Public Enemies, a story about John Dillinger, recreates the 1930s admirably, but also takes a shot at recreating its movies. It’s a complicated love affair this film is spinning, because it’s trying to be true to the lives of its major characters, but it’s also working on the aspects of their lives that aren’t exactly real.
It’s a curious time and position to find yourself in really, and one in which reality was sort of up for grabs. Gangsters, movies, movies about gangsters, cars, machine guns, the FBI, and countless other things you heard about on the radio were all new ideas, and everyone was pretty much pretending they knew what the hell was going on.
Real gangsters and movie gangsters were equally creating themselves out of mythos and theory, and fed off a certain approval of the way the other looked. Outlaws and lawmen of the higher order were fairly unsure of each other and what they were supposed to be doing exactly. John Dillinger, though he could plan the hell out of a bank robbery, was just sort of generally stealing and running. Melvin Purvis and the men he led, though armed with a lot of tactics, were just sort of generally chasing him.
The film feels like the ’30s (I’ll pretend I know), and that’s a lot more impressive than looking like them. A lot of movies take place in the ’30s, but they don’t deliver the air about them like a movie set in the ’30s and made in the ’30s. Public Enemies shows you part of such a film, the one Dillinger watched the night he died, and says to you, “See what I’m saying?” And, you do.
This is a movie that also benefits greatly from the fact that it is part of the dialog of Michael Mann‘s best work. Mann can go strange at times, and sometimes he’s interested in things that quite frankly don’t need films at all, but when he’s on his game he makes things like Last of the Mohicans and Ali. Most telling, for this case, he makes Manhunter, not Silence of the Lambs.
Johnny Depp plays Dillinger as he really was (by all accounts), a man who was mostly lost, and generally pissed at the system that locked him up for ten years because he stole fifty bucks. A guy who, for the most part, grew up in prison at a time when there was a sort of honor among thieves, and robbed banks because it was something he could make sense of.
Christian Bale plays Purvis to perfection, and though it may not seem like it, it’s a demanding role. He’s got a lot less to work with, and nevertheless pulls off the key to the film… that the two men are a lot more alike than they are different. Also somewhat lost in his place and position, similarly because it was being defined around and at him, and changed as he went along, Purvis is likewise just playing out what seems to make sense in the midst of a generality that doesn’t.
You’ve got to like a film with a decent budget and a couple of hot names that nevertheless delivers the reigned-in viewpoint of a documentary. That’s made even better when the bold and brash Dillinger can be made real when the reality can hardly be mentioned without sounding glorified. He introduced himself to women as a bank robber and sauntered into the Dillinger task force office to have a look around. That’s just who he was. But, try saying it without implying he was pretty cool.
Rating: 
Are You Screening?
Related articles by Zemanta
- Public Enemies Review (themovieblog.com)
- Film Review: “Public Enemies” (popdose.com)
- Public Enemies Review (screenrant.com)
- Johnny Depp in Public Enemies – Trailer #3 (filmgecko.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b67714b9-3711-4afa-ae9a-93bc8c2a75c1)
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Movie Review
Date Night Blu-Ray Review And Giveaway
Eat Pray Love Movie Review
The Other Guys Movie Review
Cop Out Blu-Ray Review And Giveaway
Inception Movie Review
Winnebago Man Review
Here's a dillema. I couldn't care less about gangsters or Dillinger (I didn't know until just now Dillinger robbed banks), and yet you've piqued my curiousity. I like and respect as actors both Bale and Depp. What's a girl to do?
I understand the situation, but I'd say give it a shot. As a rule I have no interest either, and mob movies don't do much for me, but this one was worth watching.
Here's a dillema. I couldn't care less about gangsters or Dillinger (I didn't know until just now Dillinger robbed banks), and yet you've piqued my curiousity. I like and respect as actors both Bale and Depp. What's a girl to do?
I understand the situation, but I'd say give it a shot. As a rule I have no interest either, and mob movies don't do much for me, but this one was worth watching.
The movie was acted perfectly by the entire cast, but both Bale and Depp did an amazing job. I also felt that the storyline staying fairly true to the actual events
The movie was acted perfectly by the entire cast, but both Bale and Depp did an amazing job. I also felt that the storyline staying fairly true to the actual events
I went into the theater with high expectations and left feeling as though I just watched a dog get hit by a car. This wasn't because the main character got gunned down, but because it seemed as though the film was a victim of careless disregard.
I am very familiar with the storied history behind John Dillinger, the mystique, the popularity and the fanfare… He was a bad guy and the FBI was on a mission. While this film did not deviate very far from the basic facts, and artistic license was excercised tastefully well, the storyline perhaps held on too tightly to itself with little regard for the audience. Although I knew how the film would end, the journey was not worth the price of admission.
Johnny Depp did a fine job in his role, and Christian Bale was adequate. However, from the very first scene I felt lost, as though I had stepped out for a while and come back in after some important scene. Scene to scene this film meandered, stumbled, tripped, sleepwalked, woke up, got lost and generally searched for any continuity, right up until the closing credits. The editor would make a poor bartender… cutting off each customer after only one sip.
The pace of the film is painfully slow and glaringly disjointed… even with the requisite violence and explosive, cracklingly loud gun battles, the end result is a snoozer. The flow just isnt there and this is VERY unfortunate. I really WANTED to like this film, but realized after leaving the theatre, that it didnt deliver. Add to this the cinematography as abhorrently bad. Over-the-top jittery, too close, dizzying, dark and confusing. If that was done for 'effect” it was a lousy effect, especially after 2+ hrs of the 'effect”.
