![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 983
|
Finally caught this and enjoyed it. It's certainly no Bonnie and Clyde, but I was never bored. I don't understand why most everyone hated it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Trailer By The Beach
Posts: 3,159
|
I saw it recently, too. I agree. Enjoyed it, never bored. Although Bale's accent was starting to grate on me by the end.
__________________
"Please hear it from the mouths of people making a living at this. The town does not GIVE A CRAP if you use WE see in a screenplay." |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: in a pond with much prettier ducks
Posts: 1,094
|
i don't get it either, i liked this. it kind had that road to perdition feel. the problem i think, might have been is that people might not have liked johnny depp, he wasn't really likeable and to make this movie really work i had to like his character a little more.
__________________
You only get one chance to rewrite it 100 times. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Regular
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 312
|
I liked this movie also. I thought Depp was good, and I really enjoyed Christian Bale's performance as Melvin Purvis.
In a lot of ways Purvis's character was more interesting. I watched the Bonus deal at the end of the movie, and was suprised to see that the case really broke the man and that he later took his own life. Despite the accent, I would have liked to see more of Purvis.
__________________
HL |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 5,286
|
I didn't see the movie, but I recall my grandmother (who grew up then) telling me that Dillinger was more of a folk hero than public enemy, least to a lot of folks during that era.
So, yeah... I can see where coming off of that might have harshed Purvis' mellow. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 621
|
Good film. In my top ten of 2009, albeit on the lower end. Don't understand the backlash either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 983
|
For what it's worth, I also enjoyed Cinderella Man, another movie in the same era. I know many didn't care for it, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold
Posts: 7,288
|
I agree with Bill Martell.
__________________
“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” - Gandhi |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: studio city
Posts: 5,520
|
I think there's a major difference between seeing something in a cinema and at home. In a cinema there is nothing else but the movie - nothing else to look at, no one to talk to, no other noises or things that allow your mind to wander. You can't glance over at something in your house or even the clock or wonder what your SO is doing in the kitchen - you only have that movie, so if it isn't involving 100% of every minute, you get bored easier than if you are at home. You can't hit "pause" and pee... you have to hold it.
So a movie at home often seems better than it did in the cinema. Not to mention - I think digitally shot movies look better on a home screen than on a massive cinema screen, where every freakin' pore on everyone's face shows in perfect detail and hot women often look kinda normal. My biggest problem was that there is a version that is a million times better out there already... and it was made as a junky low budget movie by AIP. - Bill |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 5,286
|
That's why I didn't bother... I like Johnny Depp, but he sure the hell is no Warren Oates. I didn't need to see it to know he couldn't be believable trying to play Depression era.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|