Public Enemies

[Smarmy Douche]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3637/3325253251_d2477efb30.jpg

Directed by Michael Mann
Johnny Depp
Christian Bale
Marion Cotillard
Channing Tatum
Stephen Dorff
Giovanni Ribisi
Billy Crudup

USA July 1, 2009
UK July 3, 2009

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x94/tipoisto/dillinger124173611std1.jpg

http://notjustmovies.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/justpub.jpg

This is the only big budget film left this summer I'm seeing and it'll be the first film I've see on day one in a while, as a part of a late father's day gift for my dad, who is a Dillinger/gangster buff. I'm looking forward to it quite a bit too, as his interest in that era rubbed off on me, but no one character of the time interested me more than John Dillinger. I'm not sure how close to the books this film will be, but as much as I'd love a strictly historical picture, I'd be just as happy with a good and entertaining movie, which I'm sure Mann will deliver.

[sbunn10]

This is and has been one of my most anticipated of the year... looks fantastic.

[Bourne101]

Can't wait to see this.

[DaMovieMan]

A talented cast no doubt, Depp especially.

But those 7 clips really did nothing for me. The love-affair thing with the girl wetting her pants because the guy's a badass bank robber is really old, Bale's accent is pretty bad and the digital filmmaking really shows in that one clip where they're shooting their Tommys from inside the house. Depp is pretty much the only reason why I'm still sorta interested in this and even he wasn't impressive in those clips.

Guess I'm alone here coz every schmoe is talking about this and how much they can't wait. I could wait, I really could.

[Mr.HyDe807]

This looks fantastic, I can't wait!

[drc5145]

This has been one of my most anticipated this year for some time now. Looks fantastic.

I've purposely avoided all the clips the sites have been collecting to make sure I have a fresh experience.

[ilovemovies]

I still want to see this, but to be honest, the trailers are kind of underwhelming.

I think the most I can hope for with this movie is to be on the same level as Collateral. It certainly won't be on Heat's level and hopefully it'll be WAY better than Maimi Vice.

[Highspeed]

I cant help but wonder how Mr. Channing "Step Up" Tatum is gonna do as pretty boy floyd. Either way I'm pretty damn sure this will be better than Vice I can't wait for this to come out.

[Bourne101]

I cant help but wonder how Mr. Channing "Step Up" Tatum is gonna do as pretty boy floyd.

Spoilers








This isn't really a spoiler because it is given away in the trailer, but Floyd is killed pretty early on in the movie and only has limited screen time.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I too am turned off by Mann's use of digital. The story is intriguing, the cast is great, the look of the film though is really dull and will no doubt annoy me. Opening weekend appointment though.

[echo_bravo]

I will be there opening day.

Mann is the man (no pun intended).

I think I might be one of the five people on the planet that loved Miami Vice.

[Imsomuchbetter]

Honestly, and I might get shot for this, but Im only going to see this one because of Depp.

[outsyder]

Honestly, and I might get shot for this, but Im only going to see this one because of Depp.


That's what Universal wants to hear.

Still a bit unsure about the digital camera use, but I'm convinced it will work either surprisingly well or drag the whole thing down.

[ilovemovies]

Well I know Collateral looked great on the big screen but looked horrible when I caught it on television.

[Natty]

Can't wait, should be really good if not enjoyable at least.

[Tweek]

There are more movies that I want to see next month than my measly budget can allow. I'm going to make sure to see this though.

[xseanymacx]

Opening night, no question!

[PSU80]

It's a Michael Mann film. Which is to say that it is incapable of being anything short of brilliant. Can't wait!

[athf1980]

I'm looking forward to this. It looks like a great crime action flick.

[Cop No. 633]

I'm going to have to wait until after I return from my backpacking trip, but it will be the first movie I watch when I get back. I owe Michael Mann that much for skipping Miami Vice (which actually was a good decision on my behalf).

I think this looks pretty good and fresh for a period piece.

[MisterTwister]

Not a fan of Michael Mann but I really like Johnny Depp.

Might check this out.

[xseanymacx]

I am with the other few who enjoyed the hell out of Miami Vice. I have yet to be disappointed in a Mann flick.

[Hey Man]

Some of the reviews have said that there is a gun battle that is better than the Heat shooting in the streets.

[Strider]

This is my most anticipated film of the year. I think Public Enemies looks absolutely fantastic! The story sounds fascinating, the cast is terrific, and I think the film looks great visually (I'm not bothered by Michael Mann's use of digital, unlike others). Mann is one of my favorite directors as well, and I sincerely hope Public Enemies is a better film than Miami Vice, which was such a misfire. Fuck the fireworks and the BBQ, Public Enemies is the only thing I care about this upcoming 4th of July. :D

Strider

[Natty]

Some of the reviews have said that there is a gun battle that is better than the Heat shooting in the streets.

Oh yeah I heard that too. Apparently its 14 minutes in comparison to Heat's 11.

[corran horn]

So far, the critical reaction seems to be split.

Here's an Empire review, which loved the film (after being disappointed by AG)

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136004


Here's Variety's and HR's reactions, which were less positive:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940559

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/public-enemies-film-review-1003987042.story

[soad]

I am with the other few who enjoyed the hell out of Miami Vice. I have yet to be disappointed in a Mann flick.
Yeah! Im glad im not the only person on earth who really liked Miami Vice.
And yeah, i haven't disapointed on any of his films yet.

[SpikeDurden]

I wasn't a fan of Miami Vice, but I've loved all of Mann's other work, and the cast and digital cinematography, which I am a big fan of, look great.

I'm there opening day.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Sweet, there's a midnight showing playing at one of my theaters. I'm defintiely there!

[drc5145]

I just wrapped up Mann's Heat for the 1st time and it was fantastic. It's gotten me even more stoked to see Public Enemies now. I'm not expecting to be on the same level as Heat but it would be great if it gets close enough.

[project 86]

Am i the only one who loves his digital camera shooting there was a shootout scene put online from the movie. To me it felt so raw and real and i did'nt feel like i was watching movie.

[Hey Man]

Am i the only one who loves his digital camera shooting there was a shootout scene put online from the movie. To me it felt so raw and real and i did'nt feel like i was watching movie.

I totally agree with you about that clip - it looks real and not like a movie at all. I really don't know how anyone could complain. Here is the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O58RcguZkzs

[echo_bravo]

Am i the only one who loves his digital camera shooting there was a shootout scene put online from the movie. To me it felt so raw and real and i did'nt feel like i was watching movie.

You're definitley not the only one.
I think they are ridiculously well down.

[Jig Saw 123]

Looks like a great drama I just question its release date seems like it would be more suited for a fall release. Oh well. I love Depp and Mann so I will be there opening night.

[AspectRatio1986]

Wow did this film ever sneak up on me...I swear I saw a release date months ago that said august so I was set on that. I just found out today it actually comes out friday. #3 on my can't wait to see list on the year...love Depp love Bale love Mann...can't f'n wait.

[Bourne101]

I just found out today it actually comes out friday.

You'll be even more surprised to know that it actually comes out on Wednesday. I can't wait either!

[Danger^Cart]

Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson = Inspired casting.

I bet he steals every scene.

[FireCaptain4]

Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson = Inspired casting.

I just watched Inkheart last week and yet one of the only things I can remember from it was Graham's very brief appearance.

[AspectRatio1986]

You'll be even more surprised to know that it actually comes out on Wednesday. I can't wait either!

Oh snap your right...that is awesome news...looks like I'll be catching it tomorrow. The only thing that makes me really sad is this probably won't make very much money because of Transformers...but oh well I'm sure it's going to be an amazing film.

[FireCaptain4]

Roger Ebert's review is in: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090629/REVIEWS/906299997

Johnny Depp and Michael Mann show us that we didn't know all about Dillinger. We only thought we did. Here is an efficient, disciplined, bold, violent man, driven by compulsions the film wisely declines to explain. His gang members loved the money they were making. Dillinger loved planning the next job. He had no exit strategy or retirement plans.


This Johnny Depp performance is something else. For once an actor playing a gangster does not seem to base his performance on movies he has seen. He starts cold. He plays Dillinger as a Fact. My friend Jay Robert Nash says 1930s gangsters copied their styles from the way Hollywood depicted them; screenwriters like Ben Hecht taught them how they spoke. Dillinger was a big movie fan; on the last night of his life, he went to see Clark Gable playing a man a lot like him, but he didn't learn much. No wisecracks, no lingo. Just military precision and an edge of steel.


This is a very good film, with Depp and Bale performances of brutal clarity. I'm trying to understand why it is not quite a great film. I think it may be because it deprives me of some stubborn need for closure. His name was John Dillinger, and he robbed banks. But there had to be more to it than that, right? No, apparently not.

[Heisenberg]

Overall shooting this digital is a bold move. You usually don't expect to have a film thats set in the past to look like this. But that clip looked cool, and I appreciate Mann doing something a little different for this genre.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Midnight showing tonight! I just recently watched Heat, and if it's even close towards that masterpiece, I think I'm in for a real treat.

[Nazgul]

It's going to be good, after all it has Johnny Depp in it.

[Danger^Cart]

Midnight showing tonight! I just recently watched Heat, and if it's even close towards that masterpiece, I think I'm in for a real treat.

It's basically HEAT during prohibition. Which is why it's gonna kickass.

[Mr.HyDe807]

It's basically HEAT during prohibition. Which is why it's gonna kickass.

Exactly. One of the reason why i ony watched Heat, and not any of his other flicks. :D

[Mr.HyDe807]

I just got back from the midnight showing, and thought it was pretty damn good. I'll dabble more about it tomorrow.

9/10

[the_sneaker]

I have to admit that when I heard Michael Mann was making a movie with Christian Bale and Johnny Depp, I did get a little turned on. Honestly, it could be a movie as horrid as Baby Geniuses 2, but if those three were involved I'd still fucking see it.

Can't wait. I'm going in like 10 hours to watch it.

[#1dvdfan]

I will check this out as HEAT is my favorite film by Mann.

One question for those who saw it. Is Natalie Portmans new film BROTHERS trailer in front of this film? If so how was it?

Sorry to get off topic.:D

[pg13myass]

Extremely excited to see this in a few hours! Been waiting all year for this more than any other movie. Read the actual historical account of which the film is based upon. I don't think that everything will be there on the screen as I'm certain they'd have to take some liberties to fit as much of the important parts of it as well as the essence of Dillinger as well as that era. It's Mann so, that's all that I need to know.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Well, after the debacle that was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I was hoping that Michael Mann's latest effort would get this pretty decent summer movie lineup back on track. Mann has a pretty damn good track record, with only Miami Vice being the only movie I didn't really truly dig (although I'm defintiely going to give it another shot). So, after seeing this flick last night at the midnight showing, I'm happy to say that Mann is back on track, and so is the summer movie season.

Public Enemies can probably be best described as Heat, but in the Great Depression. It follows the Cops and Robbers theme that made Mann's previous work one of my favorite movies of all time. It revolves around the true life, albeit with some liberties for the facts, story of John Dillinger, a robber who was known for stealing the bank's money, but never the people who he held hostage. Now, while this movie isn't as deep with the side characters as Mann's Heat, but Depp and Christian bale still bring enough intensity and charm to keep me entertained.

