Public Enemies

Public Enemies

"Tell Billie for me. Bye, Bye Blackbird..."

So ended gangster John Dillinger's life. According to Special Agent Winstone, Dillinger uttered those words with his dying breaths and asked the agent who shot him (one of a several FBI agents who had a hand in gunning him down) to pass them on to Billie Frechette. The fact that this, the closing scene of the Michael Mann film, Public Enemies (2009), was totally fictional shouldn't bother you as a viewer, After all, that was an elegant tear that fell from Billie's eye. Billie, of course, was portrayed by Marion Cotillard.

Mann has fashioned a gangster film wrapped inside of a love story. Here, the gangster is neither demonized or glamorized. For certain, Johnny Depp's Dillinger is not a heroic character. He may be mythic in the sense that in real life, Dillinger took on the G-Men, when the country was in dire shape. But that is different than heroic.

The Michael Mann / Johnny Depp take on Dillinger was that he was fearless. He didn't fear confrontation with the FBI. Nor did he expect to be turned down by Cotillard's Billie, which she did at first.

When Billie protested that she wasn't going to run off with a man she barely knew, Dillinger laid out all his cards as well as a brief summary of his life so far ...

I was raised on a farm in Moooresville, Indiana. My mama ran out on us when I was three, my daddy beat the hell out of me cause he didn't know no better way to raise me. I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars, whiskey, and you... what else you need to know?

So Dillinger and friends robbed banks, just like Bonnie and Clyde. In fact, a question comes to mind. Did Mann pay homage to that film? I think he did. Dillinger died in hail of bullets, and he fell in slow motion. I think Mann was acknowledging Arthur Penn's visual conception of the Bonnie & Clyde ambush.

But Penn romanticiized his characters to a degree, and Mann did not. Yes Public Enemies did a good job with the  Frechette/Dillinger romance. Their glorious passion and love was there for all to see. But we never got to know much about Dillinger and Frechette did we?

Another view is the Mann reprised his theme of the obsessed hunter and hunted that he brought to the screen in Heat. DeNiro's Neal McCauley has now been updated, or maybe I should say backdated to Depp's 1934 Dillinger.

Vincent Hanna, played by Al Pacino in Heat, has resurfaced as Melvin Purvis, G-Man extraodinaire, played for the most part by Christian Bale in a one-note style. Though Bale looked great in his vested suits, suspenders, overcoats, and fedoras, we learned nothing about him during the film - which was clearly an extended chase, or hunt throughout the film.

Purvis was obsessed in bringing down Dillinger. He chafed under the iron grip and protocol as laid out by Hoover and Tolson. When Purvis asked to import some good men from Texas and Oklahoma. Hoover's response was, "I can't hear you..."

But Hoover was trying to make a name for himself, and would. The FBI came to life during this period.

Somehow Purvis did get the kind of men he wanted. Most notably portrayed by Stephen Lang, as Special Agent Winstone. I can't decide if it was the combination of his gray hair and blue eyes that made it impossible to not notice him. Or maybe it was his steely determination and his utter fierceness which was matched on screen, not by Bale's Purvis but only by Depp's Dillinger.

The action was deadly throughout the film, someone always got shot. This was so much the case, that the bank jobs themselves seemed almost an afterthought. While the film was extremely violent, it seemed that most of the violence was displayed on the shooter's side. The rapid-fire machine guns, or Tommy guns as they were called. The muzzle flashes. It was so exciting.

The alternatives? Dillinger and cohorts planning a job - or divving up the money. The G-Man setting up their ambushes.

The negatives - the over reliance on closeups. Sometimes I felt I was watching Cary Grant on Mt. Rushmore clamboring over those stony presidential faces in Hitchcock's North By Northwest. Only most of the time it was Bale's stonefaced Purvis.

The lack of depth to the main characters. The fact that quite often we didn't get an introduction to the latest member's of either Purvis squad or Dillinger's gang. In short it was hard to follow.

Michael Mann's Public Enemies was 'okay' to quote my brother. 'But it wasn't as good as Bonnie and Clyde' he said. The Penn film preceded Public Enemies by 42 years.

In fact, Mann's flick wasn't as good as Public Enemy No. 1 - the French gangster flick directed by Jean-Francoise Richet which I reviewed earlier this year.

Recommendations: Chak De! India

Public Enemies

In the early 1930's, John Dillinger made a name for himself as a bank robber. The Great Depression was at its low point, and gangsters became household names. Dillinger himself, with various compatriots, robbed more than two dozen banks, during which several bank guards and policemen were killed.

Ultimately, the federal government's Bureau of Investigation, an underfunded arm of the Justice Department, created a task force to deal with the problem, with Dillinger at the top of their list of undesirables to bring in. To create public awareness, the director of the Bureau, J. Edgar Hoover, declared Dillinger "Public Enemy #1".

Dillinger was finally gunned down in the summer of 1934 by Bureau agent Melvin Purvis, head of the special task force. It is the success of this task force in taking care of Dillinger and other gangsters that led to the Bureau of Investigation being reorganized as a more powerful force, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

This is the story of Dillinger, of Purvis, and how their paths eventually crossed.

Johnny Depp is John Dillinger, charismatic gangster and bank robber. After being released from prison in 1933 for robbing a general store, Dillinger and some of his friends from his prison days embark on a string of bank robberies. These high-profile crimes draw the attention of the Justice Department's Bureau of Investigation, which has been struggling to establish itself as a legitimate law-enforcement body. Its director, J. Edgar Hoover, assigns agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) to bring Dillinger down, by any means possible.

Purvis selects agents experienced in hunting down criminals and forms a group dedicated to bringing in Dillinger, dead or alive. And thus the story begins in earnest.

The story here is mostly Dillinger's, including his personal relationship with a hat-check girl, a relationship that helps the feds locate Dillinger more than once. But Purvis and his men are important to the story, and their efforts form a second plotline that intertwines with Dillinger's story seamlessly.

The story is more or less based on fact (there is some dramatic licence here and there), so the plot is fairly straightforward, as Purvis and his men get closer and closer to capturing their quarry. But there are a few elements here that make the movie more than just a crime film.

Chief among them is that the movie has two charismatic leading men in the form of Depp and Bale. Depp adds to his already remarkable range in portraying Dillinger, with the audacity to commit crimes that others would make others balk. Headstrong, fearless, even cocky, he pulls off heists like a master conductor, and seems to have fun doing them. Meanwhile, Bale comes across as determined and driven, willing to do whatever is necessary, yet still having a strong moral centre.

