http://www.leftfieldcinema.com/misunderstood-modern-cinema-miami-vice

I don’t do it because I hate you if that helps.

Public Enemies might be a biopic in the style of Ed Wood. Surprised this didn’t occur to you. It’s not called “John Dillinger” though, even though, maybe it should be, since I don’t understand the plural in the title.

In loose form, this is not that far from Walk The Line or The Aviator or Tucker: A Man and His Dream. Just using hand-held video cam in the moment film techniques. On the other hand, I’ve never quite seen a ‘here is the man’ type picture look, feel or play like this one. Hence “Unconventional.”

Depalma’s Untouchables is more of a collection of characters. It neither focuses it energies on Ness, Capone or the fellah that Sean Connery plays.

Public Enemies is an unconventional horror movie as well as a biopic. What it is, is an action movie. As such, it’s not very unconventional, except in style, which isn’t that mindblowing.

Ok. Agreed. Now what?

And I think what Kurt is doing with this particular biopic is contrasting it (not comparing it) against all of the typical stuff like “Ray” or “Walk the Line” or “Spider-Man.” If you want more of the same bullshit that’s been done in countless other films, that’s totally fine. I think Mann’s decision to just focus on the awesome parts of the subject’s life still classify it as a biopic – and as Kurt said, in an unconventional way. The world needs more unconventionalism IMO.

Fixed.

From Filmsite.org – ” ‘Biopics’ is a term derived from the combination of the words “biography” and “pictures.” These films depict and dramatize the life of an important historical personage (or group) from the past or present era. Sometimes, historical biopics stretch the truth and tell a life story with varying degrees of accuracy.”

Again, I can only ask, how does this make it a biopic?

And I can barely remember the villain – just shows you how effective, intimidating and memorable he was

I don’t think the gun showdown NEEDED to be coherent in PE, it reflects the tangential nature of the whole movie. Whereas Miami Vice BEGS to be focused and coherent – I didn’t find that in ANY WAY with it.

I thought rhe flashy, stylized look of MV detracts from it, whereas with PE I thought it added to the whole thing tremendously (wow, we’re really opposite on this one – everything you’ve described about PE is what I found with MV and didn’t find with PE:P).

The characters were much more interesting in MV – especially the love story aspect. You’re able to focus on just three or four people throughout the movie instead of 15 or 20 barely recognizable people who everytime they show up onscreen you either think, “Who is that guy again?” or “oh (s)he’s in this!?”

In terms of visuals, I think that the inconsistencies in PE detracts a lot from the movie while MV stays pretty focused.

I really liked PE, but the more I’m thinking about it and reading what others have to say, the less I’m liking it. I need a second viewing soon to solidify my feelings on the movie.

Oh man, TOTALLY disgree Miami Vice is EASILY Mann’s worst film. Confusing, unfocused, dull, uninteresting, drags its knuckles nearly all the way through. A gorgeous film to look at, indeed, and some of the action is pretty good (I WILL give it that the final shootout scene is fantastic), but I couldn’t believe Mann had made such a boring movie with that one. You couldn’t tell what was going half the time, who each character was referring to etc – Mann’s films are always information heavy and VERY detailed but he, oddly, handled it all wrong in this one (IMO he gets it oh so right in PE). If it weren’t for the trademark “moonlight” look to it, I’d have thought it was Mann impersonator/wannabe who made it.