Depp plays Dillinger, a man who is taking life by the horns and the moment. He doesn't look to the past or the future, just the now. He has his gang, he begins to fall for the girl by the name of Billie (Marion Cotillard), and thinks no one can touch him. To be honest, thats the impression that I got from this movie, that it was in the moment. The movie opens with a prison break that is a very satisfying opening to the movie, but i can see people having a problem with who is who until after a while. However, I took it in stride and went along with whatever Dillinger was doing.

For Bale, he plays Melvin Purvis, the agent appointed by head of FBI J. Edgar Hoover (played great with an air of arrogance by billy Crudup), to lead the war against Dillinger and his gang. The movie doesn't really revolve around Purvis's personal life,only his job at hand. It's similar towards Pacino's character in heat, only slightly more tragic. Bale brings a focused performance, being the agent who must contend with the scrutinizing Hoover to get the job done, and the paths that he has to go in order to assure the capture of Dillinger. There is no monologue that truly captures what Bale's Purvis is thinking at the moment, like Pacino's detective in Heat, but Bale definitely shows us through his quiet demeanor and mannerisms what he is slowly becoming.

Now, it wouldn't be a Mann movie without some cool realistic shootout scenes, and Mann has some smaller scenes that definitely deliver, but there is one that occurs that definitely is up there with Heat's shootout in the streets. There is no shaky camera bullshit, just a steady camera to show the sweet action that is occurring in the scene. It also helps that the gunfights feel realistic, not that there is a problem for unrealistic gunfights a la Hard Bolied. I just like the way Mann presents them in his way: raw, gritty, and in your face.

Any hiccups for this flick? Like I said, the movie mostly focuses on Depp and Bale, so most people may be confused on some underutilized side characters. Some people may find it hard to distinguish who is who, and what is happening. It got me confused at points, but nothing to really take me out of the movie. Also, people may have a problem with the way the film was shot (Mann used HD digital cameras for the film),but it certainly wasn't as bad as Miami Vice.

So, all in all, Mann created another great crime drama with Public Enemies. The actors were on the ball, the action was intense, and the story, while lacking in the details, still great in showing the exploits of Dillinger's life. It was defintiely the medicine I needed after being disappointed with the Transformer sequel.

9/10

[ElderPredator]

Just got back.....ummmm.....UN...FUCKING...BELIEVABLE! :D

It is truly the HEAT of the Great Depression and Michael Mann's directing talent is limitless. Johnny Depp and the rest of the cast were a force to be reckoned with and I look forward to seeing this film take home several Oscars next February.

Final Rank: 9.5/10

[echo_bravo]

Just got back from seeing this and I definitely liked it but its not a great film IMO.

I checked out IMDB and I cant believe all the hate for how this film is shot. :confused:
Personally I thought Mann's direction and the way it was shot were the best parts of the film.

Also, the shootouts do not dissapoint. Believe the hype folks. My ears are still ringing from it.

Now there were some stuff in the film that I really didnt like. Some of the dialogue was sorta cringeworthy. I cant really pin point a certain scene but some of the dialogue was not good at all.

And I didnt like how things came so easy for Johnny. He meets Billie and immediately they are soulmates. Just didnt seem natural to me.

SPOILERS














The way Johnny died really annoyed me. The film was perfectly shot through out the entire film, then all of a sudden, Mann uses some CGI and slow mo. It was just kind of a buzzkill for me.






End Spoilers







Overall, I definitely recommend it. Not as good as I thought it was gonna be but still good.

Oh and that little dude from Snatch was gangster as hell in this film! (He played Babyface Nelson)

7/10

[Danger^Cart]

Oh and that little dude from Snatch was gangster as hell in this film! (He played Babyface Nelson)

7/10

I knew it. Graham is such a fucking scene thief. He needs more work.

[bsquared318]

“Public Enemies” is an excellently shot film, but it lacks substance on other levels. Director Michael Mann, responsible for the classic crime drama “Heat,” takes an unbiased and balanced approach to telling the story of the infamous John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), the agent hot on his trail. This approach is understandable. However, Mann’s goal to remain detached results in the audience feeling detached from the characters themselves.

Depp and Bale are breathtaking in their roles, though Bale’s accent is a tad bit forced and ridiculous at times. Depp is amazingly convincing as a man living life on the edge, yet not afraid to be tough whenever necessary. The fact that he is always one step ahead of the law is not convincing, and gets rather annoying at times. Bale is just as interesting to watch as Purvis, a man with strong devotion to a job that takes a heavy emotional toll on him. In the rare moment that Bale and Depp share the screen together, they light up the screen and are a joy to watch. Marion Cotillard is also breathtaking to watch as Dillinger’s girl, though her chemistry with starts off rough and never has any solid believability.

The action scenes are a fantastic rush of adrenaline, jam-packed with suspense, realistic violence, and plenty of noise. However, there are almost too many of these scenes, causing them to lose their charm. I found it interesting that there was almost no profanity in this R-rated flick –a refreshing departure from the typical modern-day gangster drama.

“Public Enemies” has great potential for a film and has some amazing aspects to it, but it isn’t really a memorable film. Rather, it plays out more like a documentary where the events are merely retold, void of any depth to the characters. It is a good film, though it is disappointing when you think of how much better it could have been.

7/10

[ElderPredator]

I cannot believe anybody is complaining about the way the film was shot. The HD was hardly noticeable throughout but even when it was, the resolution and clarity made you feel like you were transported back in time with an HD camera and you were watching all these events happen in front of you. A ballsy move by Mann that really payed off in my opinion.

As well, Tommy was fucking badass as Baby Face Nelson!

[SpiralEye]

Loved it! 8/10! People complaining about it is laughable, because if it wasn't Michael Mann directing, I think the movie would be getting rave reviews. But since he did, there's an air of disappointment going around that sounds alot like "yeah, it's good. But not Michael Mann good."

Which is ridiculous. It's Michael Mann's ultra-authentic take on John Dillinger. And it succeeds in being that.

And I liked the HD look. Yeah, I said it.

[Mr.HyDe807]

I knew it. Graham is such a fucking scene thief. He needs more work.

You definitely were right on that Danger, even in small spades Graham made an impression as Baby Face Nelson.

[sbunn10]

I just got back, and I enjoyed it very much. The acting was good, and the cinematography was excellent, but I really was put off by the digital look. It felt like I was watching a movie scene being shot, rather than events happening in 1933. It doesn't take away too much from the film, but it gives it a cold, odd feel. I honestly believe that if it had been shot on film, I would have enjoyed it a bit more.

The story was somewhat slow-moving, and I wasn't swept away for some time, but the relationship between Billie and Dillinger was the saving grace of the film. It held it together and showed sparks of emotion when it felt otherwise cold and dull. The shootouts were very well-done, but the glimpses of Dillinger's soul were the most effective at drawing me in. The final 30 minutes were amazingly done... the theater scene at the end and Dillinger's reaction to the film were extremely powerful.

The sound was low at the theater tonight, and that bothered me a bit, so I look forward to a second viewing.

8.5/10, for now.

[ericdraven]

Point blank, I might put this in my best films of the decade. Mann possibly hit out of the park with his direction, and I just loved the camera work with all the great uses of close ups and whatnot. Also, Depp was just so unbelievably good that I just don't feel the need to say it, because he keeps blowing me away every time I watch him act. Bale felt a little underused, but he was still pretty good in this. I thought it was going to focus heavily on Bale and Depp, but moreso Depp. Anyways, this is one of my best of the year, possibly #1, and I feel this is Mann's 2nd best work next to The Insider.

9/10

[ericdraven]

SPOILERS














The way Johnny died really annoyed me. The film was perfectly shot through out the entire film, then all of a sudden, Mann uses some CGI and slow mo. It was just kind of a buzzkill for me.






End Spoilers






I agree with you on the ending, I mean yeah, they just like kill him off in the last moments of the film, but I felt all the events of the film came full circle because he was going to be either killed or captured, one or the other, but it felt like "all this build up for nothing" kind of ending.

[athf1980]

4/5

a really good gangster flick. Depp is usual great self. it's good but not Goodfellas good.

[Bourne101]

it's good but not Goodfellas good.

Nothing is Goodfellas good. :D

[Hey Man]

Nothing is Goodfellas good. :D

Did you forget about Billy Bathgate?


Just kidding.

[sbunn10]

I agree with you on the ending, I mean yeah, they just like kill him off in the last moments of the film, but I felt all the events of the film came full circle because he was going to be either killed or captured, one or the other, but it felt like "all this build up for nothing" kind of ending.

I loved the ending, and thought that it was perfectly done. The scene at the theater (watching the Clark Gable movie) and everything beyond that made the movie for me.

[BakeTheMooCow]

If this was in any other director's hands, it could have been a good film. But with Mann and his ugly, distracting digital, it's just a mediocre one. Johnny Depp is excellent and everytime he would give Billie assurance, the words would spill out of his mouth just perfectly. Excellent performance once again by Depp. Christian Bale is just OK; he has the constipated look he had throughout 3:10. Marion Cotillard is forgettable, except during the interrogation scene where she shows some spark. The supporting cast isn't bad.

The pacing is smart in the beginning, lags a bit in the middle, and then picks up to set up the final sequence pretty well. Mann's use of slo-mo makes the ending drag though. I thought the script was smart, if a bit simple. I wanted to get more of sense of the Depression-era and some of the characters (particularly Bale's) should have been embellished more.

But all that can be somewhat forgiven. It's the way the movie is shot that detracts the most. The interiors are too dark, the exteriors are too bright. The shootout in the woods was the only time Mann got the right balance since you could see everything well. And even then, there's a strange lifelessness to the shootouts. There's no sense of urgency at all. It's like a student film sometimes with its closeups and shakiness, but then other times the camera pulls back and there's maturity and beauty in the proceedings. The score is captivating one minute and then absent the next leaving a void and awkward silences. The sound is pretty horrible with characters' words being inaudible at several points. The film could have also lost about 20 minutes easily.

If Scorsese was behind the camera and he had ironed out some of the kinks in the script - it would be one of the best gangster films in recent years. Mann has gone the way of Zemeckis for me. A once great director whose obsession with one particular kind of directorial style leaves me bored every time.

One cool thing -- the Chicago audience got a kick out of all the local references.

5/10

[Jig Saw 123]

http://harpymarx.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/public-enemies.jpg
Public Enemies

I don't know what most people's problems are about Mann choosing digital when he's done it for the past decade and for this film it looked very good. I will honestly say this is in the top five films of this year and in the top five of gangster films of all time. Depp gives a great performance which shouldn't come at much surprise given the variety of character's he's played before. I also thought Marion Cotillard was the perfect cast for Billie her character was believable and it actually made me feel more sympathy towards Dillinger.

