who write "I don't understand all the negative reviews," please ask yourself "why do I need to leave my brain at the door?" Is it really that easy to accept abject stupidity as the norm? Why can't you expect better as an adult, paying customer of your local movie house or rental box? Do you have such low expectations with the car or house you buy?

Michael Mann, was, at one time, America's best director. Now he just makes the same over (or is it over) produced, low on logic, high on Mann elements-film.

He needs fewer less men and more-why are you doing that? Why use video? Why add it randomly or to mark other Mannerisms? Why not actually explain what is actually going on? Instead, you have your actors scramble into the genrespeak and jump into a chase that only make sense to them... only I'm not buying it... it looks like they are babbling genrespeak and starting a chase because the director told them too. I love films that to spend too much time on exposition because in real life, people don't explain everything they are doing to the other people who already know what they are doing. Mann obviously hates it too and goes to the extreme of using the non-exposition as a plot device. New to Mann are obvious plot errors... how is the hell is Thor able to run around without an escort every other scene? I can't bring myself to bring Mann lower than 5 stars, but I'm getting close.

Even with charismatic acting and very beautifully shot Italian backdrops, in the end, at the center of this movie is an unsympathetic character who shows he'll do anything, including killing innocents, to protect himself.

Some reviews have pointed out how long this movie is (my wife, who usually stays to the very end-quit halfway through). Others complain, for professionals, how little they seem to know about their weapons (and reviewers are correct). Still, I hung out the very end, waiting for a change of heart or revelation that would make me care about Clooney. No such luck. In the end, I'm barely satisfied with the ending because any of Clooney's victims could have been innocent, honest, good people.

I'm left with what other negative reviews have said-why did I sit through such a long movie? Most complain there should have been more action. I just wished there would have been some plot that justified all the time I sat in the chair hoping for a good story that never materializes.

1st, I must say I am highly perplexed that some say this version is closer to the book than the John Wayne version. That is simply not the case as the 1969 version is very close to the book while the Coen's verions strays quite a bit... and not always for the better.

Why would anyone who has actually read the book say that this version is closer... it isn't... in word and definitely not in spirit.

As for this movie... it is VERY good, worthy of viewing whether you have seen the original movie, read the book, or any combination. Matt Damon and Hailee Steinfeld do a much better job than Cambell and Kim Darby. Interstingly, to me anyway, is how Berry Pepper did what seems an obvious choice- instead of reworking Lucky Ned Pepper's 'character,' he stuck to Duvall's interpretation.

If you read a review that says the 2010 copy is closer to the book than the 1969 copy-read the book, watch both movies, and you too will wonder why the reviewer says otherwise.

Mann seems to be working backwards from Thief instead of improving over the years.

Public Enemy seems like a remake of many of other Michael Mann movies, and is so full of Mann standards that he seems to work off of a checklist of things his movies must include instead of a script. Must all Mann films include the scene where the "Good Guy" and "Bad Guy" tell each other they respect each other, but will kill each other if they have to, a scene where the 'good' bad guys kill/threaten to kill the bad guys that don't follow some code, a scene where the cops run out of the room after hearing of a tip on where the bad guys are going to be next, the huge shootout and getaway of the main bag guy so that he later has a more intimate death?

Why must Mann, who made the peerless "Thief," insist on using video tape to make movies? The interspersed scenes stand out and look like they were shot on VHS. This really looks bad and is utterly distracting in a period piece. Why would any part of a movie taking place in 1933 look like something shot on a camcorder instead of film? It was SOOOOO distracting.

Also distracting were a weak scripts such as when Bale's character allows torture at one stage and then later, as a plot device, discourages it. Is he Hoover's toady or not? Either the screen writers or Mann decide to leave this unresolved, even though it's a key part of the plot until the last quarter of the movie.

I couldn't enjoy the acting and wide variety of characters due to the ridiculous use of video over film. It's like Star Wars Prequels... Mann and Lucas seem to have surrounded themselves with yes men instead of producers who wanted to make good movies.