Elvis, I think u kept worrying abt the camera than getting into the movie..I cared least abt the camera work. its the story and the way it has been directed with some gripping scenes kept me glued to the screen.
Public enemies is yet another gangster movie, but this is also diffrnet from untouchables or american gangster too. Sure those movies wer great but john dillinger whom movie is based on has nothing more in his life than robbing banks, looks like the reviewer expected more to this gangster story. But, that's john dillinger, apparently thers nothing more to him than a entertaining job as robbing banks and being the most wanted man in chicago in the 30's.
Pubic enemies presents his life as it is and not some over dramatized version of his life or a man with emotions. Dillinger is as cool as a cucumber kind of man. Yes, the movie declines to show what drove dillinger to do this job or show him as anton chigurh of "no country for old men" or even the joker of "the dark knight".
Dillinger is just a bank robber,lover,a military leader like figure to his gang members and he was against the police system. That's pretty much although its not a great movie but that public enemies potrayed dillinger spot on.
i feel you have a strong loathing towards this movie in your review. This is your interpretation of the movie and as we all know art is subject to critique,but there is a line a very thin line which divides a critical anlysis to a shameless piece of prejudice or shall we say a dearth of talent needed for a person to be a critic. This is single handedly the worst piece of critical writing. I think you should make that much delayed trip back to your writing classes.
hard really to comprehend what the reviewer sees or wants to see in a movie.
But I get it now. One of my friend, a web app designer told me it matters a lot to websites, the number of hits on it. People not only are curious about things they like but also but about things they hate. Some by being infamous writing such crap reviews rediff sure knows that people loveto hate them and are always curious...
So they are just maintaining their tradition.. thats it.
are the number one Public Enemies...semi educated failures in life who think being a critic means being critical...dumbos..99% of these creatures would not know the difference between story and screenplay...
Its surprising to see that this movie has been given 1 1/2 stars when it deserved not less than 3. I must say I was quite sleepy when I went to watch the movie but the movie kept me awake, it was so gripping. I agree about the camera bit, which made it look a little boring initially but I forgot about it once the action unfolded. I think the reviewer was not fair in saying that people will leave disappointed at the end of the movie. I think Elvis needs to understand that being a critic does not mean being criticAL ! Its not a great movie like the others he mentioned above but certainly worth a watch, esp for Johnny Depp's acting.
I am confused. New York Times, Chicago tribune and Filmcritic (all the definitive, make or break reviewers) praised the film precisely for the points which this critic has not found favor with. They praised the digital camera, lauded Johnny Depp's performance, called it a fast paced thrilling film.
Are they talking about the same movie, or should Rediff guys give it a rest and stick to reviewing RGV's cinema.