I had only about two problems with the film overall. First was Bale I don't know if it was how he was written or Bale's bland acting, but Purvis was the flattest character in the movie. His delivery of lines came off as fake at most times and pretty funny when they weren't suppose to be. Another problem I had was the ending *Spoilers* I don't know why Mann decided to make Depp's death in slow-motion and with the edition of three cgi shots instead of just doing it fast pace like every other death in the film. *Spoilers End* Otherwise the film seemed great and better than Mann's last film, Miami Vice.

8.5/10

[Earl Bonds]

Easily the best movie I've seen all year. Great acting and action. Still can't believe how badass the shootouts were. and the scene in the movie theater, amazing, "Look to your left, look to your right". My only complaint is that Marion Cotillard was fucking in a night gown.

9.5/10

[DME]

Overall, good movie, though not quite great.

Initially the digital camera and constant tight shots distracted me, but after a while it sucked me into the film. It never quite achieves what I think is the intended affect of making it all feel very real and very present, but it comes close and I admire the tactic.

The characters are a bit disappointing. Other than Depp and his underused right-hand guy Harry, everyone else is extremely limited in what they're allowed to do. Bale's performance is serviceable but his character is a G-man stiff who hardly has any opportunity to show any emotion. Likewise his colleagues are all pretty generic as well (Steven Lang gets a pass though for exuding all kinds of presence as the Texas lawman brought in to help catch Dillinger). Cotillard gets little more to do than orbit Depp as well.

But gotdamn Johnny nails it. He's equal parts brutal, charming, devilish, naive, on down the line. He pulls off acting with the eyes and face and letting the words complement his expressions excellently in this flick.

There seems to have been potential for something greater to be done here. The movie was good but somehow underwhelming. Still recommended though.

[APzombie]

Saw it yesterday and i immediately knew i had to let it sink in and watch it again. It's a very good movie, though not up there with Heat. I never thought i would compare the two but it's hard not to. It's a film where the material is adapted into Mann's style as opposed to Mann adapting to the material. The acting is very good, though there really isn't a lot of room for interesting development as things fall into place in a rather predictable fashion (narratively, not just because most of it is common history).

If there was a major aspect that disappointed me was the character of the depression. Mann has a knack for making locations a huge part of the story but it felt lacking here. I didn't feel the depression around them. The sets were excellent and i admire Mann for not doing sweeping pan shots-jerking off the money on screen but i think the sound design could have benefited from weaving the locations into the threading of the city. There is the token pop from the guns and high gain from the dialog but it did not feel as if the city were alive around them.

High definition may be the future but it is still just that; the future. It certainly isn't working today, at least when utilized the way Mann does. I simply don't think it works as well as he'd have liked it to. I applaud him for taking the digital-documentary risk for a period piece (though after two digital films it hardly seems like a risk anymore) but i think he would have succeeded in the approach if he had just used 16mm. It's hard to be immersed in the depression when looking through a pixelated lens. As usual Mann integrates music (re teaming with Heat's Elliot Goldenthal) that sweeps us from scene to scene. Sometimes it is a bit too 'Hollywood' and feels awkward given the style it is shot.

I don't want to give the impression i did not like the picture. I certainly did and will gladly watch it again. There are terrific performances, of course from Depp, Bale and Cotillard but also scene stealers like Stephen Graham and Stephen Lang.

*** / ****

[Lazy Boy]

6/10

It was better than Miami Vice, but nowhere near the level of Heat, one of the best American films of the '90s. I love period pieces as well as anybody, especially gangster era pictures. Just picture in your mind Jimmy Cagney or Ed Robinson, and you have a popular genre of picture that Warner Bros. was known for. Mann tries his hand for Universal, and the result is an overall mixed bag.

The film drops us in the middle of John Dillinger's life, so he's already achieved semi-deity status among the working/poor class, but other than a few cursory words and newspaper headlines and radio broadcasts, I didn't see the character as some 1930's Robin Hood. He's cocky, he's got swagger, noblesse oblige -- the "turn to the right" theater scene perfectly encapsulates his bravado in public appearances, never mind getting nabbed. Johnny Depp gives a good performance -- there's little emoting in a Mann movie, but Depp has one of the few moments in a later scene. Contrary to reviews, this isn't the muted performance I expected. Bale, on the other hand, is kind of inconsistent throughout. For every scene he quietly commands -- rushing to the defense of a beaten witness -- he also looks like a fish out of water, overly reliant on his accent and once again pinpointing that he's a Serious Actor who can't have a little fun with the role.

Mann's also not too strong with women characters -- his films are usually asexual at the level of Pee Wee Herman, Michael Jackson or Tilda Swinton. The actress cast eventually needs to bring a special inner quality, a strength of their own, to even dream of filling out the sketches in Mann's writing (usually the weakest part of his movies is, I find, the dialogue). Marion Cotillard is probably one of the better female performers in any of his films, and, even if she's given the basic outline of a "half breed" who bounces around from place to place, deprived of love, it's Cotillard (and her eyes) who do most of the work for the film. On the one hand, I couldn't buy that Billie Frechette and Dillinger could find love so soon, as much as he initially tells her, and she's given some awkward, cliched dialogue to run with: "You don't live for tomorrow, or the next day!" Her final scene is great, and overcomes the sourness of the awful CGI moment that came before it.

Most of the acting by the supporting cast is decent, even if they feel indistinguishable (I couldn't even tell between two of the Stephens, Dorff or Graham, during the Wisconsin night shootout), save for Stephen Graham as Babyface Nelson -- a miniscule performance, consisting of mostly two or three scenes, but he's a diminuative firecracker. Mostly, I couldn't understand what they were saying half of the time -- it was first thought to be a theater audio problem. When the volume was fixed, the sound that registered the most with me wasn't the dialogue, but the "bam!" of each bullet fired by a tommy gun. That's what Mann favors -- exact precision, down to the tee, of what a gun fight would be. The problem is, he's done this for many of his crime films, and in a Prohibition era setting (in HD, no less), it's hard to separate from his modern day cops-and-robbers setting.

There was a better film about a criminal/robber who also found his own mortality slowly creeping up on him in the twilight of his career -- it was called The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

[Moviefreek]

Public Enemies stars Johnny Depp(Sweeney Todd, Finding Neverland) as John Dillinger and Christian Bale(The Dark Knight, Rescue Dawn) as FBI Chief Melvin Purvis. The film revolves around more or less the latter part of Dillinger's life as Purvis attempts to bring him down along with Baby Face Nelson. The film is directed by Michael Mann, the man behind such films as Heat and Collateral. He really knows how to put on a gun show but those will only carry a film so far.

Both Depp and Bale do very well in their roles and it's a shame they did not have more to work with. Depp brings an interesting feel to Dillinger, he makes it easy to root for the notorious bank robber. If I had a complaint about Depp's presentation it is that Dillinger seems a little bit too nice. Bale does a good job as Melvin Purvis and seems genuinely concerned with bringing these criminals to justice. For what the actors are provided with they do a good job but the screenplay does not allow them to really show off their acting chops, more on that later. Marion Cotillard(A Good Year, Big Fish) joins them in this problem as she does a fine job as Dillinger's love interest but their relationship never feels sincere or real. The supporting cast is great all around the table and includes Stephen Doriff, Billy Crudup, Giovanni Ribisi, and other recognizable faces.

It is a shame that with all the star power on display here that the screenplay is so weak. The film begins toward the end of Dillinger's life so for those who is not familiar with his persona, they will feel a little bit lost the entire running time. We have a name of the his character but no story behind it. The first half of the film jumps from one gun scene to the next without anything carrying it to those points. When Dillinger meets his love interest, it just kind of happens and the relationship between the two never displays any real emotion until perhaps the latter part of the film. It feels forced and it's existance seems to be there as a small plot device. I found that it was the last hour of the film that really shined. It slowed down and had more of a focus on the characters even though the emotional aspect was still missing. It seemed that this film existed almost for the purpose of having some nice displayed shootouts.

Shootouts are what Michael Mann does best. One of the most famous of these was seen in his film Heat. I do believe that the sequence in Public Enemies tops that and for many reasons. There is a shootout sequence that occurs in the woods with no musical score just pure gun fire. It's very interesting and enthralling to hear nothing but gun fire and when it stops we hear pure silence until it begins again. This was easily my favorite part of the film as I'm sure it was set out to be. There is more gun action in the film but nothing compares to what is on display here. The camera work in the film is also great. There is much controversy surrounding the use of using digital as opposed to regular film. I really do not see what the fuss is about as the film looks great and the era is really brought to life.

The film is worth seeing for the performances and the numerous action scenes but the rest of it feels empty. The direction is top notch and the latter part of the film does have more of a focus but the glass still seems half full. What could have been a great experience is a mildly involved and entertaining one.

7 out of 10

----------------------
Please check out more of my reviews here:

http://www.examiner.com/x-6010-New-Orleans-Film-Examiner

[Smiert Spionam]

Caught the 1:15 showing yesterday.

Amazing. Damn fine film, probably my favorite so far this year. The cinematography was awe inspiring. Mann finally nailed the look he's been trying to achieve. Probably the most visually pleasing non-FX heavy film I've seen in a long time. Add Dillinger to the list of Depp's other awesome characters as he easily runs with this role.

8.5/10

Also, cosign, ElderPredator, "Tommy" was indeed a fuckin' badass. The minute me and my friend saw him on screen, we said "Wouldn't it be awesome if he fires a tommy gun?" Not only does he, but he's a goddamn maniac with it too! Haha

[KingofKings2525]

I can't wait to see this!

[Bourne101]

Public Enemies - 8/10

It's very rare for me to be more excited about a movie after I have seen it than before I have seen it. Public Enemies is one of those rare cases where I am actually more excited after than before. Excited because we finally have a summer film that could easily be an Oscar season release, excited because I can't wait to talk about it with friends, family and fellow schmoes, and also excited because this movie is just plain fucking excellent. It's intelligent, well-made, exciting, action packed and well-acted. A complete package epic gangster picture that can stand proud among many of the greats.

The film depicts John Dillinger at the heart of his criminal days which is also the last year and a bit of his life. He is the public enemy number one and lives in the moment, not thinking too far ahead, but always moving one step ahead of everyone else. Billy Crudup hires Melvin Purvis (after he kills the infamous Pretty Boy Floyd) to hunt down Dillinger all while Dillinger is having the time of his life robbing banks and enjoying time with his new woman and love of his life, Billie Frechette. The relationship between Dillinger and Frechette seems to develop very quickly, but by the time you get to know the two characters it really seems quite realistic. What follows is the hunt for Dillinger which is immensely entertaining and features one of the greatest shootouts of all-time, as well as many other riveting scenes. The movie flows very smoothly, living in the moment and the near future which is the right way to do it, as that is just the way Dillinger lived his life. We don't need extensive back story, flashbacks and lengthy scenes trying to force development of these characters. The development occurs naturally through Dillinger's and other characters' actions, decisions and dialogue.