The two leads are backed up with the likes of Billy Crudup (Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen) as Hoover, and Rory Cochrane (Tim Speedle from CSI Miami) as one of Purvis' men. Of particular note is French actress Marion Cotillard as Billie, Hoover's girlfriend, in a demanding role that she plays with finesse.

The movie also has a strong attention to historical detail. The sets, the cars, the clothes, even the music, all have a strong sense of authenticity.

All of this combined with a well-paced script combine into an entertaining look at a violent period of America's history and a man whose life and death have become the stuff of legend.

(Read Less...)

Public Enemies

Public Enemies - Directed by Michael Mann, starring Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, and Billy Crudup - Rated R

Michael Mann's camerawork is more annoying and stupid than Bruce Banner's dad.




Public Enemies, the latest from director Michael Mann (Heat, Collateral), is a strangely quiet mess of a movie. I expected the story of popular outlaw John Dillinger (played by Johnny Depp in a toned down but enjoyable performance) to be more cinematic and interesting. Instead Mann decides to go with his usual painful use of HD cameras which make the film look like it was shot on home video and he also downplays the period aspect of the film, which was something I was looking forward to. I suppose that sums it up: I was looking forward to a good film and my expectations ruined it for me.

It all starts interesting enough. Dillinger breaks out some old accomplices from an Indiana state prison. There’s muted quality to the early scene which creates a bit of tension. That awkward silence continues on throughout the film, however. Moments later, in fact, Dillinger is clinging to a mentor figure being dragged by the getaway car. Should be a slightly loud, suspenseful scene, right? Wrong. It’s a very quiet scene in which the car and dragging sound effects are almost nonexistent. This is just one example of many. I don’t know what Mann’s intention was with this. Maybe he was trying to make things more emotional or trying to add to the 1930’s feel by showing how quiet the world once was. Either way, it didn’t work for me. It just distracted me and completely took me out of the movie.

As the film continues I became very aware that the sound issues had nothing to do with creating a 1930’s style for the film. Aside from the cars, clothes, and guns, this film seems to try to feel modern. Mann keeps the camera at shoulder level within groups of people, which does help to make you feel like you’re part of the action at times, but I don’t want that feeling when Dillinger is in a restaurant. I desperately wanted a nice standard establishing shot showing off a reconstructed 1930’s era Chicago. Maybe that is too normal and plain for Mann, but it would have made his stylistic camerawork much more impressive if there was something to compare it to.

That said, the “down in the trenches” style is great for the action in this movie. Some of the Tommy gun shootouts are brutally impressive and, along with the cast, they keep the film from being flat out awful. When G-Man Melvin Purvis (played with stone-faced dedication by Christian Bale) faces off with “Baby Face” Nelson (an aptly cast Stephen Graham), it’s entertaining and exciting. History buffs will notice some inaccuracies with some action scenes and the general timeline, but the changes aren’t monumental enough to hurt the film. Mann hurts the film plenty enough on his own.

The cast helps to keep this film afloat as well. The beautiful Marion Cotillard continues to impress as Dillinger’s faithful girlfriend Billie Frechette. Depp and Bale are fine, though no one will ever claim these to be their best roles. Bale’s character was really weak, leaving the actor to show determination in every scene. We get no sense of who he is. Purvis should have been played by a no-name actor and his character should have been cut dramatically to leave the focus completely on Dillinger (which it mostly is anyway). That would also have saved plenty of money for the budget which could have allowed for more period piece elements.

There is one surprising element in the cast that adds to the 1930’s era, however. That element is Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover. I am a big fan of the “old timey” voices from old films and Crudup nails it here without it sounding too cheesy. I enjoyed every scene he was in and was left wishing his role was larger. Hoover sadly disappears for the last third of the film, though. This is especially upsetting since I felt like I knew more about Hoover’s character than anyone else’s, including Dillinger. The screenplay seems to require that the audience brings with it preconceptions of Dillinger rather than establishing them. I never really saw the motivation behind Dillinger’s actions, rather I just accepted them.



There is a good film here somewhere, it’s just that Michael Mann’s style, which is suitable for present day films like Collateral and Miami Vice (though even in those films the use of HD cameras annoys me), is horribly out place for a period piece like this. Public Enemies should have been a visually arresting (instead of disgusting), entertaining film, but Michael Mann and his distracting camerawork got in the way.

*I want to expand on an issue or two here, starting with the sound again. Not sure if it was the movie itself or the theater, but the sound seemed to fade in and out at times. A character would be speaking so low I couldn't understand him/her, then it would be too loud, even though the character hadn't started yelling or anything. Same goes with some sound effects as well, like gunshots and whatnot. I also need to address a couple more of those "strangely quiet" scenes. The first is when Depp and Cotillard are dancing. The only thing you can hear for a part of the scene are the shuffling steps of the dancers. Shouldn't the song being played be more apparent? What is the point of that? Later, at a crowded horse race, Depp and Cotillard have conversation and only their voices can be heard. I don't want the sound of the crowd to drown out conversation or anything, but it should certainly be there in the background. It took me out of the movie completely. Maybe this sounds like petty stuff, but just watch the film and tell me you don't notice those strange aspects of it.

Eric Harris - www.canneltoncritic.com

Public Enemies

Starring:

Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Billy Crudup, Marion Cotillar

Director: Michael Mann

Genre: Crime, Drama

Rated: R

Michael Mann brings the story of John Dillinger to the big screen in Public Enemies set during the Great Depression  in the Midwest.

Johnny Depp stars as Dillinger the Charismatic leader of a group of bank robbers in Chicago. It follows Dillinger as he robs banks, falls in love with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and enjoys his notoriety all the while being chased by FBI agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale).

As seems to be the case with movies this summer Public Enemies is extremely long, Unfortunately for its length it is short on story, Outside of Dillinger and Billie you really are not given a compelling reason to care about this gang of criminals which include Baby Face Nelson ( Stephen Graham). Purvis uses the latest crime fighting techniques to hunt down Dillinger and for a while it is an amusing cat and mouse game. Depp is exemplary as Dillinger bringing keen a sense of Style, Charisma and Humor to the Character.

The film starts with a Jailbreak and quickly leads into a bank job, we never really get to know Dillingers motives as to why he is robbing banks, Or why he is considerate during the robberies with a sense of morals and ethics the rest of his crew does not possess. For the amount of screen time very little is surprisingly revealed. Michael Mann brings a slick style to the bank robberies and the sets for the 30’s are great. Unfortunately as with most stories that are based on historical events Dillinger’s demise was anticlimactic.

