I think so too.I think JGL has made his bones in the biz by now that he deserves to headline a summer blockbuster.
I think that's the difference in terms of look from Collateral and Miami Vice than Public Enemies. I think the Public Enemies was dealing which more low light locations and it probably tripped Mann and his DP up.
Well, it certainly looks like crap to me. Miami Vice looks more beautiful, but you could still tell it's digital. Public Enemies was that times 100. Collateral looked great, though.
According to Wally in an interview for empire back in 2010 he wasn't even Nolan's 1st choice for dp on Memento, it was Peter Deming (Oz great and powerful,Mulholland Drive) but he'd still made a commitment to shoot Scream 3. "He is still banging his head against the wall" says Wally. So maybe now Nolan might ask Peter back for Interstellar.
I think JGL has made his bones in the biz by now that he deserves to headline a summer blockbuster.
Everyone has different tastes. But even when we disagree , it annoys me a little when peole dont acknowledge the abilities of the people involved. Very few directors could be compared to Mann , when it comes to visual. Those compositions are flat out gorgeous. There's an incredible level of detail when it comes to him. So when someone goes to a board (not here) and read some *****e (again...not here) saying "oh mann doesnt have any idea how to work with digital" just shows 2 things. First a level of disrespect for someone who has accomplished so much , secondly it shows a complete lack of knowledge , passing by a mere incompetent .
Public Enemies looks like that because Mann used a 360 shutter...so , more or less 1/24s for 24 frames. That's the reason the movie has that look. The sensor was always exposed to light.
People need to stop saying the movie looks like that because its digital. No. Vice has a lot of digital , and it doesn't look anything like that.
And it didnt trip Mann. The movie is flat-out gorgeous from every aspect of photography. I recognize its different , that's just because people are used to almost 100 years of cinema done in a very particular look .
It sticks out because it literally looks like it was filmed with a home camcorder at times, as if they let the special features guy shoot the movie. It stands as a clear example of how to mess up filming with digital. He did good work with Collateral, but Public Enemies is on a lot of people's lists for worst shot studio they've seen in recent years (not that such lists are fully formed).
I don't think it's all hate, some people just don't think he should direct every film like a lot of Nolan fanboys suggest.I was browsing the commnader Bond forums and there is a topic that asks who should the director for Bond 24 be and one poster wrote that anyone but Lee Tamahori (director of Die another Day) or Nolan should suffice, prompting me to spit out my orange juice following a failed attempt to stifle immediate laughter. The vitriol towards Nolan is so over the top, almost cartoonish.
Yes, in terms of American filmmakers, Michael Mann is one of the two most gifted visual stylists around, the other being Terrence Malick.
True, but Lee's personal life is consistently ridiculed in conjunction with being credited as the guy who almost killed Bond in those forums. The poster who wrote "anyone but Lee Tamahori and Nolan" understood full well how low he sank Nolan, at least in the context of that forum and Lee's reputation in it.Lee Tamahori's personal brush with the law has nothing to do with his directing abilities.
I think when Public Enemies was announced to start production, it said that it would be shot on 35mm. But then Dante Spinotti said that Mann convinced him to shoot it digitally on the Sony CineAlta instead before shooting.
Lee Tamahori's personal brush with the law has nothing to do with his directing abilities.
Yes, in terms of American filmmakers, Michael Mann is one of the two most gifted visual stylists around, the other being Terrence Malick.