The performances are all top-notch, some even Oscar worthy. Johnny Depp does a hell of a job in an Oscar worthy performance as John Dillinger. Johnny shows again his unbelievable acting range. At times he is cool, calm and collective, and other times he is intense or even sad. Just a brilliant performance. Christian Bale does a fine job as Melvin Purvis. He's not given enough screen time to really show off his acting talent, but he really shows what he can do in the scenes that he is in. His scene with Dillinger is brilliant, highlighted by Bale's and Depp's performances. He also was phenomenal in the scene where Branka Katic's character tries to manipulate him, and he lays down the fuckin' law. As mentioned in some other reviews, Mann often has difficulty with female characters. As I reflect on a couple of his great films, only one or two female performances really stand out. Marion Cotillard gives probably the best female performance in a Mann film. Mann hits the right mark with the character, and Cotillard knocks the performance out of the park. Unlike Audrey Tautou, who is unbearably annoying to watch and listen to in English language films because of her accent, Cotillard really handles herself well, speaking very clearly and creating a very pleasant presence on screen. Billy Crudup is very good as the "no fucking bullshit" J. Edgar Hoover. One of the best performances in the film though is Stephen Graham and Baby Face Nelson. He doesn't have a huge role, but when he's on screen his presence is felt. He plays the wild, crazy Nelson to perfection.

As for the direction, Michael Mann certainly does not disappoint. He pays painstaking attention to detail, creating a phenomenal 1930's atmosphere, staging brilliant shootouts, and stylish robberies. Now for the digital. When the trailers came out people were freaking out about it, when critics saw the film it was about a 60/40 split in favor of it. Now that I have seen it I can say that although I don't think digital is for every movie, it certainly looked fucking phenomenal in this film. It makes everything seem unbelievably realistic, it's nuts. Everything looks very sharp and clean, and it certainly brings out some grit in some of the more grim and dark scenes. The scene it really worked for was the Bohemia Lodge scene. That is one of the best looking scenes I have seen in a long time. Sure, this film could have been shot on regular film, but I thought it really added a little something extra to this film.

Now, this paragraph is going to be devoted to some of the highlights of the film, so skip to the next paragraph if you haven't seen the film. All of the bank robberies are brilliant, I can't really rank one ahead of another. The opening prison escape sequence was awesome and really started the film off with a bang. The following scene where Purvis kills Pretty Boy Floyd was also very good. I loved the setting, look and atmosphere of that scene. The shootouts were all great, but in particular the Bohemia Lodge scene. Undoubtedly one of the best shootouts I have ever seen. The red light scene was probably the most intense scene in the film. I was biting my nails and tapping my right toe in excitement, just waiting to see how it was going to play out. The scene in the theatre where the audience is told to look to the left and right for Dillinger was absolutely brilliant. I also really dug the scene where Dillinger was walking around the Chicago police station. Did he really do that? I can't imagine. As for the ending, I really liked the theatre part and the whole set-up. Very intense and gripping. The CGI shot didn't quite work, so if there's one negative thing I have to say about this film it would be that. The final scene though with Billie being told about John's last words was just brilliant and gut-wrenching. It couldn't have ended in finer fashion.

Overall, Public Enemies is without a doubt the best film of the year so far. I am a big fan of Mann, and I even enjoyed Miami Vice, but boy oh boy this movie fucking destroys Miami Vice and even Collateral (which I loved) and puts Mann completely back on track. I'll have to see this again, but right now I'm putting in second place behind Heat. Besides the CGI shot, I really cannot think of anything that bothered me about this film. It is immensely entertaining, well-directed, well-acted and it flows almost flawlessly. I highly recommend it and I cannot wait to see it again. Who knows, with the new ten nomination deal in regards to the Academy Awards, Public Enemies may have a shot at a nomination. If not, it will certainly get some recognition in the technical categories.

[pg13myass]

This is easily my favored film of this summer. After the nasty after taste left in my mouth that was Transformers, Public Enemies cleansed that nasty taste away and I walked out happy.

I definitely enjoyed everyone's performances. Most noted are Billy Crudup, Stephen Graham and Marion Cotillard. Very convincing and their ability to do the accent from that period. I have to also hand it to Bale who gave quite a nice, subtle performance. Nothing over the top, very subdued. Depp, I don't think I need to say what hasn't been said.

In regards to the story, I have no complaints. I can't blame Mann or the writers for some of the complaints heard or written. I've read the original book of which it was based and find that they did the best they could in putting as much factual information onto the two and a half hour running time. It's difficult to express everything that history has recorded without coming off looking silly and outlandish.

Speaking of outlandish, people actually thought the scene where Dillinger waltzes into the police station was a bit too much and thought it unnecessary to put in as they felt they wanted to make Dillinger come off as that cool. In fact, Dillinger DID do that on more then one occasion. He had some balls on him!

Now for the heated HD debate. Personally, I HATE HD and am not one to support it when the topic is 'HD will replace film.' I am of the firm believer film has a lot of advantages over HD in terms of an 'aesthetic look.' BUT, I definitely don't think HD is useless either if utilized correctly. I may sound biased but, someone of Mann's caliber I feel is justified. I'd put my faith in a filmmaker like Mann who chooses his medium for the sake of his vision in what he wants to express to us.

Honestly, the HD didn't bother me. I am more bothered by the use of HD as 'gimmick' like 3D or Imax is used as gimmick. If you're going to treat the audience like a bunch of idiots then it's not something I can accept. Done for aesthetic reasons and as a means of exploring the tools available to you, as an artist and filmmaker, I can accept. Had Mann shot this in digital and promoted as FILM, I would have been pissed.

If you haven't read the new issue of American Cinematographer, you should pick it up. You can rest assured that he and Spinotti were debating between shooting HD and film. They eventually shot in HD AND some film. But, they did film tests first for pros and cons of shooting in the different formats to achieve their desired 'look.'

On that note, like it or hate it, Michael Mann's movies are more of a desired taste in my opinion. On a technical standpoint, I still consider him underrated next to his peers.

[dmbman32]

Hmmm. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how I felt about this film. Maybe I'll try it this way:

SPOILERS




THE GOOD:
-Johnny Depp did a great job. It was nice seeing him play a real person, as well as someone who didn't have 100 quirks and ways of tweaking. Just a straight-laced performance he did well with.
-Even though you can't really give this compliment to the filmmakers, but it was an interesting story. It definitely made you want to reserach and learn more about Dillinger after the movie. The fact that Dillinger really did walk into the police station is amazing.
-The gunfights were awesome. The one in the woods was great, especially the very end with Bale gunning down 2 or 3 members. Really cool stuff.
-Some of the shots with the HD cameras were great (Collateral-esque). Most shots with the gunfights and location shots were different, and I liked that.

THE BAD:
(Again, this is tough. The following isn't "bad" per se, but I things I had problems with.)
-It was, like most Mann films, quite humorless. Now I'm not expecting Dumb & Dumber, but maybe a little levity. Everyone was stone-faced, and barely cracking genuine smiles.
-Some of the set-ups weren't that well-done. Particularly, when Dillinger goes to find Billie the 2nd time in the beginning. He's calling her "his girl" and after 60 seconds of talking, she's his. I just didn't buy that part. The other one, involving them, at the racetrack: she was freaking out, and he starts talking about how no one will catch him: just like that, she was convinced. I didn't buy that either.
-I didn't have a problem with Bale, but he didn't bring anything other than "a body." You didn't hate him, you didn't love him. He was just there. I blame that more on Mann than Bale.
-Some of the HD shots were REALLY bad looking (28 Days Later-esque). I don't mind HD (I loved Collateral), but you should decide if you want the HD to look great, or kind of murky. This film had both. Some shots outside the Biograph at the end looked like a camera phone filmed it. Just the back and forth bothered me.


I may need to see this again to really get a better idea. Some parts were great, some parts disappointed me.

6 or 7/10.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I read an interesting thing on Gawker today:

And about that music. It's a semi-known fact that Mann is going deaf, but still insists on doing his own audio mixing

That explains a hell of a lot. The sound in this movie is just appalling.

[Jon Lyrik]

A lot of the dialogue was incomprehensible, yes. Most of the HD looked very good, though.

[ilovemovies]

I hope that's not true about Mann becoming deaf. I don't see how he can continue directing movies if he's deaf and it would be a shame if he had to retire because of becoming deaf.

[Darth Kenshin]

6.5/10

Decent movie. I don't see how anything can jump out at people as being particularly great, but to each his own. Camera only bothered me in the one shootout in the woods, where it was kind of incomprehensible as to who was actually dying. Of course, acting was top notch, as expected.

[Ender]

As has been mentioned by some already, this is a good movie but not a great movie. Takes a long time to get off the ground and didn't go as deep into any of the characters as it could have, but still, a perfectly good, well-shot, well-written movie with a great cast that included some really standout supporting actors. Can't really complain, except to say that it could have been more than it is, which is hardly really a complaint.

One thing I must say is that Mann's depiction of the famous Little Bohemia raid is practically a seminar on how to shoot an effective action scene. No bullshit CGI, no trendy soundtrack, no shakey, naseau-inducing camera, just straightfoward action, great editing, and a director who knows an awesome shot when he sees one. The contrast of the hyper-real, almost impressionistic HD closeups (I particularly loved image of Bale leaning out of the car, gun in hand, lit only by the surreal orange glow of the taillights) and the noisome chaos and confusion of the dark, mad long shots plants you right smack in the center of the action. Mann playes most of the scene straight, saving the only gimmicks for the climax (where they belong), and even then reserves it only to a simple slow-mo sequence that's marvelously effective.. Mann illustrates the fear and confusion of a dangerous situation in a depth and enormity rarely accomplished onscreen. It's worth the ticket price in itself.

[Juarin]

I look forward to seeing the movie. It seems to be a good one.

[corran horn]

http://www.iesb.net/images/stories/productionstills2/Public-Enemies_l.jpg

One of the more disappointing summer film trends this decade is the disappearance of the smart, well-cast summer drama. The last really good one was Road to Perdition, back in 2002. PE is a revival of that tradition and a welcome antidote to crass blockbusters like Transformers.

Let me address the HD first. I actually liked it. While period pieces generally work best with film, this is a big exception. I felt it gave the film an in-the-moment, documentary-style feel, and it worked. I also liked how the amplified the sound of the gunshots to make you feel like you were actually there.

Now, the acting. Firstly, Johnny Depp was fantastic as Dillenger. Much has been said already, but I personally felt the scenes with him and Cotillard were nothing short of shining. Bourne is spot on in saying that Frechette is one of Mann's best female characters. Her performance also shows that her Oscar win was no fluke, and I can't wait to see her alongside Daniel Day-Lewis in NINE and Leonardo DiCaprio in INCEPTION. As for Bale, if his character seemed flat, it's because the real-life Melvin Purvis was not an interesting guy. Still, I thought Bale did a fine job, and I was surprisingly moved by the scene where he carries Frechette out of the interrogation room. Billy Crudup simply nails J Edgar Hoover, and if a film about the infamous FBI chief is ever made, Crudup should be in it. Although their roles were smaller, Giovanni Ribisi and Stephen Lang also did excellent jobs.