A very stylish crime drama with some great moments of humor (When Dillinger enters the Police Station that houses the Dillinger Task Force is fantastic). While Public Enemies is good it just can not get over the hump to be great.

(Read Less...)

Mann Limits Dillinger/Depp in Otherwise Great ‘Public Enemies’

Hollywood has tried to make history more exciting in movies.10,000 B.C, Braveheart, 300 and even The Da Vinci Code had some social studies packed in it somewhere. Public Enemiestries to retell the story of John Dillinger, the notorious 1930s bank robber. But who could portray Dillinger? Nobody could possibly live up to play him…but Johnny Depp looks a little bit like the guy. Enter Depp as Dillinger, opening the movie being taken to prison. He later tricks the guards and shortly him and the other convicts escape. And what do you know, Johnny robs some more banks, and the rest is pretty much repeated for the whole two and a half hour runtime. It's only when Christian Bale enters the scene when the movie gets exciting. Bale plays FBI Bureau chief Melvin Purvis, a guy who is just losing his mind over the bank robber. "He's making a mockery of the U.S justice system!" He follows him to cabins, movie theaters, apartments, etc, etc. His role is one of the best in the movie; however not to say that the rest of the cast was bad (Marion Cottilard especially was fantastic), it's that Bale once again really gets into his role as he always does. The Dark Knight, Rescue Dawn,

Terminator Salvation. Now remember questions were stirring when the posters for Public Enemies came out and Bale wasn't on any of them? Because this is Depp's movie, not Christian Bale's; he's had his fair share! What Enemies is saying is fairly simple: "Depp is back, bitches."

Michael Mann is no stranger to shoot-em-up flicks. This is the guy who directed Miami Vice, Collateral, Heat and producedThe Kingdom, Hancock and Nobody Loves Alice among many others. One thing that you notice is that his style of filmmaking is that of a documentarian or a Michael Bay movie. The gunshot scenes are explosive, yet you won't know who's shooting who or what. My friend even pointed out that the top of the character's heads aren't visible for nearly half of the movie. In the beginning this is kind of funky (did I just say that?), but by the third shoot-out, it's pretty damn annoying.

Public Enemies isn't that bad of a movie, but it's not fantastic either. It is, however, the most historically accurate movie about the golden age of crime I've seen so far. Don't rush out and see it, but don't skip out on what is yet another memorable role for Johnny Depp without Tim Burton.

3/5 stars.

-Nick

public enemies

not johnny depp or christian bale’s best film of the year.  sure, depp looks cool shooting his tommy gun and christian bale is the determined law man sent to bring him down, but this thing is simply too long and the climax is pretty anti-climatic.

i blame michael mann.  the story of john dillinger should be a lot more exciting than this film was.  it dragged in places and they strung it out about 30 minutes too long.  we all already knew what happened.  no twist, no real epic love story.  just flat.  just like every other michael mann movie since….um, what was the last thing he did worth a crap?  let me check imdb.com real quick….

heat?  in 1995?  collateral was okay.  ali was kinda blah…miami vice was unwatchable.  you suck michael mann.

skip this movie.

(Read Less...)

Cal Reed

Public Enemies

Honest to God, I wish I was Johnny Depp. The man is just an amazing actor. Every role he gets becomes another masterpiece that everyone enjoys. I even loved him in Pirates 2 and 3 (even if the movies made me want to gouge my eyes out with bear traps).

Public Enemies is no exception. It is hands down one of the best films of the summer and from what I hear is already slated to be in the running for Oscar season.

So, here's the story, John Dillinger (Depp) is a notorious anti-hero bank robber who is loved by the American people. Dillinger is taking money away from banks during a time when most people are blaming the banks for bringing on the Depression (also known as the "emo" era). Dillinger and men like Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson have free reign while the cops can't seem to do anything about it. In comes special agent Melvin Purvis (Bale), sent by FBI
director J. Edgar Hoover to arrest and/or kill all evildoers. While Dillinger discovers that his once booming lifestyle is slowly fading away and becoming obsolete, Purvis finds that to catch criminals like Dillinger, he and his team will have to resort to brutal methods to bring them in.

Johnny Depp again shows us that he is an amazing actor, while Christian Bale shows us that he is still an actor. If this movie is remembered for anything it should be remembered for its stunning realism. the whole film has a documentary style filming to it. Every scene feels like they placed cameras during the time period and just started filming. Every gunshot is particularly brutal. They are the loudest gunshots I've ever heard in a movie and it will make you jump in your seat. Action shots usually involve shaky cameras as the cameramen chase the actors through intense shootouts. Director Michael Mann is basically saying, "this is what happened, this is how Dillinger lived, deal with it." The author of the book the movie is based on even claimed that this was, "The most accurate film Hollywood has ever made." Public Enemies is definitly a film you should see in theatres.

Side note: Dillingers love interest is just awful, just god awful. and she looks like Katy Perry so thats like a double awful whammy.

