Review: ‘Public Enemies’
by John NolteStriving for cinematic greatness is always a risky proposition. The risk is that when you fall short there’s no mistaking the swing-and-a-miss. To his credit, this is the position Director Michael Mann loves to put himself in. He always strives, always puts himself out there and the result is a number of unforgettable films but also a few obvious and glaring misses. “Public Enemies” misses. Not as badly as “Miami Vice” or “Ali,” but other than a couple of sequences, “Enemies” never gels, grabs, bites or takes hold. Instead, the narrative just kind of rolls along hitting insistent beats en-route to the inevitable.
Johnny Depp is John Dillinger, a criminal before crime was organized who specializes in bank robberies and jail breaks. His dash, audacity and refusal to steal from the common folk has made him something of a folk hero to Depression-weary America, but J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) sees an opportunity to use Dillinger’s exploits as a way to firm up his fledgling national police force (the F.B.I.), but first he’ll have to prove his modern, centralized methods work.
Hoover’s initial step is to make Dillinger the first ever Public Enemy Number One. Next, he assigns straight-laced Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) to head the manhunt. Unfortunately, one disastrous attempt to apprehend Dillinger follows another, proving that Hoover’s ideal — that of the clean-cut G-Man — will only result in dead G-Men. Purvis now understands that ruthless means are necessary to catch ruthless men and convinces Hoover to even the odds and swear in a group of Western lawmen and former gunfighters.
Dillinger has two fatal flaws. First, he’s a step behind the times. Crime, especially in Chicago, is just starting to organize and today a day’s work in the underground rackets brings in as much money as any bank robbery. With the stakes now bigger than anyone ever imagined, Dillinger’s high profile brings unwanted heat which makes his ”friends” nervous and tempted to turn on him. His second problem is loyalty. Money doesn’t jazz him, a desire to live in the moment does. Breaking friends out of jail and visiting lovers watched by the Feds takes a higher priority over what’s prudent.
Physically, Depp’s resemblance to Dillinger is downright eerie at times. The actor perfectly captures the swagger and stare of the notorious gangster, and while it’s nice to see Depp in a straight-forward role for a change, the script doesn’t give him much more to do than “look” like Dillinger. Like everything about “Enemies,” the characters are strictly surface. The film looks great to be sure, but unlike Mann’s “Heat” or “Collateral,” we’re not rummaging around anyone’s souls here. Not even close.
The film’s central relationship is the ill-fated romance between Dillinger and Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), but scenes that should be thick with foreboding aren’t. We don’t long for them to be together or hope against hope Mann will create his own history and have them run safely off to Costa Rica.
Bale’s Purvis is an even thinner character. He’s not given any kind of emotional life and other than a somewhat clichéd personal conflict regarding unsavory police tactics; what makes Purvis tick remains a mystery. We’re informed of his fate at the end of the film, but nothing in Mann’s characterization helps to make sense of what’s to come.
The rest of the players all seem to blend together, which is a shame when you have flamboyant personalities like Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson and Frank Nitti to work with. The real damage done by these flat, generic characterizations is to a narrative that can’t spark to life. While the story’s bogged down in a mundane cat-and-mouse game, the people who could spice it up with verve and surprise aren’t allowed to. The colorful dialogue so rich during this era isn’t even put to use.
Even the action scenes lack oomph. Other than a terrific night time shoot-out set in the woods, the exhilaration that usually accompanies the pure physicality of a Michael Mann action set-piece just isn’t there. The staging of the bank robberies and personal confrontations also lack Mann’s signature style and unique energy.
What “Enemies” does do very well is create a time and place. Some great faces live under those fedoras and the muted but gorgeous digital cinematography nearly gives the film a lustrous black and white look. And give the filmmakers credit for controlling themselves politically. Hoover’s been the left’s favorite whipping-boy for years now and while he’s portrayed as coldly ambitious, his rumored sexuality is never mocked and he’s extremely reluctant to use the extra-legal means that prove necessary in bringing Dillinger down.
There’s also one truly great scene, one of my favorites of the year and the reason I’ll see the film again. It takes place in a movie theatre, Chicago’s Biograph Theatre, to be precise, where Dillinger famously watched “Manhattan Melodrama,” starring Clark Gable, Myrna Loy and William Powell. Using only his eyes, what Depp conveys in this moment tells us more about his character than the entire two hours that came before.