As is the case with most Mann films, the action is superb, especially the Little Bohemia shoot-out.

If there is a flaw, it's that the film could have been a little longer. It did feel that part of the story was missing, but that is often the case when one adapts a story as vast as that in Public Enemies.

In short, an excellent film for any season and definitely one of the year's best.

8.5/10

Edit: As for Purvis shooting himself years later, there is evidence that suggests that it wasn't a suicide (as all who knew him and observed him never detected any suicidal tendancies) but rather an accident. Supposedly, Purvis was cleaning his gun but had neglected to take out the bullets before doing so.

[JoeChar4321]

I honestly can't believe anyone has any praise for this film. The action was very light and the acting very average (even though the cast is outstanding). I could barely sit through its entire poorly paced run.

4.5/10

I can’t believe a director as accomplished as Michael Mann would produce a movie with this poor of a presentation. More than half the film consists of ultra zoom close ups. Are Johnny Depp's nose hairs really that camera worthy? Maybe they spent the entire budget on gathering this cast and had to hide their period piece shooting behind ultra zooms on two 1930's cars? The horrid and shaky camera work is far too distracting and often pulls the viewer right out of the film. Add to that a rather poor pace and a story that never allows you to connect with either lead and maybe this rating is too kind. For the most part, Dillinger's charm and savvy are lost as we never see what made him a competent bank robber or really why he was an infamous scoundrel. Bale's performance is monotone drab as is most of the running time of this very disappointing movie.

[Ender]

Man, Billy Crudup has got to be the ballsiest man in Hollywood. "Hmm, let's see, I just signed onto a role where I play a glowing blue naked omni-powerful demigod, what should my next project be? Something light and simple? Nah, I think I'll play J. Edgar Hoover, the most neurotic man in the history of American government." Crudup's Hoover is one part P.T. Barnum, one part William Sherman, and one part Abe Lincoln Robot at Disneyland.

[sbunn10]

I honestly can't believe anyone has any praise for this film. The action was very light and the acting very average (even though the cast is outstanding). I could barely sit through its entire poorly paced run.

4.5/10

I can’t believe a director as accomplished as Michael Mann would produce a movie with this poor of a presentation. More than half the film consists of ultra zoom close ups. Are Johnny Depp's nose hairs really that camera worthy? Maybe they spent the entire budget on gathering this cast and had to hide their period piece shooting behind ultra zooms on two 1930's cars? The horrid and shaky camera work is far too distracting and often pulls the viewer right out of the film. Add to that a rather poor pace and a story that never allows you to connect with either lead and maybe this rating is too kind. For the most part, Dillinger's charm and savvy are lost as we never see what made him a competent bank robber or really why he was an infamous scoundrel. Bale's performance is monotone drab as is most of the running time of this very disappointing movie.

dude, the fact that you enjoyed Wolverine astounds me.

[JoeChar4321]

dude, the fact that you enjoyed Wolverine astounds me.

What can I say, I'm an astounding type fella.

[sbunn10]

I didn't mean it as an insult, I'm just surprised that you enjoyed it so much when you find all of these flaws in other movies. It just seems that a lot of flaws you find in most movies you dislike are all extremely evident in Wolverine. Sorry I brought it up though, it has nothing to do with this thread or any for that matter. Just a difference of opinion.

[Cop No. 633]

I really enjoyed the film. There is the idea that artists and criminals have a common ground and I think there is definitely something to it. I watched this movie and couldn't help but think that Dillenger was an artist who robbed banks. He had the style, the swagger and the right personality to become famous but he chose to rob banks. His tool was the Tommy gun and pistol. His portraits were for all to see in the newspapers. I've often talked to my close friend about what it would have been like living in this time and we both agree that crime could definitely have been something that appealed to us. It's a strange connection to make. Back then, stealing was just so easy. And now making art and making a steal is just as easy because nobody knows what's good anymore. All these connections is what usually draws me into gangster/crime pictures. The drive to get out of poverty is always there but the path chosen is what separates an artist from a criminal.

I really enjoyed Public Enemies. Depp completely captivated me in a way he hasn't done in years. I got tired of him playing nothing but strange/off-the-wall characters. I like seeing him just relax and be something a bit more real. When he cries after seeing Billie being taken away, that was real. I also liked Bale's stiff-as-hell Purvis who is a self-righteous bastard working for a man who would later dub somebody as harmless as Martin Luther King Jr as a "threat to society." Billy Crudup makes a great Hoover. Marion Cotlliard also delivers a genuine performance as Billie, who has a great chemistry with Dillenger. You actually feel like they have fallen for each other in such a limited amount of time.

I'm an unabashed Michael Mann fan. I'm glad to see him back after he stumbled with Miami Vice. His strength is to focus on character before plot and he does that this time around and it pays off. Everybody in the film is pretty interesting to a degree. Baby Face Nelson is a fascinating dangerous psycho. I think what's interesting about Mann is that the form is becoming more loose than ever before in his career. He doesn't care if the shot is perfect. If it's still. If the lighting is "just right." I feel he's become a bit younger in that sense. Public Enemies was a fun time for me. There was plenty of great action. I've never seen or felt a Tommy gun be as powerful as in the movie. And I love scenes of criminals discussing what to do and how they get around beneath the eye of the police. That stuff fascinates me. So overall, the film delivered for me. I got a solid Michael Mann film in a summer where I couldn't careless about most other movies. I can't wait for Bruno though!

8/10

[bigred760]

I also really enjoyed the flick. Great atmosphere, action, characters, and story. While the story was a little redundant at times . . . they're close to catching him, he gets away . . . the action that ensued during the "close-calls" was simply awesome and made up for the redundancy. Michael Mann made the shootouts with tommy-guns simply astounding to watch and enjoy.

Johnny Depp is, once again, great in the movie. He's just the right amount of cocky and cool to make you enjoy watching the character. He delivers some great lines, pulls off some great bank robberies, and is just an all-around cool customer when it came to pulling off the John Dillinger character. On his trail was Christian Bale, who didn't really deliver a spectacular performance, but he has some good scenes in the movie where he shows that he belonged in the movie . . . particularly the scene where he carries Marion Cotillard to the bathroom.

The movie feels very much like Heat in that it's basically a cops vs. robbers story, only this one takes place in the 30s and 40s. The main focus is the robber in Public Enemies. We see how he lives his life, how he evades the police time and time again, how he falls in love, and how his celebrity status affects his life and his life of crime. It's a fun, exciting character study with good acting, great action, and fun characters to watch.

8/10

[chinton]

You know i loved the action as much as the next guy and the movie was fine but somebody please to explain where this great story and character appeared. The story was fine although familiar if you've ever seen a gangster film.

The script to this film is just really unimpressive. Christian Bale has nothing do. His character is a cypher absolutely devoid of personality except being good at his job. Dull. And the only reason why of the many people hanging around Dillinger were recognizable was because they involved name actors. Once the film was over I still didn't know who half of his gang was nor who the people were involved in the varous subplots such as that bookie guy. Same thing goes for Bale's many cohorts who devolved into a faceless mass. Its a fine film but the story and characters were about an inch deep.

Still Depp, Cotillard, the action, and Crudup were good.

6/10

[Cop No. 633]

You know i loved the action as much as the next guy and the movie was fine but somebody please to explain where this great story and character appeared. The story was fine although familiar if you've ever seen a gangster film.

The script to this film is just really unimpressive. Christian Bale has nothing do. His character is a cypher absolutely devoid of personality except being good at his job. Dull.

I think that there wasn't much that you could do with the story unless the focus shifted to Nelson and the others more than Dillinger. If he had made it too different, it might as well not have been about Dillinger.

As for Bale being stiff, I thought that was entire point of Purvis. He was simply a college grad (in real life, a lawyer) posing as a cop. He even acknowledges that he can't catch Dillinger without "real" officers to help. If they had made him more interesting, it probably would've been too close to Heat. Purvis is no Hanna. I can see how people would want more out of the hero, but I think his boring mannerism was a good counter-point to Dillinger.

[chinton]

I think that there wasn't much that you could do with the story unless the focus shifted to Nelson and the others more than Dillinger. If he had made it too different, it might as well not have been about Dillinger.

As for Bale being stiff, I thought that was entire point of Purvis. He was simply a college grad (in real life, a lawyer) posing as a cop. He even acknowledges that he can't catch Dillinger without "real" officers to help. If they had made him more interesting, it probably would've been too close to Heat. Purvis is no Hanna. I can see how people would want more out of the hero, but I think his boring mannerism was a good counter-point to Dillinger.


I agree that probably was the point and as someone mentioned earlier maybe Purvis just wasn't interesting. It's still dull. I don't know how you can make a 2 hour and 20 minutes film and manage to completely avoid making any kind of significant character aside form Billie and dillinger,

[Earl Bonds]

I agree that probably was the point and as someone mentioned earlier maybe Purvis just wasn't interesting. It's still dull. I don't know how you can make a 2 hour and 20 minutes film and manage to completely avoid making any kind of significant character aside form Billie and dillinger,

The movie is about Dillinger, no need to make some boring ass character a star for no apperant reason. We all came to see Dillinger in action and his life, not Purvis.

Thats a HUGE mistake most directors make nowadays. For example: American Gangster. Could of been one of the greatest Gangster movies but someone came up with the bright idea of using Russell Crowe more, just cause he was cast. His character was fucking pointless, we didnt need to see him douche around for an hour of the movie when all we wanted to see was Denzel in action.

Which is why Scarface gets SO MUCH praise. That movie was about mother fuckin Tony Montana, not some douche bag cop who was trying to bring him down.

Sure, show him make his moves here and there, but we dont want to see his fucking life story and how he feels about everything. We want to see Dillingers side.

[APzombie]

The movie is about Dillinger, no need to make some boring ass character a star for no apperant reason. We all came to see Dillinger in action and his life, not Purvis.

Thats a HUGE mistake most directors make nowadays. For example: American Gangster. Could of been one of the greatest Gangster movies but someone came up with the bright idea of using Russell Crowe more, just cause he was cast. His character was fucking pointless, we didnt need to see him douche around for an hour of the movie when all we wanted to see was Denzel in action.

Which is why Scarface gets SO MUCH praise. That movie was about mother fuckin Tony Montana, not some douche bag cop who was trying to bring him down.

Sure, show him make his moves here and there, but we dont want to see his fucking life story and how he feels about everything. We want to see Dillingers side.

if mann shared that mentality Heat would have only been half as interesting.

[Earl Bonds]

if mann shared that mentality Heat would have only been half as interesting.

hmm...I didn't know Heat was a true story about 1 person..........

[Nived]

Just got back from seeing it in DLP. Public Enemies is not a movie. It is a play, and I watched it not from the front row, but on stage. It's just as refreshing as it is frustrating because it really knocks down the 4th wall... a lot. It's definitely a love it or hate it experience. The first hour or so I thought was horribly unsettling and completely distracting, then I somehow found myself enjoying the experience, and that really is the key word--experience. This is how you view something as classic and old-fashioned as a gangster picture with 21st century eyes.