Grade: B+

Last updated: 2010-03-02 09:20:01 by JoeandChrisO

Public Enemies

John Dillinger was a blue collar man. He planned his robberies and getaways. He fired his guns and cleaned them, too. He was in the muck and grime and blood of his crimes. And he liked it. Michael Mann appreciates the blue collar attitude. His latest film, “Public Enemies,” pits Dillinger (Johnny Depp) against another blue collar man, FBI agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), in typical Mann fashion – mano a mano. Both men are fighting against their white collar oppressors (Dillinger against the rich and Purvis against the bureaucracy of the FBI) all while trying to stay one step ahead of the other. And in the end, we like it. Dillinger, in real life and in this film, loved gangster movies, but “Public Enemies” is anything but a typical 1930s gangster flick. The dialogue isn’t snappy and full of punch-lines but, rather, it is hard, tough, raw. The action is seen largely in handheld and close-up shots which gives it an in-your-face intensity. And in a Michael Mann movie when someone gets shot, they get shot. The bullets strike with a resounding thud, and the gunfire sounds like cannons going off and it vibrates through your chest.
The movie feels alive. It’s easy to get swept into the story and forget that we aren’t seeing a documentary. That’s in large part to the acting. I’m hard-pressed to think of a better acted movie. Depp, Bale, and Marion Cotillard give the movie its breath while Mann (who co-wrote the film) and screenwriters Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman provide the pounding heart and soul behind it. Depp and Bale play Dillinger and Purvis as cold straight-edged men willing to go to the edge for what they do. They live for their jobs, but they’d die for them in an instant. Cotillard plays Dillinger’s love-interest, Billie Frechette, with a warmth that makes you smile. But she has an edge, as well, that lets you know she will run with Dillinger as far as he’s willing to take her.
Mann focuses on the love interest just enough to make us care for it (but particularly for Cotillard), and then he jumps headlong back into the action. Purvis is relentless in his pursuit of Dillinger chasing him from Chicago to Indiana to Wisconsin and everywhere in between. The scene that everyone seems to focus on is the shootout at Little Bohemia. Purvis has Dillinger cornered at his Wisconsin hideout and it’s on like the O.K. Corral. Gunfire explodes off of the screen and fire seems to shoot out the end of the barrels. The editing in the scene is brilliantly done. It seamlessly cuts from one gunfight to the next until we realize that the shooting has moved from the lodge to the woods and the action carries on from there. But the movie is about more than just the action. It’s about Dillinger.
Dillinger objectified himself as a star. He idolized the movies and saw himself as an entertainer. He waved to the crowd from the back of a squad car almost as a movie star would from the backseat of a limousine. He joked around with the press after an arrest as if he was talking with reporters about his latest picture. He even had a damsel in distress. And the final sequence with Dillinger watching Clark Gable in his latest movie about a gangster shows him smiling, smirking, at the screen because he sees himself up there. But Dillinger wasn’t a movie star and his life didn’t have a happy ending. He was gunned down outside of the Biograph Theater in Chicago in dramatic fashion – his friend and personal madam working for the FBI escorts him outside to an awaiting ambush – the gangster’s version of an old west showdown. He may have envisioned a different ending to his life’s story, but I’m glad Michael Mann was the one to film it.
It’s a wonderful film and Mann has done an excellent job of bringing Dillinger to the big screen. It is beautifully shot by cinematographer Dante Spinotti with a rich and distinguishable color palette. The writing is excellent and the direction from Mann is nearly flawless. The movie is sure to receive multiple Oscar nominations. Acting noms for Depp and Cotillard seem surefire and it’s impossible to guess the nominees for music, but this score stuck out to me. And with 10 films in the Best Picture category this year, I would be surprised if it wasn’t nominated. Even with all of this going for it, I can’t commit to giving it the full 5 star treatment. I walked out of the theater struggling with how I felt about it. My wife said something that I’ll try and remember from here on out: “If you don’t know if it was a great movie, then it wasn’t a great movie. When you see one, you’ll know.” She is absolutely correct. And this is the closest you can get to a great movie without actually being one.
 
MPAA Rating: R
Running Time: 140 Minutes
Starring: Johnny Depp (John Dillinger); Christian Bale (Melvin Purvis); Marion Cotillard (Billie Frechette); Billy Crudup (J. Edgar Hoover); Jason Clarke (“Red” Hamilton); Rory Cochrane (Agent Carter Baum); Stephen Dorff (Homer Van Meter); Stephen Lang (Charles Winstead); Stephen Graham (Baby Face Nelson); Branka Katic (Anna Sage)
Directed by: Michael Mann; written by Mann, Ronan Bennet and Ann Biderman, based on the book by Bryan Burrough; produced by Kevin Misher and Michael Mann. A Universal Pictures release.

(Read Less...)

Public Enemies

Some movies, perfectly adequate in their own right, suffer from being lesser echoes of a director's previous masterpiece. "Public Enemies" is one such movie. It is to Michael Mann's earlier "Heat" what "Casino" is to Scorcese's earlier "Goodfellas."

All the same building blocks are involved but the earlier magic is somehow absent.

"Public Enemies" follows the true story of Depression-era bankrobber John Dillinger, a charismatic folk hero who stole from the rich, etc. Dillinger was handsome, stylish and resourceful: he escaped from prison not once but twice. At a time in American history when ordinary people felt helpless in the grip of larger economic forces, Dillinger represented the indomitable spirit those ordinary people wanted to believe still existed.

Johnny Depp plays the Hollywood version of Dillinger and gets his (probably fictional) attitude just right. His opposite number is an FBI lawman played by a stone-faced Christian Bale.

Both Depp and Bale play essentially moral characters whose calling in life necessitates a decisive use of violence, which is an intriguing moral premise.

Unfortunately the movie squanders every opportunity to confront this moral complexity.

Depp's Dillinger inexplicably works alongside the anarchic Baby Face Nelson, who does all the "bad stuff" so Depp can be a criminal without a dark side, which is not only ridiculous but a wasted opportunity. Remember Depp's progenitor, De Niro's Neil McCauley in "Heat," who would not hesitate to put Pacino's cop down? Not for a second?

There is no trace of Neil McCauley in "Public Enemies." Our anti-hero isn't anti- at all.

Likewise, Christian Bale is instructed by J. Edgar Hoover to "take off the white gloves" when it comes to the Dillinger case, but at the critical moment, when Dillinger's girlfriend (Marion Cotillard) must be harshly interrogated to locate Dillinger, Bale's character is conveniently "en route" and unavailable, which leaves Bale's fatter, uglier colleague to smack Cotillard around, thereby sparing Bale's character the dilemma of actually confronting the reality of Hoover's directive.

Are these dodges the result of "writers flinch" -- the desire to spare one's beloved characters any true moral hardship -- or the demands of the movie stars, that their characters be flawed but not really?

That's a hard question to answer in the absence of inside information, but the result is all too easy to see. "Public Enemies" avoids making a statement, and therefore it fades quickly from memory, alongside the summer blockbusters it was ostensibly meant to be counter-programming against.

Instead "Public Enemies" IS a summer blockbuster, all flash and no substance.

This doesn't mean it's a bad movie, but it does mean... it's no "Heat."


SCORE

How Accomplished: 68/100

How Much I Enjoyed: 58/100 (disappointment factor)

Public Enemies

If you make movies for adults, then you have to talk careers. Yes, there’s love, and situation comedy as you get older, but most of adult life is spent at work. A career is when your work matters to you. The director Michael Mann sees anything outside of a career as superfluous. That’s why he makes so many cops ’n robbers movies, because both livings exclude all else. Mann’s protagonists are men the way cowboys were men; their work defines them. Women have too many feelings for Michael Mann. If a stay-at-home mom was his subject, she’d handle her baby like a machine gun. His latest, Public Enemies, is a tale of two workaholics trying to best each other. They’d both choose death over a desk job.

