Proud =D

I don't even know the difference between 'classical' and digital styles of film-making and even I knew that something was up with Public Enemies. It was a disappointment but thanks, Schembri, I now know exactly why.
You're right, the picture took away from the costumes, set and overall feel of the era. But I think Michael Mann was trying to push this film above that of the regular cinematic experience; it was like he was trying to make it more realistic, harsher, a bit more documentary, and (I can't believe I'm saying this but) also a bit more 'raw'. Sometimes it was like he was distancing the audience on purpose.
While it can be interesting to watch and some might consider this as "pushing the limits of the medium", I think the most important and profound aspect of cinema, or any art form, is its ability to make people feel. Yes, experimentation is worth praise and recognition; though, it's often hard to determine whether it was successful or not because if the whole point was to be strange and daring then whether people approve really doesn't matter.
But if Michael Mann wants to make a film that will have a lasting place in people, (like another Departed or Children of Men) then experimentation should not take priority over that and with Public Enemies, it did.
I personally felt that the extreme close-ups actually took away from the intensity of the scenes. I remained strangely apathetic and objective throughout the whole movie.

Schembri note: Thank you for this terrific letter.