I don't think this was meant to be that deep an exploration into the person of John Dillinger, but rather looking at the 'icon' of Dillinger through his line of work, and the people that he hung around with. Was Dillinger a hero or someone worth idolizing, or was he a rotten guy? Hoover wants us to think he is 'public enemy #1', but what we see isn't as quite as cold as that, but director Michael Mann never seems to preach either way to us as viewers; we are left to come to our own theories on the man himself, not the 'legend'. The real soul of the picture isn't John Dillinger, but Billie Frechette; caught up between Purvis' Feds and her love for Dillinger, and I think Cotillard really did a bang-up job.

I think the picture is really about how we associate ourselves with myth and idolization with what becomes popular in the eyes of the culture; watch how Dillinger relates to the Hollywood exploits he sees in the movie at the end, versus the 'reality' we've seen in the picture. I loved that moment when he's walking through the Dillinger Squad and looking over the long line of Deceased photos and then stares at himself for a moment, then gazes directly into the camera, staring at us.

The violence in Public Enemies didn't quite feel like traditional gangster cinema violence, but really rough, real, cold, and uncomfortable; probably closer to what some movie-goers must have felt like when they first saw Bonnie & Clyde, and it's because of the rather unique filmic perspective that Mann went for that this is achievable, by filming on High-Definition digital cameras and not on traditional film stock. The decision is absolutely pivotal, as it provides an amazing amount of clarity and detail, which is both good and bad, and it also provides a vastly larger depth-of-field. Mann's use of the camera is cinema verite at it's most potent, and it's also the most distractingly alive I've really seen; as I said before, Mann really tears down the fourth wall, and having Johnny Depp (one of the most popular and iconic actors working today) play John Dillinger (one of the most popular and iconic gangsters of all-time) only helps blur, destroy and warp that illusion, especially when they constatly are calling Depp, "Johnny". It takes a lot of effort to allow yourself to get adjusted to it, but you have to in order to take in the picture, and "go on that ride", as Dillinger asks of Billie. If you are up for that ride, then you might just find that the trip was worth the effort.

[chinton]

The movie may be about Dillinger, but I still don't see why that excuses shoddy character work for inumerable other people. As a poster said above heat had many characters but even the minor ones were far sharper than the hazy of nebulous people that were the supporting cast here.

[Hey Man]

It kills me to say this, because Michael Mann is my favorite director - but Public Enemies was slow and boring for the most part. There wasn't even a flowing story per se, but just scenes mixed together with no real purpose. Yes Depp was great and I enjoyed the look of the film as well.

It seems with this film and with Miami Vice - Mann is trying a new style of storytelling, which kind of goes nowhere. I certainly hope that if Mann does Frankie Machine next with De Niro - he goes back to the beginning, middle and end type of storytelling done in Thief, Heat, etc. - instead of just throwing scenes together and just hoping it sticks.

5/10

[echo_bravo]

I am actually going to say that I like Miami Vice better than Public Enemies.

Both are good films but I just thought Miami Vice was a film that packed a bigger punch and had a more gritty feel to it.

Miami Vice 8/10
Public Enemies 7/10

[jz68]

My ranking of Mann's movies that I've seen

The Last of the Mohicans
Heat
Collateral
The Insider
Miami Vice
Public Enemies

[Reigh Kaufman]

A festival of yawns. If God is really in the detail, the detail is fucking boring. I don't expect to be pandered to like I can't read, but Mann's presumption that I will research this shit before I am priveleged enough to be allowed to watch his movie is staggeringly myopic. Literally, this film expects you to revise and cram before you set foot in the theatre. Uh...no. Give me a little bit of backstory so I don't have to answer my fiancee's endless, 'Why did that happen?'; 'Who is that man?'; 'Where are we?'. Thank God I had already watched a documentary a few years ago or I would still be in the library.

Even Soderbergh at least afforded us some context with Che.

4/10 - Mann's worst film.

Yes, I have seen The Keep.

[corran horn]

One thing that did diminish my overall experience was the lack of worthwhile trailers playing in front of PE. I was hoping to see trailers for the big fall movies (Shutter Island, Nine, The Road, The Informant, A Serious Man, etc), but all I got was Inglourious Basterds, Taking Woodstock, and a bunch of really lousy comedies.

[Earl Bonds]

Best Mann Films:

1: Heat
2: Pubic Enemies
3; The Insider
4: Theif
5: Manhunter

[APzombie]

hmm...I didn't know Heat was a true story about 1 person..........

the film is called Public Enemies not John Dillinger. If he wanted to only focus on Dillinger he shouldn't have cast the likes of Marion Cotillard and Christian Bale and not give them enough to chew on. Being a true story doesn't excuse him from fleshing out characters, he still has a responsibility to tell the story and have it be interesting without assuming the audience knows the real life drama.

[anakinsrise]

The life of John Dillinger is retold once again in Public Enemies
Johnny Depp easily slips into the role of John Dillinger.Depp can handle roles like this in his sleep,a balance of charisma,and toughness.
Dillinger is written as a live in the moment type of person,he's told several times that his time and that of his associates is ending,but he wont hear of it,because he's having to much fun.
That fun suddenly includes Billie Frechette(Marion Cotillard) to whom he becomes instantly smitten.She knows their time together may be short and bleak,as Dillinger is open and honest with her about his "career".But she goes along for the ride anyway.Cottillard with her big round eyes is believable as Frechette,displaying softness and affection,later in one of the films most brutal and memorable scenes she displays a working girl toughness,that had many people in the theatre including myself applauding.
The action sequences is intense,loud and memorable.
I must say i loved the way this film was shot.Michael Mann's HI-DEF filming worked for the most part in 2004's Collateral,not so much in his updated version of Miami Vice (2006) but here it fits like a glove.
It was a real pleasure to see so many different actors pop up throughout the film.
My major dissapointment with the film is Christian Bale as FBI agent Melvin Purvis its not a bad acting job,but his character is strictly one note in the film.What made Purvis tick? Why was he so relentless in his pursuit of notorious bank robbers/gangsters? What was his family life like?
Even in scenes that could lead to an expansion of Pervis's personality go absolutely nowhere.Why Mann didnt take advantage of this and give Bale some range is beyond me.
Still Public Enemies is one of the best films to hit theatres this summer
Scale of 1-10 a 9

[Earl Bonds]

the film is called Public Enemies not John Dillinger. If he wanted to only focus on Dillinger he shouldn't have cast the likes of Marion Cotillard and Christian Bale and not give them enough to chew on. Being a true story doesn't excuse him from fleshing out characters, he still has a responsibility to tell the story and have it be interesting without assuming the audience knows the real life drama.

Apparently you missed the trailers, interviews with Mann and Cast, the TV specials and radio shows about the movie. Because if you did see any of these, you would know, this movie is about John mother fuckin Dillinger, not Melvin Purvis douche bag.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Apparently you missed the trailers, interviews with Mann and Cast, the TV specials and radio shows about the movie. Because if you did see any of these, you would know, this movie is about John mother fuckin Dillinger, not Melvin Purvis douche bag.

He understands that, he's just saying that the rest of the characters revolving around Dillinger didn't lack the depth. As someone said previously, Mann has made a movie where almost every side character has their own time to shine. Public Enemies lacked it when it came to the rest of the gang members, but I thought Purvis's and Dillinger's stories were pretty fleshed out and interesting.

Oh, and you know the rules, don't insult other members.

[Tweek]

Apparently you missed the trailers, interviews with Mann and Cast, the TV specials and radio shows about the movie. Because if you did see any of these, you would know, this movie is about John mother fuckin Dillinger, not Melvin Purvis douche bag.

Oh, Earl Bonds...You were doing so well.

1) You do not disrespect, insult or put down your fellow movie fan on our board. Civil debates only. (http://www.joblo.com/forums/announcement.php?f=7)

[Smiert Spionam]

Oh, Earl Bonds...You were doing so well.

Define: "well."

[Reigh Kaufman]

Well (adj): Deep, water-filled hole where ex-Schmoes who have had multiple accounts are kept.

I agree with Tweek, though: for a while I thought this persona might have stuck around a little bit longer.

Not to worry - he's like Doctor Who and will no doubt regenerate. I hope he comes back as a gullible Forrest Gump-type. We need someone like that around here.

[Earl Bonds]

Oh, Earl Bonds...You were doing so well.

1) You do not disrespect, insult or put down your fellow movie fan on our board. Civil debates only. (http://www.joblo.com/forums/announcement.php?f=7)


I didnt disrespectt or insult anyone but Christian Bale. I didnt know he was a fellow schmoe

[Tweek]

I didnt disrespectt or insult anyone but Christian Bale. I didnt know he was a fellow schmoe

Ah, misunderstanding. I see where that happened.

[Smarmy Douche]

This was a good film.

I was worried that having read so much about the era, and Dillinger's story in particular, that I would fall into tunnel-vision technical error mode, but I let myself just sit back and take in the movie, and for what it was, it was pretty great.

It is the exact opposite of what most would have done if they were in Mann's position, and I think it's a much better film for it. It is not an over-descriptive, over-developed film. It makes no attempt to explain the era, nor the characters to you, it was a candid glimpse into an era and the life of John Dillinger. Johnny Depp's performance was close to perfect and the cinematography was tops. For some reason there seems to be some kind of goofy coalition against digital photography abouts, but I think their dismay is misguided. Not all films should be filmed in digital, and there will never be a time when they are, but some visions benefit from it, including this.

Overall, not what I was expecting, but stands strong for what it is.

[APzombie]

Apparently you missed the trailers, interviews with Mann and Cast, the TV specials and radio shows about the movie. Because if you did see any of these, you would know, this movie is about John mother fuckin Dillinger, not Melvin Purvis douche bag.

I saw the trailer, and guess what was at the end of it? A title Called Public Enemies. Do you understand what you are saying by the way? I want you to realize that you are essentially arguing against fleshed out characters. Heat was not about Donald Breedan (Denis Haysbert's character), but that character was fully fleshed out and he wasn't a even a selling point (like a freshly acquired academy award winning actress or blockbuster star ala Public Enemies). If you are fine with an ensemble cast as excellent as the cast in Public Enemy in a 140 minute film that are underused, that's fine, but don't try to tell me or others that we are wrong to expect more, especially from a filmmaker who has accomplished a fully fleshed ensamble in the past.

[poopontheshoes7]

I can't comprehend the hate about the cinematography in this film. I think it looked fantastic. Many period films seem to have the same kind of look to them. This was a breath of fresh air.

As for the movie itself. Damn good. An engaging film on all levels. Depp continues to show why he's one of the best actors of his generation and although I wish Bale had more to do he still held his own and Billy Crudup is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors.

