There were still some obvious flaws. There are a couple of choppy edits as well as questionable music in the scene where Dillinger walks into the cop shop. But the flaws most people discuss don’t seem to be a true flaw at all. I’ve heard and read many people say the film has no depth and the characters are shallow. This is simply not a fair assertion.

The film may appear shallow to some, but it doesn’t give us anything we don’t need to know. That is exactly what makes this film enjoyable; there is no abundance of useless information. It is about Dillinger’s short time as public enemy number one, nothing more.

Halfway through the film I realized something. We don’t have any recent films to make a good comparison with Public Enemies. The market is full of the more modern Scorsese flicks. Of course these films are great, but all take place after 1940. We also have The Godfather saga and DePalma’s updated Scarface, as well as Ridley Scott’s American Gangster, but these are far different than Mann’s film. They are all about more mafia related crime, not bank robbers.

It looks like Michael Mann reopened the classic gangster genre, and it was about time! There are so many great classic gangster films from the studio era such as Little Caesar (1930), The Public Enemy (1931), Scarface (1932), G-Men (1935), and The Roaring Twenties (1939). It would be ten years before we saw the end of the classic genre with White Heat (1949). However, Cagney’s Cody Jarret was more like Baby Face Nelson and less like John Dillinger, who was not a monster like Nelson.

After decades without a film of this sort, Public Enemies gives us a look into the 1930’s like never before. The high definition of the time period is without rival. If anything, this film gives us the most vivid sense of the classic gangster era we have ever seen.

Robert Warshow wrote a famous essay in 1948 about the genre entitled “The Gangster as Tragic Hero.” In it, he discusses the tropes of the classic gangster figure. Warshow states that “the real city, one might say, produces only criminals; the imaginary city produces the gangster: he is what we want to be and what we are afraid we may become.”

This can be directly applied to Mann’s film. Dillinger was very much a product of his environment combined with America’s social and political atmosphere at the time. We don’t see the buildup of the depression or the crime spree that spawned the FBI. We just see the end result once Dillinger decides to take what he feels was taken from him after an unfair prison sentence.

Many of us can understand his hostility, which is what made him a tragic hero of sorts. At the time he was seen as a contemporary Robin Hood, since the banks were viewed as the real public enemy. Mann’s film gives us a story that is less gritty than past gangster flicks but still holds onto some of the characteristics that built the genre.

Also, if you look at pictures and video of the real John Dillinger, you will realize that Johnny Depp was able to emulate every movement of this man as if he really was Dillinger. Even though the scene where he goes into the police station is likely made up, it sure feels real. Depp’s Dillinger is extremely believable; regardless of the depth his character may or may not have.

Many people went into this film with a preconceived notion of what the “idea” of John Dillinger was. Public Enemies is more the story of how that idea wasn’t all that great and how it ended tragically, as it should have. All great gangster stories end tragically.

To refer back to Warshow, the classic gangster’s story should always be an exclamation on the “unlimited possibility of aggression.” Of course, Dillinger was aggressive but also a more humanist bank robber when compared to his counterparts. That is why the public took a liking to him in the first place. Public Enemies gives us a look at such humanist aggression and when stood up next to the classics, it still holds its own.

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.

That is one outstanding trailer and the first footage I’ve seen.

This era’s always proved difficult for present-day filmmakers to credibly recreate.  One major exception is “L.A. Confidential” (1997), but the rest, most notably Scorsese’s ridiculously over-praised “The Aviator“ (2004), overtax your suspension of disbelief with a sense that everyone’s play-acting with clothes found in grandma’s attic. Director Michael Mann appears to have figured out that stylizing the hell out of it is the way to go. The music and atmosphere make you want to dive right in.

My one worry is the presence of J. Edgar Hoover. Can anyone think of a movie made in the last 20 years involving Hoover where the story didn’t screech to screaming halt to make a political point about the man’s rumored sexuality or commie hunting? That’s not to say he’s some saint above criticism, but he’s always stripped of his humanity and turned into a caricature which can only result in bad filmmaking. But as we’ve seen so many times before, the agenda too often comes before telling a good story.

Here’s hoping Mann’s the exception.