It’s also at a look at what “Public Enemies” might have been.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
92 Comments
Depp is an outstanding actor, the width and breadth of his work is amazing. I hope the movie does well. If I went to theaters (I don't, talking, laughing inappropriately, cell phones, etc.) I'd go see it but I'll see it as soon as it goes DVD or HBO….
a shame…
A truly great looking trailer, and a genuine shot on location in the hinterlands of Indiana feel- but we believe Mr Nolte's take is probably right on. Mann's recent work has been oddly soulless and that was the one thing that you really need to make a Roaring 30's epic. Too bad, because Depp can be great when given good material-
and a good director as well…
Reading this reminded me that Manhattan Melodrama was on tonight, and I missed it!
What struck me about this film as I was watching the trailer last night is that the cinematography is more like a documentary than it is a movie so you "feel" like you're following the characters. I kind of like that look and is one of the reasons I want to go see it since it's an interesting perspective on the look and feel of the genre of movies. (I literally felt like I was along for the ride as I was watching the trailer.)
(I hope I'm using the right terms because it sounds right to me but who knows if it makes sense LOL)
"Comedy actress Mollie Sugden, best known for her role as Betty Slocombe in the hit TV series Are You Being Served?, has died in hospital at the age of 86 after a long illness.
The popular television star shot to fame in the 1970s comedy show packed with double-entendres, as the panto-like character of Mrs Slocombe."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1196...
I used to love "Are You Being Served?"
It sounds like the main flaw with the film is the screenplay including flat, generic characterizations. That is truly a shame. Here is a historical film that should be a slam dunk in terms of generating interest and excitement and we have good, make that great (in the case of Depp) actors.
The movie was awful. Depp's eye liner was distracting. I'm sure John noticed the sound mix was way off. I said to my friend that they should've made the movie about baby face nelson instead. For a two and a half hour movie, it does not keep you compelled at all.
For some reason, when the night time shoot out in the woods starts, i think they were shooting with a VHS home movie camera. Michael Mann should be embarrassed.
I watched it on TCM just because i saw it in the movie. Gonna watch G-Men too.
Marion Cotilliard is as dumb as a box of rocks – she was one of the 9/11 Truthers…plus she's an elitist French – please note that I specify ELITIST as I feel there are MANY good French who have a hell of a lot more common sense than she and others of her ilk. THATS the reason why I wouldnt give my money to see this film.
She will be greatly missed,….and I am unanimous in that. ;-(
How could you waste a true character like Frank Nitti?
"I stuck him like a irish pig!" Untouchables is the ulitmate Frank.
But also shows that Mann's greatest film work is still "heat".
I will pass on the movie as well . I will not pay money to see Marion Cotilliad .
A French elitist… hee hee…like the French have anything to be elitist about…LOL! btw I just spent several days in France…I was gratified to see many American flags flying from Normandy area homes…
I'm not surprised that Nolte says there's no story in this film. When I saw the trailers for this movie, there was none in them either. It was just sound effects and action. BTW, that shaky came Mann used in that shootout in the woods was worse than 'Cloverfield'. Yeah, this film is a definite pass.
Cotillard's French accent becomes very noticeable during her interrogation. It became a huge distraction, imo.
I thought it was funny when I was looking at the DRUDGE REPORT when it had the four pane pictures of Obama giving the stink eye. Above it was an ad that said PUBLIC ENEMIES.
It's a shame. I was kind of looking forward to this one. It sound like everyone showed up to make a movie, but no one provided a script.
Your review is right on target, Mr. Nolte.
I wanted to like this movie. Roger Ebert likes it, but I don't like Roger. Accoubnts by the participants of Dillinger's bank jobs sometimes read like Keystone Cops scripts. I was hoping for some entertaInment.
While a great turn, Billy Drago's Frank Nitti was pretty much all fabrication. Nitti was in ways a complex figure-a street tough as a kid, he dressed well but quietly as a mob exec and praciticed a cultured civility that many of his cohorts resented. Not that he compltetly brought it off. Stanley Tucci gave a good impersonation in Road to Perdition.