8/10

[Earl Bonds]

I saw the trailer, and guess what was at the end of it? A title Called Public Enemies. Do you understand what you are saying by the way? I want you to realize that you are essentially arguing against fleshed out characters. Heat was not about Donald Breedan (Denis Haysbert's character), but that character was fully fleshed out and he wasn't a even a selling point (like a freshly acquired academy award winning actress or blockbuster star ala Public Enemies). If you are fine with an ensemble cast as excellent as the cast in Public Enemy in a 140 minute film that are underused, that's fine, but don't try to tell me or others that we are wrong to expect more, especially from a filmmaker who has accomplished a fully fleshed ensamble in the past.

Heat is not a true story, when are you going to realize that? You can make up stories and make any character interesting in Fiction. Since when was Melvin Purvis a fucking Public Enemy?

You cant just make up stories about Melvin Purvis and turn tha douche into a an interesting character, they spent enough time on his ass.

[bigred760]

Heat is not a true story, when are you going to realize that? You can make up stories and make any character interesting in Fiction. Since when was Melvin Purvis a fucking Public Enemy?

You cant just make up stories about Melvin Purvis and turn tha douche into a an interesting character, they spent enough time on his ass.

Well that's what I like about the title . . . you can look at it in different ways. The FBI called John Dillinger and his gang "public enemy #1." So there's that.

But there's also the fact that the two main characters, Dillinger and Purvis, were very public characters: Dillinger for his bank robbing exploits and Purvis for being the G-man after him (and for being the one who gunned down "Pretty Boy" Floyd). They're in the public eye and they are enemies of each other.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Heat is not a true story, when are you going to realize that? You can make up stories and make any character interesting in Fiction. Since when was Melvin Purvis a fucking Public Enemy?

You cant just make up stories about Melvin Purvis and turn tha douche into a an interesting character, they spent enough time on his ass.

Heat is based on real-life characters. So is The French Connection.

Even if you use a person's real name in a film and try to incorporate the recorded facts, it is still fictional. By definition, all movies are fiction.

You CAN make up stories about anyone and make them different. Bonny and Clyde, for example. Clyde Barrow was reportedly an impotent, latent homosexual and Bonny Parker was repeatedly described as "extremely unattractive", even though photographs dispel such claims. Hardly the casting director's finest match when Faye Dunaway and Warren Beattie were hired to fill the roles. Ditto, Adrian Cronauer, who was apparently one of the most boring men in real life - not the charismatic and rebellious force of nature Robin Williams played in Good Morning, Vietnam.

These are real people. They are also portrayed completely different to how they actually are/were.

[Bourne101]

While I felt the characters were fleshed out enough anyway, I've always felt (before release and after viewing) the title Public Enemies was a title that was used to make it seem more like a summer film, and less a title that was used to be a description of the film. It's definitely not the title that would best describe this film, though bigred760 certainly had some logical explanations. In the end though, this film is about Dillinger through and through.

In terms of Purvis being fleshed out, I thought Mann did a good enough job. The actual man was a hard-nosed, tough, intelligent, precise, no bullshit type of guy, and Mann made that very evident. These characteristics are shown through him: tracking down and killing Pretty Boy Floyd with a long distance shot, realizing and verbally expressing that only the top of the line officers will be able to take down Dillinger, manipulating Anna Sage and letting her know that he cannot be manipulated, his conversation with Depp in the middle of the movie in the jail... among other things. More screen time does not necessarily equal a more fleshed out character. The main focus of the film is most certainly Dillinger, but Mann very efficiently incorporates Purvis' character and by the end of the film we know his personality, his traits and how he thinks. Yeah, we don't have the lengthy back story, the wife and kids subplot, or a look at the after hours, but then again Purvis doesn't really seem like a guy that had "after hours". That motherfucker was a work horse. :D

I agree that some of the very minor criminal characters could have been fleshed out a bit more, and it will take an extra viewing or two to get them all straight (who they are, their roles in Dillinger's schemes, etc.), but the key one was Baby Face Nelson (who has been mentioned in the plot outline since the beginning of production) who we get to know to an extent in only a few short scenes.

The thing is, this movie spans over a 13 month period. A lot of these minor characters were in and out of Dillinger's life very quickly. He worked with certain guys on one bank robbery, and then other guys on another bank robbery. Some guys got killed, some guys went to jail, some got broken out, and some didn't. One of my favorite parts in the film is when Dillinger is talking to John Hamilton about doing another robbery and then breaking two guys out of jail. This is at about the point where things are going down hill, Dillinger is living in the moment and doesn't see anything wrong, but Hamilton knows that the times are changing and the downfall has begun. This is another guy that I thought was decently fleshed out, Hamilton. Not given a lot of screen time, but by the end of the film we know that he was, while not as smooth as Dillinger, probably a bit more intelligent and realistic.

Anyways, that's my two cents on the character fleshing out discussion.

[jz68]

Best Mann Films:

1: Heat
2: Pubic Enemies
3; The Insider
4: Theif
5: Manhunter

Have you seen Last of the Mohicans?

[Earl Bonds]

Have you seen Last of the Mohicans?

Yes, but I could only list his top 5. Thats how awesome of a director he is that Mohicans got left out of his top 5, a movie which would be #1 on 97% of the directors out there right nows list.

[CharlieBrooster]

I'm going to throw in my two cents on the character development discussion and say this:

Of course Melvin Purvis needed to be a more developed character!!

And this whole debate about Heat not being a true story and therefore having more license to deepen it's characters is ridiculous (and a cop out). Melvin Purvis just wasn't interesting? Was he not human? And if Michael Mann didn't feel comfortable exercising his dramatic license to make Purvis a more compelling character (which I think he would have been perfectly within his rights to do), then he should have focused that aspect of the narrative on someone who was more compelling. I thought Stephen Lang's character was far more interesting in his combined 2 minutes of dialogue in the entire movie.

[Earl Bonds]

I'm going to throw in my two cents on the character development discussion and say this:

Of course Melvin Purvis needed to be a more developed character!!

And this whole debate about Heat not being a true story and therefore having more license to deepen it's characters is ridiculous (and a cop out). Melvin Purvis just wasn't interesting? Was he not human? And if Michael Mann didn't feel comfortable exercising his dramatic license to make Purvis a more compelling character (which I think he would have been perfectly within his rights to do), then he should have focused that aspect of the narrative on someone who was more compelling. I thought Stephen Lang's character was far more interesting in his combined 2 minutes of dialogue in the entire movie.

I guess I just got my fill watching Jon Dillinger, Thats who I came to see and thats what I got. I didnt even know who melvin purvis was before I seen the movie. I think it was fine the way it was done.

I swear sometimes people complain about the dumbest things. "They didnt develop Melvin Purvis" "why are we only watching johnny deep? wheres melvin purvis parts?" "Why is this shot in digital, The world didnt look real back then, its suppose to look like film"

[Nived]

I'm going to throw in my two cents on the character development discussion and say this:

Of course Melvin Purvis needed to be a more developed character!!

And this whole debate about Heat not being a true story and therefore having more license to deepen it's characters is ridiculous (and a cop out). Melvin Purvis just wasn't interesting? Was he not human? And if Michael Mann didn't feel comfortable exercising his dramatic license to make Purvis a more compelling character (which I think he would have been perfectly within his rights to do), then he should have focused that aspect of the narrative on someone who was more compelling. I thought Stephen Lang's character was far more interesting in his combined 2 minutes of dialogue in the entire movie.

Instead of demanding that a charcter be given more time to develop ask yourself, should this character be any more developed? And how will this affect the focus of the story?

Bale's character, Purvis, is just an extention of Hoover's desperation. He's basically Hoover's lap dog, taking orders and only out to complete his mission: to catch Dillinger. Why should he be emotionally conflicted about gunning down bank robbers that would just as easily kill him as he does them? I think by showing Purvis as a bit of a blank slate distances us from liking him, which, in all honestly, I think was the point. I don't think Mann intended for this film to be like American Gangster; we're not really trying to sympathize with both sides of the law. This is Dillinger's story.

[corran horn]

the film is called Public Enemies not John Dillinger. If he wanted to only focus on Dillinger he shouldn't have cast the likes of Marion Cotillard and Christian Bale and not give them enough to chew on. Being a true story doesn't excuse him from fleshing out characters, he still has a responsibility to tell the story and have it be interesting without assuming the audience knows the real life drama.

You may have a point here. If Mann wanted to focus solely on Dillenger, there were other books he could have used.

Still, even in the book, Purvis and Frechette weren't much more developed than they were in the movie. Fact is, Purvis really was that flat. He just wasn't a deep person. Even his family has said the same. The only reason we have even heard about him is because he brought down Dillenger.

Mann does have a responsibility to make the story interesting, but he also has to be at least somewhat true to who the characters really were. If the audience can't understand that, it's not his problem.

Edit: All the comparisons made with character development in HEAT is somewhat interesting, because, actually, HEAT was also based on two real-life figures. I can't tell you who, but Mann does talk about it on the DVD commentary and special features.

[DareDevil]

Easily the best movie of 2009!!

I'll try to write a mini review after i get back from seeing it again tomorrow, and i never see the same movie twice in theaters so thats saying something significant right there.

[drc5145]

Just got back from it. Really really liked it and it wiped my memory clean of the disappointing Transformers in a big way. I definitely loved Depp's take on Dillinger and Cotillard surprised me in her role and did quite a lot with the bits of screen time she had. Bale was solid and Billy Crudup was great as Hoover. It's funny to see him as a blue god in one movie to a neurotic but powerful director of the FBI. Most of the cast really, was solid. Not a weak link I can really spot.

The story itself will jar some because of the fact you, the viewer are thrown into it immediately. I hated this in Miami Vice but It did not bug me at all with Public Enemies. I guess in this case, there's more recognizable background, context and characters in this film than with Vice. I was drawn into it a little by little. It was tough to get into but once you do, it's a great one.

And to add, I was at 1st bugged by the HD but after 10 minutes, I practically forgot it was filmed in HD. It was pretty drawn into the story, which was the most important part.

8.5/10

[kobe8byrant]

Can anyone explain to me 'Blackbird' in the end?

[Sgizzy316]

Can anyone explain to me 'Blackbird' in the end?

I believe it was part of a song from when they first met in the club

[sbunn10]

I believe it was part of a song from when they first met in the club

Yea, and I believe he talks about her being his blackbird in that scene does he not?

[Sgizzy316]

That sounds right.

[fooknasty]

I wish there was more character development between Dillinger and his gang, and why Pervis was so hell bent on catching this guy.

In the hands of a better director, this movie could have been Oscar worthy. However, we wouldn't have gotten the badass shootouts Mann sprinkled throughout the movie.

This movie reminds me of Catch Me If You Can, but with gunfire (the only difference is we really cared for those characters in Spielberg's movie).

I give it a 7/10 because the shootouts were top notch and all of the performances were top notch (especially Depp).

[Natty]

I liked it, the woods shootout was really impressive, as were the performances and design. I guess the only flaws were that it was a bit long and felt rather cold in terms of tone at times.

