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
25 Comments
[...] post: Review: ‘Public Enemies’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
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
You must be logged in to post a comment.