I was quite taken with the pacing, acting, and action up to about the mid-point, which I take to be (SPOILER ALERT; that is, if you're not familiar with Dillinger's story) the prison break. After that, it's a by-the-numbers cops and robbers flick, with the exception of (SPOILER ALERT) Depp's daring foray into the local office of the Dillinger Department.
Also, pretty harsh on the FBI's methods and competency. Whatever bad things they did, at least the people they hunted were worse.
She said her father was French, which, beside the fact that she grew up here, I guess was supposed to explain it. Didn't sound to me like she was trying very hard to conceal it from the beginning.
The escape after the final "job" in "Heat" stands up to me as one of the finest action sequences in film history. And that's including the "Ride of the Valkyries" sequence in "Apocaplypse Now" and the Odessa steps in "Battleship Potemkin".
That shaky cam came out of left field. Its like someone else started directing the movie at that point.
During the "night" scenes out in the woods i thought i was watching Mystery Science Theatre 3000. What the hell were all those mega spotlights doing out in the middle of nowhere?
"BTW, that shaky came Mann used in that shootout in the woods was worse than 'Cloverfield'"
Shaky cams are here to stay, in films serious and popcorny. I prefer steadycams and tripods, but am still able to appreciate the difference between "The Blair Witch Project" and "Cloverfield" on the one hand, and "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Dark Night" on the other. "Public Enemies" belongs in the latter category.
As for the story, no, it wasn't just bang, bang, boom, boom. We had an analysis of fame and public relations (from pop-heroes like Dillinger to press divas like Hoover to the influence of movies on culture), a critique of bureacracy (Hoover never nabbed a criminal himself, and was totally blind to the danger posed by organized crime), a psychologizing of thrill-seeking behavior; an inquiry into how far law enforcment is justified going to keep the peace, and so on. It's not PHD stuff, but it's not "Tranformers" either.
"when the night time shoot out in the woods starts, i think they were shooting with a VHS home movie camera. Michael Mann should be embarrassed"
That's digital video, and it's starting to take over Hollywood–or maybe not, but it is rising. George Lucas used it. It's there from the beginning of "Public Enemies," but gets more noticable at times, for instance in the woods.
Mann's used it before, in "Collateral" for instance. I still think it looked good.
Shaky cam isn't my favorite, but it's here to stay. Not all films that use it are "Cloverfield" or "The Blair Witch Project"; some are "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Dark Night". "Public Enemies" belongs with the latter, for the most part.
As for the story, it wasn't bang bang, boom boom. There was subtext. The psychology of thrill-seeking and self-destruction, the policeman's moral dilemma, the ineptitude of bureacracy (did Hoover ever admit organized crime is a problem?), etc. Unfortunately, the writing was thin, and these themes didn't get much analysis.
It wasn't PHD quality, but it was better than "Transformers".
[...] post: Review: ‘Public Enemies’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
~"There’s also one truly great scene, one of my favorites of the year and the reason I’ll see the film again. It takes place in a movie theatre, Chicago’s Biograph Theatre, to be precise, where Dillinger famously watched “Manhattan Melodrama,” starring Clark Gable, Myrna Loy and William Powell. Using only his eyes, what Depp conveys in this moment tells us more about his character than the entire two hours that came before."….
And so do they show the moment he gets gunned down afterward? It's the funniest thing about this dead scumbag and should be lovingly shown. The bullet that kill him starts at the bum and defects – up thru the chest – bounces around the skull – and PoP goes an eyeball!
Classic.. and I have no doubt it'll be in typical hollyweird slow-mo. Start handing out the oscars now!!!!
I absolutely love Michael Mann's work. So, if he makes something, I _will_ watch it. Even when he misses, like in Miami Vice, I still enjoy it. I like to think that one of Mann's misses is better than most directors' hits.
In the end, I will see "Public Enemies" and I will probably agree with all of the negatives posted here, but I will still like it.
Depp is cool, but I'm not a big fan of Michael Mann. Other than heat, his stuff always feels bland to me.
"And give the filmmakers credit for controlling themselves politically. Hoover’s been the left’s favorite whipping-boy for years now … "
Very true, but that's mainly focussed on his later years. There's no question that the War on Crime forms an integral part of the Roosevelt administration's increase of federal government, and at the time there was principled opposition to it. So yes, congrats for avoiding Hoover-bashing; but congrats also for avoiding any sly Republican-basing FDR=BHO nonsense.