Character development was non-existent. There is no background. The viewer is expected to have lived several years of Dillinger's life prior to the film starting…. This film would have made a fair sequel to itself had it been a second offereing to some other production…
Rarely am I this critical of a film Ive screened in a theater. I have been lucky to enjoy most every theatrical viewing Ive attended over the last 20 years. This film simply was not up to par.
I would highly recommend the 1973 John Milius film 'Dillinger' as required viewing before this film. Milius' film is by no means an Academy Award winner, and in no way would I say it is among the best films ever made, but Warren Oates' performance as John Dillinger is miles beyond Depp's, and Ben Johnson as Melvin Purvis, far more believable than Christian Bale. With a star studded cast, including a young Richard Dreyfuss, Harry Dean Stanton, Michelle Phillips, Cloris Leachman and Geoffrey Lewis, 'Dillinger' was a cult masterpece in a time when filmmaking was undergoing a vast transformation. John Milius put out a fast paced non-stop rollercoaster that did what only a number of films do in a given decade.
'Public Enemies' rates a far second to 'Dillinger'… Watch them both, and you may just agree.
There's a sense in which I actually agree with the general idea of what you say, though I think many of the specifics are a bit unfair. I don't think the editor did a particularly poor job, but perhaps because the sentence leading into that does not accurately portray qualities that have a lot to do with the editor.
Neither do I think the cinematographer did a bad job at all. Spinotti has a pretty impressive resume, including two Oscar noms.
On the other hand, it is a slow movie, and it is very definitely working a specific theory. As I implied, it's very much Manhunter, and very much not Silence of the Lambs. That's not going to work for a lot of people.
On the next other hand, I disagree that there was no character development, or that the viewer is expected to know much about who is who beforehand. It seemed to me that it delivered a lot of information, particularly in terms of who the characters were.
I greatly appreciate the comment.
I went into the theater with high expectations and left feeling as though I just watched a dog get hit by a car. This wasn't because the main character got gunned down, but because it seemed as though the film was a victim of careless disregard.
I am very familiar with the storied history behind John Dillinger, the mystique, the popularity and the fanfare… He was a bad guy and the FBI was on a mission. While this film did not deviate very far from the basic facts, and artistic license was excercised tastefully well, the storyline perhaps held on too tightly to itself with little regard for the audience. Although I knew how the film would end, the journey was not worth the price of admission.
Johnny Depp did a fine job in his role, and Christian Bale was adequate. However, from the very first scene I felt lost, as though I had stepped out for a while and come back in after some important scene. Scene to scene this film meandered, stumbled, tripped, sleepwalked, woke up, got lost and generally searched for any continuity, right up until the closing credits. The editor would make a poor bartender… cutting off each customer after only one sip.
The pace of the film is painfully slow and glaringly disjointed… even with the requisite violence and explosive, cracklingly loud gun battles, the end result is a snoozer. The flow just isnt there and this is VERY unfortunate. I really WANTED to like this film, but realized after leaving the theatre, that it didnt deliver. Add to this the cinematography as abhorrently bad. Over-the-top jittery, too close, dizzying, dark and confusing. If that was done for 'effect” it was a lousy effect, especially after 2+ hrs of the 'effect”.
Character development was non-existent. There is no background. The viewer is expected to have lived several years of Dillinger's life prior to the film starting…. This film would have made a fair sequel to itself had it been a second offereing to some other production…
Rarely am I this critical of a film Ive screened in a theater. I have been lucky to enjoy most every theatrical viewing Ive attended over the last 20 years. This film simply was not up to par.
I would highly recommend the 1973 John Milius film 'Dillinger' as required viewing before this film. Milius' film is by no means an Academy Award winner, and in no way would I say it is among the best films ever made, but Warren Oates' performance as John Dillinger is miles beyond Depp's, and Ben Johnson as Melvin Purvis, far more believable than Christian Bale. With a star studded cast, including a young Richard Dreyfuss, Harry Dean Stanton, Michelle Phillips, Cloris Leachman and Geoffrey Lewis, 'Dillinger' was a cult masterpece in a time when filmmaking was undergoing a vast transformation. John Milius put out a fast paced non-stop rollercoaster that did what only a number of films do in a given decade.
'Public Enemies' rates a far second to 'Dillinger'… Watch them both, and you may just agree.
There's a sense in which I actually agree with the general idea of what you say, though I think many of the specifics are a bit unfair. I don't think the editor did a particularly poor job, but perhaps because the sentence leading into that does not accurately portray qualities that have a lot to do with the editor.
Neither do I think the cinematographer did a bad job at all. Spinotti has a pretty impressive resume, including two Oscar noms.
On the other hand, it is a slow movie, and it is very definitely working a specific theory. As I implied, it's very much Manhunter, and very much not Silence of the Lambs. That's not going to work for a lot of people.
On the next other hand, I disagree that there was no character development, or that the viewer is expected to know much about who is who beforehand. It seemed to me that it delivered a lot of information, particularly in terms of who the characters were.
I greatly appreciate the comment.
This is a must see movie.
ToddDiroberto
http://www.docstoc.com/search/Degrassi-The-Next...
http://www.newsguide.us/art-entertainment/movies/
This is a must see movie.
ToddDiroberto
http://www.docstoc.com/search/Degrassi-The-Next...
http://www.newsguide.us/art-entertainment/movies/
This is a must see movie.
ToddDiroberto
http://www.docstoc.com/search/Degrassi-The-Next...
http://www.newsguide.us/art-entertainment/movies/
Download and watch the new movie Public Enemies http://blog-movie.com/Public-Enemies.html
Download and watch the new movie Public Enemies (blog-movie.com/Public-Enemies.html)