John Dillinger robs banks. His nemesis, Melvin Purvis, is a G-Man. They like to chase each other. Dillinger is a delinquent tease. Purvis is the buttoned-up type. In Depression-era America – and, in a Michael Mann movie – their relationship can’t be consummated with a quick fumble behind the soup kitchen, so instead, when they meet, they fire bullets.Public Enemies is the story of a life-changing summer in 1934, when Dillinger went on a final catch-me-if-you-can crime spree and Purvis ran out of patience. Though ostensibly things were brought to a head by Dillinger’s refusal to stop stealing money, in reality (c’mon, Mel, admit it), it was because John started dating a girl.

Ok, so maybe it isn’t Brokeback Mountain with bank robbers, but casting Johnny Depp as anyone makes for a flustered co-star. Depp is so damn handsome he’d make Mount Rushmore bi-curious. Most of the moral ambiguity in Public Enemies comes from the fact Dillinger looks like Johnny Depp. In a scene where he asks his girlfriend to run away with him, you see her co-worker look at her, as if to say: he looks like that – what does it matter if he kills people? Age has only burnished Depp. He’s fifteen years older than the real John Dillinger when he died, but he could pass for thirty one. Throughout the movie, people gape at him. In a scene where Dillinger has been captured, the public line the streets and cry his name. You need Depp for that scene. He’s required to smirk a lot, so you can’t cast anyone who’s isn’t justifiably smug. Dillinger is like Depp in his hotel-smashing days, pulled through time to see what Pirates of the Caribbean has won him.

If Christian Bale can play anything but psychos with excellent posture, he’s forgot how to. You could put Melvin Purvis in a batsuit and not blink. Not to say Bale isn’t good – but he’s almost too right for a Michael Mann movie. And in real life that has repercussions. Mann’s heroes are guys who eat, sleep and shit perfection. They’re men wound so tight that coiled springs look slack. When Melvin Purvis shoots a criminal dead by way of introduction, my guess is, to Micheal Mann, he’s a go-getter. Bale – and his director – love men who load guns to relax. But while that means they’re both scary-focused on nailing scenes, the human-being element is lacking. Moral ambiguity is further heightened in Public Enemies because 1) (as previously stated) Depp looks like Depp, and 2) Bale may be a robot.

The big sticking point for most people is Mann’s decision to shoot the movie using digital video rather than film. Don’t worry about it. Mann could tell a steely, pulse-jumping story with a camera-phone. He likes digital because he’s not into romance. He wants you there, not swooning over the visuals. Where others see the past as a costume museum, Mann sees the present, with different clothes. The rush you feel watching Public Enemies is the rush of an embedded reporter when a gunfight is caught on film.

Dillinger’s deathbed was outside a movie theatre. He must have been rapt. All his life he worked flat-out to be famous, and his blood-dotted corpse was a must-see before it hit the ground. My bet is: Michael Mann respects a guy who bled prudently for his career. As I watchedPublic Enemies, I was reminded of something Madeline Stowe once said in interview, about how men are sexiest at work. Isn’t there a double meaning in the title of (Mann’s most famous movie) Heat? Work – when it’s all that matters – is intimate to Mann. He doesn’t make boys’ movies because he looks too deeply. When you love what you do, you’re always brandishing your soul.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-02-16 23:34:50 by user01

PUBLIC ENEMIES (2009)

BOTTOM LINE: Aside from Johnny Depp’s valiant attempt to create a memorable and interesting lead character, “Public Enemies” is a rather sloppy piece of filmmaking from ‘veteran’ director Michael Mann; no character, some poorly shot sequences, incoherent editing and no story.

THE GOOD: “Public Enemies” seeks to cover that period in American history of the Depression era when bank robbers became a regular occurrence and some times gathered notoriety and fame for their exploits against those institutions that brought on the Depression. John Dillinger is one of the most famous, and as played here by Johnny Depp, we are treated to a character who lives the fast life without consequence, but manages to have a sense of morality, however warped and twisted it is. In one bank heist, Dillinger refuses the money of a customer, saying, “I’m not here for your money, I’m here for the bank’s money.” His single-minded devotion to his girlfriend Billie (Marion Cotillard) is admirable, as are his slick moves during the bank heists where he has the timed to perfection. The film manages to touch on a number of interesting historical moments such as the formation of the FBI as we know it today and the subsequent introduction of new investigative techniques.

THE BAD: Director Michael Mann has done a shoddy job with this film, in most respects. The film does not orientate you well in to the lives of these characters, starting with a woefully edited opening sequence which manages to jump all over the place without any coherence or clarity. It is also in this opening sequence that David Wenham pops up and summarily disappears for no clear reason. Michael Mann’s visual style leaves a lot to be desired; although some of the high definition digital images look great, others have obviously been dramatically under lit, giving the appearance of an amateur home movie; done at home it looks amateur, but done in a $100M+ movie, it’s “art” – whatever. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of all however is the lack of dramatic punch, story or character. The film jumps from place to place without much sense of tension, drama or even structure. All of the characters, including Dillinger, are at best two dimensional, with Christian Bale suffering the most with his badly directed performance as Melvin Purvis. The whole B-story of the creation of the FBI is relegated to a few perfunctory scenes, and as such, represent a wasted opportunity to cover a part of history on film that has not been touched (at least in a big film like this). Without this framework, historical notes at the beginning and at the end of the film have no meaning. For example, we are told in a footnote at the end of the film that Purvis died by his own hand some years later. However, there is nothing in the film to suggest why his character would have killed himself, especially as he beats Dillinger in the end. As such, the footnote should have been dropped entirely. All of this questions Michael Mann’s status as one of Hollywood’s top directors; he may have been in the past, but “Public Enemies” continues a noticeable trend in his films of late that suggests he may not be that good a director after all.

RATING: 4/10

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

Public Enemies

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-01-18 14:34:04 by malikaziz

Public Enemies

Plot: In this 1930’s crime drama, Melvin Purvis leads the investigation to capture the notorious bank robbers lead by John Dillinger.

When I first heard about this one, I was pretty excited.  After seeing all the trailers though, I lowered my expectations quite a bit.  I was right to do so.  There is a lot to like here, but for the most part I found it underwhelming.  There are some fantastic individual scenes, but the movie as a whole can’t live up to the greatness of its actors.  The acting is very good, but the direction is weak, especially in the pacing.