"And give the filmmakers credit for controlling themselves politically. Hoover’s been the left’s favorite whipping-boy for years now … "
Very true, but that's mainly focussed on his later years. There's no question that the War on Crime forms an integral part of the Roosevelt administration's increase of federal government, and at the time there was principled opposition to it. So yes, congrats for avoiding Hoover-bashing; but congrats also for avoiding any sly Republican-basing FDR=BHO nonsense.
I remember seeing the one with Warren Oates, and though he was a little too old for the part, if you knew a little about Dillinger…it was still a good movie…at least worth watching. Though I saw it on television, and so have no idea what the cinema release might be like…maybe no difference at all.
John, whether the movies you review are any good or not, your reviews are always wonderful. This line, "The risk is that when you fall short there’s no mistaking the swing-and-a-miss." is now one of my all-time favorite lines in any review. You write beautifully and there is no mistaking your hope that every movie you see will be the best ever! Since you say you will see the movie again, I will see it once!
But how does it stack up against the "Huggies" sequence in "Raising Arizona?"
Saw it last night, gotta agree – it's just "meh." And I'm a huge Michael Mann fan. He's developed a very distinct style – lots of grainy, realistic photography, lots of nighttime scenes and big time climactic gun battles. Unfortunately, the 30's don't really lend themselves to the first two – he does his best with the third in the woods, but it's not really climactic – thanks a lot, history. I think we've come to expect a certain look and feel from Roaring 20s/Depression Era films, and Mann's style just doesn't fit.
Having said that, I thought some of the supporting folks did a great job, particularly Stephen Lang (Ike Clanton in Tombstone) as old-school, tough-as-nails Texas lawman Charles Winstead. They could have tossed Bale's character altogether and just had Winstead and his buddies track Dillinger down for a couple hours and it would have been a much more interesting film. Stupid history.
The great thing about Big Hollywood is that this is a place where you have variety. People have different opinions, and that's okay. You'd never get that in The Huffington Post or The National Review. For example, being gay, I was expecting this blog to be rabidly anti-gay, but it hasn't been. Even when the gay marriage issue is presented, those who are against don't us the "it's a sin" card. It presents a different viewpoint, without it being homophobic.
not to mention he's hawt. seriously, depp is one of the few actors around that make me want to see his movies based on his talent. not to mention he's hawt.
Now who takes care of the pussy? (cat, that is you dirty-ditch thinkers!)
The wife is out of town this weekend.. and I was seriously considering giving this one a shot to pass the time.. if it's a 'paint by numbers' cops and robbers sort of thing I may just have to pass… (Of course, it didn't help that I"m not a Depp supporter/fan.)
I love Stephen Lang, but he's so very good at assuming characters I never recognise him on a first viewing. Now I realise why I liked WInstead so much !
It's not history's fault, by the way. A truly accurate version would sideline Dillinger and end with the rather spectacular shootout between Nelson and Cowley. I understand that a film focussed on Dillinger himself has a good dramatic reason to pretend that he was both the obvious leader and last survivor of the gang, but it simply isn't true.
"Now I realise why I liked WInstead so much!"
Yep – from the moment he showed up at the train station I knew I recognized him, but I couldn't place it – guess it was the lack of the Ike-beard. Kind of a sad reflection on the much-discussed state of male actors these days, too. You've got these "stars" like Christian Bale, who looks good and has decent chops, but then you've got an almost completely unknown Lang coming in and just dominating him in every scene, paralleled by the "Ok, let's bring in the grown ups/real men and let them handle it, these youngsters don't know what they're doing." Kind of apropos to Bale/Clooney/Pitt et al vs. their predecessors.
Loved Lang's line before the woods shootout – basically telling Purvis "You're gonna f this up, get people killed and let him get away. Again. Don't do it." But then he still shuts his mouth and does his job.
And then in the interrogation scene, he just comes in and shows "fat boy" what real men think of women-beaters, without saying a word.
I hope that movie does well… Johnny Depp is a excellent actor and I think the premise of this movie or the the story of Dillinger is a excellent choice…. Regardless of the review of this movie I will see it…
Miami Vice is a good movie. Ignore the naysayers and rent it today!
Try responding to the criticism of the film or films rather than personal attacks.
She delivered the funniest line I ever heard in all my years watching TV. Captain Peacock summoned her to the center of the sales floor by crooking his index finger. She straighted her shoulders back, and fom behind her counter said, "Captain Peacock! I do not respond to any man's finger!"
Never heard anything funnier.
He can't, he's a troll. It's in the DNA.
"What “Enemies” does do very well is create a time and place."
Not. I've only seen the trailer, but the soundtrack lost me immediately. This movie is set during the high point of American culture, and the use of modern "music" in the soundtrack makes it relentlessly anachronistic.
Really? There is absolutely not one part of this movie aside from a few pacing issues that is not PERFECT. If the side characters are "blending together", you simply aren't paying attention. This is easily the single best movie of the year, and if you didn't thoroughly enjoy it, I can't imagine a movie you would like. I mean, what do these people have to do to get a positive review from you?
Jude, I hope you realize that all the people who helped form your opinion that this site would be rabidly anti-gay were WRONG. Keep that in mind the next time they try to tell you something.
Oh yeah, welcome to the site. Create an account and make yourself at home.
The woods scene was actually pretty dark; the only time there was any sort of lights were the lights in the cabin and from the cars.
Don't listen to reviews. See the movie for yourself. It is my personal favorite movie of the year, and there is honestly nothing else even close to it in quality that I can think of.
The only "modern" music in the film is two blues songs from Otis Taylor, which, if he'd have been alive in the 1930s, would have been huge hits. The rest of the soundtrack consists of Blind Willie Johnson, a brand new recording of "Bye Bye Blackbird", and several songs by Billie Holliday.
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Sorry to come across so harshly, but it is true. Trailers are not movies. . . they only give an idea of what the movie is going to be. For example, Watchmen's trailer had a song by The Smashing Pumpkins. Was it in the movie? OF COURSE NOT. It was for the trailer.
Just one point to pick over in Mr. Nolte's review. Organized crime was alive and flourishing long before John Dillinger became a household name. Fellas like Dillinger, the Barker boys, Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson had to worry about the feds coming at them from the front and crime syndicates coming at them from the rear, because the exploits of these felons was bringing the heat down on them something wicked. Since these robin hoods mainly worked in the mid-west organized crime in Chicago and St. Paul (believe it…St. Paul) both helped AND turned on the public enemies.
Go out everyone and get the book "Public Enemies." It is a good read…no, a fantastic read.
If anyone like this time period, I suggest reading The Nitti Trilogy by Max Allan Collins (True Detective, True Crime, The Million Dollar Wound). The second book deals with the Dillinger story. You might have to check your local library because I don't think they're in bookstores anymore.
apparently you are not to familiar with the FBI. really up until the 1980s or so the FBI was worst off than any of the major criminals. i highly recomend doing some research that time period in the FBI history is definently worth a read. the FBI was the orginal orginized crime syndicate.
Watch it again. There is light coming from nowhere cutting through the darkness. Either that or its an awfully bright moon.
When Bale is hanging off the side of the car, there is a spotlight on his face. (headlights point forward)
I liked the shaky cam in Cloverfield, not midway through Public Enemies.
As a projectionist, i have the luxury of seeing movies over and over. I just saw the woods scene again. It is laughable. Maybe because hold movies to the MST3K standard. I can just hear Joel saying, "Gee, what a lovely . . . NIGHT."
thanks for the heads up; we will see it regardless…
Ebert has become a celebutard with BDS. Better to pity him than to listen to him.
The Warren Oates one is very good. Warren Oates was very good in his craft.
Free speech is practiced here as long as it is not abused. Try some free speech at HuffPo and see how long it takes the Brown Shirts to come out.
The problem seems to be (once again) the screenplay. The real Dilinger was a guy like Alexander the Great or Caesar, Wellington, and Napoleon who could sieze the moment and bluff and force his way through most situations. He did things that would have been unbelievable if not explained in this way (i.e. his uncanny ability at a moment's notice to understand where and how things were weak in the opposition).