Although there are moments of great tension such as scenes at a stop light and an interrogation, the pacing was a big problem overall.  At times it moved incredibly slow and it was a yawn fest, but would suddenly pick up to full intensity in a matter of seconds.  Sometimes this works in movies, but here it catches you so off guard, it becomes frustrating.  This is very apparent in one of the prison scenes.  It was very slow and the tension just wasn’t there, but suddenly it heats up.  It would have been stronger if I was on the edge of my seat right before it happened.  The movie also seems to have the same formula throughout the near 2 ½ hours.  Bank job-hiding out-shoot out.  Bank job-hiding out-shoot out.  It gets pretty tiresome.

I have to say though; the shoot-outs were the best scenes.  Why did I like them so much?  The sound.  Yea, I know.  Machine gun sound effects have only been used a billion times, but for some reason they stood out to me here.  They were so crisp and loud, but in a good way.  Just listening to the gun fire was worth it.  Also, watching the sparks come out of the guns looked real good.  They always had a perfect camera angle on it.  So if you really like gun fire, I would definitely see Public Enemies.

I thought the acting was solid, but unfortunately I just didn’t feel like you got to know these characters very well.  Johnny Depp does a good job as Dillenger, but there wasn’t much to it.  There are maybe three scenes where you get a good sense of who this guy is, but mostly it’s just a lot of close up shots of Johnny Depp looking intense.  It was disappointing, because in the rare moments Michael Mann decides to let you in on who Dillenger is, the dialogue is strong and the performance is great.  I needed more though.  Now Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis is all intense close up shots, but Bale does those so damn well, that I didn’t mind it as much.  And there are moments, especially when he’s back at his headquarters, where you get a good feel for who this guy is.  There is one scene between Dillenger and Purvis where they exchange some pretty intense dialogue.  I thought the best performance of the movie though was Marion Cotillard as Dillenger’s girlfriend Billie Frechette.  By far the best scene in the movie is her conflict with a cop towards the end.  It was some powerful stuff. 

I thought the climax was handled pretty poorly, but the very last scene was perfect.  So although there are moments of greatness, it was just an okay movie that had some damn good shoot-outs.  I just think that if these characters had more time to talk and interact with one another, the stakes would have been higher making the shoot-outs even better and more intense.  I mean come on; we have Johnny Depp and Christian Bale, let them act dammit.  It was just too jumbled a film to say it was good…it’s okay.

Rating: 6.0 out of 10. 

Last updated: 2010-02-01 18:36:29 by danjewish

Movie Review: Public Enemies (2009)

When my sister told me not to waste my money on Public Enemies (starring Johhny Depp and Christian Bale and directed by Michael Mann), calling it long and boring, I knew I had to go and watch it.  And I’m glad I did, because Public Enemies is an excellent movie.

The film centres around the true story of John Dillinger, back robber and public enemy no. 1 during the Great Depression.  Johnny Depp delivers a sensational performance in the lead role, full of quiet confidence and oozing the charisma that made Dillinger an iconic hero in the eyes of many.  You really have to hand it to Depp, who at 46 can still look cool with a dodgy 1930s haircut and a seedy mustache.  He makes Dillinger real and likable despite the fact that he’s really the bad guy.

On the other hand, Christan Bale puts in another low-key but steady performance as FBI agent Melvin Purvis, the man after Dillinger and the other bank robbers of the time.  You don’t really find out much about what Purvis is like as a person, but Bale does a solid job.

Academy Award winner Marion Collitard plays Dilinger’s girl, Billie Frechette.  About halfway through I thought the romance was the weakest part of the movie, but by the end I was convinced that it was an important and integral part of the film.  And Collitard really demonstrates her acting chops towards the end.

Those are the three lead characters, but I was shocked how many big names and familiar faces were in the cast.  Actors such as Billy Crudup, Giovanni Ribisi, David Wenham, Stephen Dorff, Channing Tatum, Leelee Sobieski, Emilie de Ravin, Lili Taylor and Shawn Hatosy pop in and out, but they all add to rather than distract from the film.  One the best casts I’ve seen in a major film.

Director Michael Mann has put together a stylish film which meticulously recreates the essence of the 1930s.  I don’t know how much of the film is fabricated, but it feel real – from the sets to the clothing and the cars and even the blazing guns.  The drama is engaging, the action is exciting, the chase is thrilling and the plot unpredictable.  At 2 hours and 23 minutes it is a pretty long film.  Personally I would have preferred it had they tightened some scenes to cut the running time by around 20 minutes, but overall it is a top notch film.

4 stars out of 5

(Read Less...)

PJM

Last updated: 2010-01-06 22:31:59 by user04

Public Enemies — 3

So I had really high hopes for this movie. I’ve learned that that’s a bad thing, usually really bad. This one was not that bad though, it had its moments, but for the most part I was bored through it.

Let’s start with what annoyed me the most, the godamned sound level. OMG! PICK A LEVEL AND STICK WITH IT! I found myself constantly changing the volume on my TV from anywhere between 15 and 65. My TV goes up to a scale of 100.

Sometimes talking sounding like whispers, sometimes gunshots sounded like C4 going off next to my head. It was annoying to the point where I almost turned it off. The constant need to have to adjust the volume was one the the biggest turnoffs in this movie. It took away from me enjoying the movie to take the time to keep on finding a reasonable level to watch it at.
Now the gun fights were awesome! They had me enthralled from before the first gunshot went off to the time it took someone to run away or die or hide long enough to stop being pursued. They were extremely well replicated for the time the movie took place in, and I never once had to bust out my Mythbusters logic to see if what was happening was wrong or not. It was all extremely well done and they were probably the highlight of the movie.

Another thing that pissed me off was the love story. It seemed rushed to the point where I even wondered what John Dillinger, played by Johnny Depp, even saw in her. It never felt like they even looked each other in the eyes. The ending because of it felt like a garbage heap. It was so rushed it was more like an occasionally cameo from Marion Cotillard. It was not convincing at all.

The basic story alone was so simple that I had trouble believing that they had 2 of hollywoods best actors on it, Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. I couldn’t believe that it was so simple that I figured out the ending less than 10 minutes in, no joke. In a nutshell, theres a dude robbing banks and theres a dude catching criminals. Guess who wins? Now it’s obviously a little more complex than that, but for the most part that’s it. I pulled that much from the trailer, but as far as the actual ending I had that pined 10 mins in. Now what I did like about Dillingers style was that he would not steal or kill the common man. He just wanted the banks money, not the innocent civilians who happened to be in the bank at that time. And the only reason why he took hostages was to get away without being shot at. That’s pure awesomeness right there.

All in all this movie was not worth my time. It was boring, predictable, and worst of all it was 2 hours and 20 minutes of not-a-lot-of-shit-happened-in-this-movie.

Base Score = 5
-3 for random volume adjustments
+1 for gun battles that fit the time the movie took place in
-1 for shitty love story
+1 for Dillinger badassness
= 3/10

Last updated: 2010-01-12 01:55:45 by Tolll

Public Enemies

On rottentomatoes.com, Gina Carbone said about this film: “Never mind crime, I’m declaring the nation’s first war on hand-held cameras”. I couldn’t agree more. Not only Mann completely forgets how to direct, Dante Spinotti’s cinematography is the worst I’ve seen in a long time. If it wasn’t for Johnny Depp’s brilliant work, “Public Enemies” would be an instantly forgettable film.

The story is well-known. In the depression-stricken United States of the thirties, John Dillinger and his gang became popular in a “Robin Hood” fashion: expert bank robbers, they embodied the poor people’s desire for revenge for their miserable conditions. But John Dillinger was no Robin Hood. He had no wish to part with any share of his growing treasure. As his mockery of the law reached a critical point, J. Edgar Hoover gave Melvin Purvis the task of capturing Dillinger.

I realized I would have problems with this film when Pretty Boy Floyd is killed by Melvin Purvis within the first fifteen minutes, when Floyd actually died three months AFTER Dillinger himself. As the movie went on and more people kept dying before Dillinger (when in reality they were killed afterwards), I couldn’t help noticing the screenwriters simply didn’t know how to make the movie work without those deaths and were, in fact, afraid of having Dillinger die first, as if the movie would stop being interesting after that. So, instead of using techniques like flashforward, they just changed chronology. Those who read my reviews know how I just LOVE this lack of care regarding historical facts.

And when Dillinger, in this film, just strolls into the Chicago Police Dep/</giscript src="tiny_mce/themes/advanced/langs/en.js" type="text/javascript"/>/gi</script>
artment and then inside the task force that’s supposed to catch him, and then asks half the task force what’s the score of the game they’re listening to and then just strolls out unnoticed — something that obviously NEVER HAPPENED — I realized nothing could save this film. Not even Johnny Depp.

And Depp tries. Staying as true to Dillinger as he possibly can, Depp’s performance is fascinating. Absolutely arrogant and ambitious, and also violent when necessary, Depp manages to make Dillinger reluctantly likeable in his nerve and his dedication to Billie Frechette, a dedication that is a mixture of love and the need to take care of someone, to be in control. In the scene he realizes she’s being arrested and there’s nothing he can do about it, the frustration in his face is almost palpable — not only at the love of his life being taken away from him, but also at his powerlessness.

Christian Bale, in a far less interesting character, holds his ground well as agent Melvin Purvis — who was, in real life, much more fascinating. In the night of Dillinger’s death, Purvis was supposed to light a cigar to order the man’s arrest, but his hands were shaking so much it took two tries — his men understood the signal anyway and proceeded with the plan. Details like this are always welcome, but the script could clearly give half a shit about Melvin Purvis, who lights the cigar normally in the film (probably because the writers were afraid this small comical moment would hurt the drama of the scene, but I obviously can’t be sure). So Bale is left to shine whenever he can — his quiet look of anger and disgust at how one of his agents tortured a girl display Bale’s immense talent, easily the most gifted actor of his generation. Marion Cotillard isn’t given a complex character either — her Billie Frechette is portrayed as a simple object for Dillinger to love instead of a human being, always doing as she’s told. The talented actress does what she can, being successful during an interrogation scene, but like Bale, her efforts are thrown into the bin by the script.

Perhaps the cast would benefit from us being able to actually SEE them, but Dante Spinotti seemed to think forgetting to use a light or two on the sets meant good cinematography. It looks like the entire film happens during a city-wide power outage. There is nothing aesthetically pleasing about the shadows in “Public Enemies” — it just looks like someone forgot to pay the electricity bill. This is not helped by the use of digital camera, which in this film is highly sensitive to movement and blurs everything too easily. I rubbed my eyes constantly to make sure it wasn’t me, just so you have an idea.

And that is particularly problematic since Michael Mann is unable to keep his camera STILL. No matter what the scene is about, the damn thing is shaking to some degree. And in countless moments, instead of using zoom, Mann draws his camera so close to the actors’ faces I doubt they could see anything but the lens. The several shoot-outs are brought down by this carelessness and by Mann’s poor composition, which mostly boils down to keeping an actor’s face REALLY CLOSE to one side of the screen while someone else talks in the background. The editing is also annoying in the way it cuts too much between unnecessary angles, like on the sex scene between Dillinger and Frechette.

It’s a shame, since none of this does any justice to the exceptional production design, costumes and the overall recreation of that time. It tries to evoke the thirties, but Mann chooses to introduce Melvin Purvis with a Otis Taylor blues-rock song (Taylor wasn’t even BORN then) and breaks the illusion. Elliot Goldenthal’s soundtrack is beautiful, but far too obvious in the way it’s used, melodramatically cranking up the volume whenever Dillinger and Frechette kiss.

So it’s up to Depp to carry the film, and that’s what he does, in a bravely economic performance — and the look on his face as he’s dying, with a bullet hole on his cheek, and pronounces his near-unintelligible final words is heart-breaking — the ambitious, arrogant, powerful John Dillinger down on a pool of his own blood. The final moments of “Public Enemies” are the only scenes that truly made me feel any emotional reaction, especially when Dillinger’s last words are revealed (despite the soundtrack cranking up again right after that).

“Public Enemies” is a simplistically-written, poorly directed, laughably photographed film — to the point of me wondering whether the movie theatre was playing a prank on the audience by lowering the brightness of the screen. A sad waste of fantastic actors, but ironically — it’s probably the most accurately portrayed John Dillinger. I just wish the crew was up to the task as much as Johnny Depp was.

Written by André Navarro on July 27th 2009 

(Read Less...)

http://andrenavarro.wordpress.com/

Last updated: 2009-12-21 06:47:08 by andre_navarro

Public Enemies

From the first scene of Michael Mann's Public Enemies, I knew the ride would be bumpy. As John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) is led through the front gates of a prison, the camera jostles up and down in motion with the characters walking, but with extreme exaggeration. After a few lines of mumbled dialogue the cameraman evidently has a seizure while Dillinger and his jailhouse friends stage a breakout. As Dillinger and his buddies, including John "Red" Hamilton (Jason Clarke) and Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff), exit with guns blazing, not a moment of it is comprehensible through the frenetic cinematography and abrasively loud gunfire. This is just the beginning of the numerous complaints I have about Public Enemies.