Hoover was jealous of Purvis, because Purvis became a guy who was as big a star as Hoover, and as beloved. Purvis was a lawyer, and his main innovation was not using Western gunfighters, but radio, telephones, local police, all organized by well trained agents.
Purvis did not out-shoot Dillinger, he out-manpowered him, and out-organized him. That is the dramatic conflict right there — the organizer, careful lawyer, who used modern technology to provide near limitless resources, versus the "last" of the gunmen who used his own ability to out-think during the moment, his enemies, nearly all of whom were poorly trained, and poorly led local police.
Yes, it's basically "Day of the Jackal," with a careful, un-charismatic leader using his resources and his ability to out-think, on a strategic rather than a tactical basis, the guy who evades pursuit because people like him, and who can think in the tactical moment better than anyone.
at least Depp doesnt have any insane costume on in this one… the last time he appeared without a crazy get up was "Nick of Time". I think so anyway….. 'Nick" was a good one…Walken at his best, threatening to turn Depps screen daughter into "into gravy"
All right, who didn't study their history and script a fluid '20s/'30s dialogue? Stop with the contemporary talk!
For what it's worth the "boss" at our abode shares you senitments….
truly wise boss….
ya, and she remindes me of that every once in a while (every day!)
I think it is tough to make a movie and make it exciting when the viewers already know every event that happens and what the outcome of the story is going to be. This said "PE" lacks excitement and the reason is because it needed more work in the editing room but overall it is fascinating and an enjoyable ride and one I would see again. As a matter of fact I enjoyed the performers so much I think I will go back and see it a second time. I thought Depp was great as Dillinger and Bale and Crudup gave strong performances even if Bale and Crudup characters weren't defined enough to give us a reason to care one way or another for their success. What I find annoying is the fact that it is not historically accurate. Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson were killed after Dillinger death not before. And what is with the white blouse and orange skirt of Anna Sage. It was a RED DRESS and according to the FBI Dillinger did not say anything on his death much less the "bye bye blackbird" nonsense. You would think in today's get it right age they would get it right. BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Characters aren't missing. Character actors are.
Modern acting style is as boring as real life. Why pay to see that?
I don't care what any of you say, real guns don't sound like a string of Black Cats… the sounds design in Mann's films when guns start going off is spot on, and I really appreciate the meticulous detail that goes into getting it right….especially in confined spaces where the acoustics are effected by echoes and you get more of a concussive, bassy pop (see downtown heist in Heat, Tom Cruise in the alley with the briefcase thugs in Collateral, and the downtown/mainstreet shootout in PE). The barrel cam is awesome also. My problem with the movie wasnt anything technical, I like the digital look, its beautiful IMO…but there is almost nothing creating tension in the film. Bale's character needed to be developed more, and was pretty worthless otherwise. I got a better look into the soul of Stephen Lang's character in 20 seconds than I did Bale's the whole film. But personally, the 15-20 min of shootouts, the end sequence, and Depp's colorful Dillenger are worth the ticket price alone.
"Watch it again. There is light coming from nowhere cutting through the darkness. Either that or its an awfully bright moon."
That's the thing about movies: they like you to see stuff. It may look a bit unnatural at times, but I'd rather be able to see what's going on.
"This movie is set during the high point of American culture"
1933 is the high point of American culture? Since when?
"Fellas like Dillinger, the Barker boys, Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson had to worry about the feds coming at them from the front and crime syndicates coming at them from the rear, because the exploits of these felons was bringing the heat down on them something wicked. Since these robin hoods mainly worked in the mid-west organized crime in Chicago and St. Paul (believe it…St. Paul) both helped AND turned on the public enemies."
The film thoroughly covers this point. A Chicago mobster rubs Dillinger's nose in the fact that his bookie service takes in every hour what Dillinger gets in an average bank job.
"That is the dramatic conflict right there — the organizer, careful lawyer, who used modern technology to provide near limitless resources, versus the "last" of the gunmen who used his own ability to out-think during the moment, his enemies, nearly all of whom were poorly trained, and poorly led local police"
This is the main focus of the film, and they certainly pound the issue home on the Dillinger side. The Purvis side is a little moruky, since in addition to "scientific methods," he brings in hard-nosed Western lawmen and depends on strongarming and torture to get what he wants. Also, I don't know if it's Bale's performance or the writing, or both, but he's a bit boring.
It's not that the writers missed the themes you're talking about. it's that they didn't dramatize them well enough. The storyline and the minor characters just weren't as compelling as they could have been.
I meant murky, not moruky.
"and according to the FBI Dillinger did not say anything on his death much less the 'bye bye blackbird' nonsense."
Obviously, the FBI wouldn't have known about it if "Ike Clanton" kept it a secret. It was an unsubtle dramatic trick, and a bit uncalled for. But historical accuracy wasn't the point. Most people in the audience would realize the filmmakers made it up.
I think of that as more of a comedic than action sequence. You'd have to compare "Raising Arizona" to something from Buster Keaton's "The General" or the "mirror scene" in the Marx Brothers' "Duck Soup".
My review on my Filmaster movie blog here: http://michuk.filmaster.com/review/public-enemies...
Overall, it's a decent movie with great plot and a proper ratio of action and dialogue (if you watched latest Transformers you know what I mean) and as far as action dramas are concerned, this one is at least as big as "Heat" (which is in my personal Top 5 in the category) or maybe bigger. A truly epic movie, worth recommending!
Excellent review. This movie is on my list to see. It has been catching a lot of buzz here in Dillinger's old stomping grounds. If you are interested in a Wisconsinite take on the movie's filming and release check out the article Volume One did on their site here : http://volumeone.org/magazine/articles/624/Johnny...
"Really? There is absolutely not one part of this movie aside from a few pacing issues that is not PERFECT. If the side characters are "blending together", you simply aren't paying attention. This is easily the single best movie of the year, and if you didn't thoroughly enjoy it, I can't imagine a movie you would like. I mean, what do these people have to do to get a positive review from you?"
Thank you thank you thank you! I have at LAST found someone who agrees with me. This movie is incredible. The characters only being thin if you don't take the thought to really pay attention. A great film that has made me a fan of Johnny Depp for the first time in years, Depp's Dillinger is worth the price of admission alone. And I don't care if she's a 9/11 truther or not, but the actress playing Billy *depps love interest* is an absolute beauty.
I just saw it and loved it. I felt it was a very solid movie. Could have been more dramatic in spots, but Depp was excellent as usual and Crudup was really good as Hoover. Hard to believe he was Dr Manhattan earlier this year. Bale was solid, but his character could have used more defining scenes.
Ive seen it. It's a lot better than that sour review above. that guy sounds british, like he doesn't like american things that much.
I thought it was great. Mann uses a different style to tell this story than most Americans are used to I think. It's a bit less linear with more fill in the blanks for the viewer. Mann definately knows what he's doing but it's a style that takes about 30 min to get used to.
I've never heard the sound of gun fire so acurately captured, especially during the Little Bohemia sceen. Does it glamorizes Dillinger? I think that was the question that Mann was trying to provoke, as the theater sceen so eloquently played out. Public Enemies is definately a hit.
[...] Jo Tucker and Big Hollywood also reviewed [...]
[...] Jo Tucker and Big Hollywood also reviewed [...]
I just saw this and I am not sure what all the angst was about. This was a solid Michael Mann film. It wasn't his greatest, rather it was more like "Heat-light." That being said, a solid Mann film is still better than an exceptional film for most others.
It had some good action sequences, a solid police-procedural plot, good acting and Mann's usual excellent direction.
I imagine most of the disappointment comes from people expecting too much from Mann. If you swing for the fences and only get a double, that is still a solid at-bat.
One character, very drunk, makes just about the worst James Cagney impression I’ve ever heard. That’s what this movie is. It’s a Universal film pretending to be a revisionist rendition of the Warner Bros. Gangster films. It’s a bad impression of William Wellman’s film The Public Enemy, starring Cagney. If only it had been more homage than revision. This film could have used the other’s gritty realism, instead of the fantasy world in which Public Enemies comfortably resides. I also wouldn’t have minded if someone had shoved a grapefruit in Billie Frechette’s face when she began to cry.
Read my full review at http://cfilmc.wordpress.com/
watch Public Enemies online
http://megashare.info/watch.php?id=TVRnMg
Websites worth visiting…
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.