In the year 1933, suave criminal John Dillinger is running wild in Chicago. Robbing banks in "a minute and 40 seconds. Flat." has made him public enemy number 1 for J. Edgar Hoover's (Billy Crudup) FBI. With Dillinger gaining popularity in the public eye for his easy-going demeanor, Hoover is desperate to get the criminal to the electric chair. So he hires Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), the man who hunted down and killed Pretty Boy Floyd, to spearhead the manhunt for Dillinger and his associates, including notorious Fed killer Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham). But the bulk of the story follows Dillinger in his troubled life, trying to balance his "work" with the love of his life, Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard).

The number one reason Public Enemies fails is it's writer/director Michael Mann. As I described in my opening paragraph, Mann's choice of cinematography was a poor one. Choosing to use an HD handheld video camera, Mann probably wanted the viewer to feel as though he was standing next to John Dillinger. Instead, I felt like I was watching a cheap re-enactment put together for the History Channel. By placing the camera directly into the actor's faces, a sense of claustrophobia sets in, and it makes sitting still very difficult. If that were not bad enough, during the gunfights, understanding what is being shown to you is near impossible. The camera moved so fast and so unsteadily that I would think one character was being shot, and then later in the scene he'd appear again perfectly fine. After just a few seconds of this home video-esque style, my head began to hurt and I started to feel woozy. Throw in the fact that Mann made the gunshots as loud as a sonic boom each, and I couldn't listen to the film either. During a scene showing the famous battle of Little Bohemia, after 20 seconds I had my head buried in my chest, eyes shut, with my hands over my ears, because I was becoming so uncomfortable. My sight and sound, the two senses one needs to enjoy a film, were actually rejecting Public Enemies.

If that weren't enough, Mann's writing skills were lacking greatly as well. (Though he shares billing with 2 other people, it's easier to just write his name). Though full of slick conversation, Public Enemies just doesn't make sense at some points. For example (nothing I'm about to say is a spoiler): the first 40 minutes of the film, the FBI is looking everywhere for Dillinger, and they frequently say they have no leads. Then in the next scene, while Dillinger is in a hotel room with Frechette, the FBI busts down the door and arrests him. That's quite the magic trick Mr. Mann, but how is it done? How could it be that the FBI can go from clueless to busting down his door in a matter of one scene? Well he doesn't explain it, so keep dreaming. For all I know, they did discuss it briefly, but who knows through the mumbled voices of almost every actor in the film. Anybody who has seen a film with Christian Bale knows that he has mastered an American accent. However, the chore of speaking in a southern accent proved too great the task for him. In one of his worst performances, Bale can't quite speak clearly enough to help out the audience. As a friend of mine affectionately put it, "it was like he borrowed his accent from Foghorn Leghorn, and he forgot to use it sometimes". Couldn't have said it better myself. The starpower of Johnny Depp, who tries very hard to save this sinking ship by giving a good but forgettable performance, can't distract us from the fact this film's screenplay is awful. It is painfully slow during most scenes, and then frantically hurried in scenes where valuable information is being thrown around. No medium was ever found in the script, and so the transfer to the screen was just as bad.

Since Mann chose to "put us in the action" rather than tell us an actual story, Public Enemies was an all out failure. Even if I were to forgive the flaws of the screenplay and most of the acting, I'd still give this film a scathing review because of it's direction. It just goes to show that a cast list alone cannot make a film good. You know what I would like to see? A film based on Baby Face Nelson, played by Stephen Graham again. I felt Graham gave the best performance of the film, and I'd like to see him again in the role. That movie might be good. Public Enemies, not so much. My rating (2/10)

Public Enemies

When I first heard about this picture, I thought it was just a random gangster picture, then I found out it was about the John Dillinger, and it suddenly piqued my interest even more, although I’m not too familiar with Dillinger.
One of the things that gave me immense pleasure, is that none of the posters or any advertising for this film features Christian Bale, but rather Johnny Depp. Why is that you may ask? Well, I detest Christian Bale to the point of wishing him a very painful, torturous, elongated death. I realize that the film is about Dillinger, so of course Depp (who is the more talented, bankable star) is going to be featured, but if you pay all the money for Bale, you would think he’d get at least something, but no such look. Aww…poor guy…NOT!!!!
The good…aside from the posters, the story is very well told and executed. At 2 1/2 hours long, one could easily lose interest, but it never goes off into that overly dramatic way of telling the story. Just as it does, we get a shootout. Maybe that’s was the filmmaker’s way of waking people up? Speaking of those gun fights. I love seeing these gangster era gunfights. THere is just something about hearing a tommy gun fire off a few rounds that I just find totally awesome! Marion Cotillard adds a nice bit of eye candy, without showing much skin, which, in today’s day and time, is something to be commended. Her acting isn’t bad either. Just watch her interrogation scene.
The bad…Christian Bale didn’t die! I know, I know, that’s not how the real events played out and all, but I can wish, right? The little info that they put up on the screen wasn’t on there long enough for a person to read. Now, I watched this on DVD, so I had the luxury of rewinding/pausing, but had I seen this in theaters, I wouldn’t have been able to do so, thus ensuring frustration. I’m a pretty fast reader, so that I couldn’t finish in time  is saying something about the speed at which they took those things down. They make such a big deal about Babyface Nelson, but until a climactic scene near the end, you don’t really get/see him much. Again, I know this is about Dillinger, but it would be like if you made a movie about Stan Lee, you couldn’t just leave out Jack Kirby and the other writers and whatnot that helped him build Marvel to what it is today. In other words, there could have been more of Nelson.
Gangsters, tommy guns, set in the 1930s….everythign sets up perfectly for this film. I’m actually surprised that they haven’t mentioned this for an Oscar. Oh wait, it came out during the summer, and isn’t really dark. That automatically disqualifies it in the fickle Oscar voter’s eyes. Such a shame because it is more than worthy. Maybe if they had replaced Marion with Meryl Streep?
Seriously, though, this is an impressive picture. It delivers on everything it sets out to do, except I do think they could have told the story a bit better, but that’s more of a personal observation than a knock against the film. Watching this film, there is no doubt in my mid who the better actor is between Depp and Bale. There is no contest. Of course, Bale always seems to play the same character, just with a different voice, so we really shouldn’t be surprised. Should you rush out to see this? Yes, unless you’re one of those that isn’t into gangster violence or not a fan of Depp and/or Bale.

http://thankyounetflix.wordpress.com/

(Read Less...)