7/10

[Scarface98.9]

Jesus Christ, what was with the sound?! This was easily the most annoying, irritating experience I think I've ever had with a movie. The sound was seemingly like it was coming from just the front speakers and I couldn't hear anything. Not like the movie's on mute, cause I could faintly hear the dialogue, but it's like the movie was sound edited by a first year film student on a computer with no speakers. I could hear every line that was ADR'd, sound would drop in and out, it was like watching a rough cut to one of my movies. With a movie like this with loud gunplay, it should be pulling me into the movie. Instead, it was like watching a shitty rough cut.

What the hell happened to this movie? It's not even a movie, it was shot like a bad Bourne Identity rip off with bad HD quality.

I'm tired of talking about this movie. Fuck Michael Mannfor wasting such a good opportunity with boring characters, horrible sound, and random ass pacing. Easily the most annoying movie of its kind since Che

[Johnni G]

Has the potential of a good movie.

[JCPhoenix]

I had high hopes for Public Enemies going into the theatre last Friday but it is one of the weaker Mann movies (better than Ali and Miami Vice but nowhere near Heat, The Insider, or Collateral).

On a visual level, it's mostly well-directed and there are some thrilling sequences in the film. The HD look works for it sometimes and doesn't work for it at other times. Especially in the first half, it gave some sequences a very amateur feel but in the second half, it was utilized to better effect to give some scenes more of a right-there, in-the-moment feel. (To make clear - I was actually a proponent of the HD look of the film before I saw it and I don't have any prejudices against HD. I'm probably one of the few people who think the cinematography in Miami Vice was actually very interesting and worked well for the film - my problem with MV lay elsewhere) The movie also gained some momentum towards the end.

But I spent two hours with these characters and didn't get to know anyone really. Most of the actors (Wenham, Dorff, Tatum, Ribisi, Sobieski, Crudup, etc) just pop in for a scene or two and then pop out. Depp's Dillinger is cool but that's about all I really got to know about him. Cotillard plays the closest to a developed character but I didn't buy her romance with Depp as much (not due to her acting, due to the screenplay). Bale's character is boringly played. The music is beautifully grand from the start but the movie doesn't earn it. Weak sound work at parts as well though maybe that was supposed to add to the realism. Whatever the case, it didn't work.

The biggest problem I had with the movie was that it felt utterly pointless. I have no idea why I spent two hours watching this character or what was so fascinating about him. Sure he's kind of cool and has some badass scenes, but the character is paper-thin other than that. For a movie that wants to be epic, there's not a lot going on.

6/10

[john_rambo]

Awesome movie! Depp gives the first Oscar worthy performance I have seen this year (from memory, though Brad Pitt is looking like he'll be on the list). I know some of the characters were not completely developed, but in the end despite what people are trying to make it it was about Dillinger. This wasn't as good as Heat, but it was still a damn good movie. I loved the prison break scenes, as well as some of the robberies and shootouts. The end leading up to his demise was greatly executed too. Best movie of the year so far.

10/10

[Jim Colyer]

I thought Depp made a good Dillinger. J.D. playing J.D.

[gyro_44]

I definitely liked it - interesting style, great shootouts, and a big and impressive cast. Felt like I could have used something more to chew on though. A solid film from Mann, but I wouldn't put it too close to the top of Mann's filmography.

7/10

[The Postmaster General]

I thought the title was apt because a large part of the story was about the start of America's War on Crime.

The movie deserves a sound design nom, straight up.

I really enjoyed it, and didn't at all feel 'lost' during the story. So much about the movie was impeccable, and I thought all the side characters were well done. Dillinger was the main character, though, so we just got more about him. One of the things that surprised me, actually, was how every character had so much to them. Even that agent interrogating Dillinger's girl had mad moments - I felt they all did. I left the theater and wanted to see this again just a couple hours later.

[Mopar Fanatic]

Good, but not great. Lots of machine gun fire. Johnny depp is damn good. Everyone else is just pretty good. Second performance in a row christian bale hasn't impressed me all that much. Some very corny moments involving the love story.

Overall I give it a 6/10. Worth seeing once and you'll probably never watch it again. It's no heat.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

Decent film. My main complaint is that the characters were mucho underdeveloped and the romance sub-plot seemed extremely rushed imo. Overall it was a solid gangster picture that I'm glad I went to see, but nothing on par with Scarface or the Godfather, obviously.

3/4

[rocknblues81]

These is no way this crap is better than Heat or Collateral. It has really nothing to say about the depression or anything than that Dillinger robbing banks. The shootouts are decent, but that's all. The rest of John's gang aren't really used for anything more than to get shot up. A mediocre movie with next to nothing in entertainment value.

[rocknblues81]

The relationship between Dillinger and Billie sucked. Sorry, the "love at first sight" approach didn't translate for me or entertain me in any way. I didn't care about either of these people or their fates. I didn't find them to be all that interesting either. In fact, none of the characters were interesting. This movie takes 2 1/2 hours to show and tell almost nothing.

The shootouts are the only thing in this movie worthwhile.

Mann is stuck in this documentary/movie type of thing. His last two movies have been stuck in the middle in some sort of way.. Which has lead to uninteresting characters and performances. Michael Mann is done.

[rocknblues81]

It's basically HEAT during prohibition. Which is why it's gonna kickass.

Except Heat was a detailed movie with textured characters and this movie is not.

Oh, Bale... Please go away. Your Batman voice blows, I heard you were terrible in Terminator (The trailer also suggests it) and here you are in the same old role again. Please... Just disappear.

[Nikalas]

Michael Mann knew exactly what he was doing, I can't think of any director that puts more thought, heart and purpose into his craft.

Public Enemies is not Heat, get over it.

What's with everyone complaining about the lack of character development?

Billy and Dillinger were NOT thrown together, everyone just feels disconnected because you had preconceptions from Heat, wanting that same vibe of Al Pacino, Robert Deniro and Amy Brenneman.

The movie is about showing a chunk of time of Dillinger's life where his whole purpose and passion was robbing fucking banks...

If you didn't buy him walking up to Billy and making him his girl, WHAT THE FUCK. It's what REALLY FUCKING HAPPENED.

The shot of him falling was fucking fantastic, while he fell he took up the whole screen because he's presented as more than a man, he's a fucking legend. Making people scared shitless just by looking at him; giving the shot even more strength because it's like the falling of something larger than life.

People complaining about digital, stfu.

Sure there is blur in theaters, but probably half of you didn't even see it in a digital theater which makes a world of difference.

It will look even more fantastic once it hits blu-ray.

I swear, I'm starting to loose faith in movie goers these days.

If you wanted to see Heat again, THEN WATCH FUCKING HEAT.

5/5

[rocknblues81]

Michael Mann knew exactly what he was doing, I can't think of any director that puts more thought, heart and purpose into his craft.

He should have put a lot more thought into this movie.

Public Enemies is not Heat, get over it.

It's barely deeper than a Transformers movie.

Billy and Dillinger were NOT thrown together, everyone just feels disconnected because you had preconceptions from Heat, wanting that same vibe of Al Pacino, Robert Deniro and Amy Brenneman.

Typically you want some kind of character development. Not just a bunch of shallow scene's slapped together and called a movie. In any movie of this sort I would want some more than "hey, you look good... I look good. Let's fuck." That's largely what it amounts to.

The movie is about showing a chunk of time of Dillinger's life where his whole purpose and passion was robbing fucking banks...

Mann didn't bring enough material to the plate to make a quality movie.

If you didn't buy him walking up to Billy and making him his girl, WHAT THE FUCK. It's what REALLY FUCKING HAPPENED.

It's a MOVIE not a documentary.This is not real life. People just going around and just doing things don't make me interested in their characters. This whole movie didn't mean a damn thing. I had nothing to say regarding it's time period. It could have took advantage of that. Instead, all this cared about was close ups of an aging Johnny Depp.

Just another example of Mann being past his prime. 2 1/2 hour movie that basically says nothing. This documentary/movie thing he is trying isn't working.

[the_sneaker]

I hate to admit it, but I couldn't agree more with rocknblues81!

I feel that Public Enemies was a great film all by itself (in terms of writing/directing/acting)...but that does not change the fact that it was boring as fuck.

I loved everything about this movie. Michael Mann, Johnny Depp, Christian Bale...fuck, that basically made me orgasm on the spot. But what they made into a movie? Not so great. Like I said, it was by no means a terrible film...on the contrary; compared to most films, it supersedes them. But compared to Mann's films/ability? Definitely under par.

[Nikalas]

I feel that Public Enemies was a great film all by itself (in terms of writing/directing/acting)...but that does not change the fact that it was boring as fuck.



Which is your own opinion.

For me, it was a very quick two and a half hours.
Leaving me wanting more at the end.

And I'm sure the fact that your favorite movie is Heat has nothing to do with how you felt about Public Enemies.

[Nikalas]

He should have put a lot more thought into this movie.

Mann didn't bring enough material to the plate to make a quality movie.

It's a MOVIE not a documentary. This is not real life. People just going around and just doing things don't make me interested in their characters.



He got actors to look just like the real people,
used actual banks that were robbed by Jonny,
went to the actual log cabin where the they tried to capture him.
Researched what Dillinger was like so that Jonny Depp could recreate him on screen.

Yeah, Mann put no thought into this movie.

You only think it's shallow because you couldn't sink into your chair and connect with it. Which is your own problem.

[Nikalas]

The relationship between Billie Frechette and Dillinger feels kind of thrown together. It all comes together so quickly. Which is a problem. It's basically a love at first sight angle. Which gives doesn't work IMO. It's a far cry from the Heat days when the characters were textured.



Okayyy, so pretty much everything I said already....

[Nikalas]

You want things to be wrong with this movie.

But just because it's not full of lengthy dialog, voice overs and huge back stories, DOES NOT MEAN IT'S SHALLOW.

I connected with it perfectly.

[rocknblues81]

He got actors to look just like the real people,
used actual banks that were robbed by Jonny,
went to the actual log cabin where the they tried to capture him.
Researched what Dillinger was like so that Jonny Depp could recreate him on screen.

Yeah, Mann put no thought into this movie.[He didn't put enough thought to actually make a good movie. If he wants a doc... Well then make a doc and stop trying to sell it as a movie.

[quote]You only think it's shallow because you couldn't sink into your chair and connect with it. Which is your own problem.

What's there to connect with? Maybe if the characters were better I could have been interested. There is very little in this movie to hold onto. This movie isn't much deeper than a Transformers or any other action movie.

I should have just read the mixed reviews and not wasted on money on this crap.

[rocknblues81]

Okayyy, so pretty much everything I said already....


Yeah, damn me for wanting some development from the two biggest characters in the movie. Damn me for wanting to see their relationship at least a bit more developed. Damn me for not lapping up whatever mediocrity that Mann offers.

[rocknblues81]

You want things to be wrong with this movie.

But just because it's not full of lengthy dialog, voice overs and huge back stories, DOES NOT MEAN IT'S SHALLOW.

Why would I want to things to be wrong with a movie I anticipated for a long time? Why would I want something to be wrong with a movie that I end up spending about 30 bucks to go see? (Counting drinks and all) I've been to be movie about 5 times this decade. 5. I only go to the movies when I really want to see something.

I hammer Michael Bay due to the mistakes and shallowness of his movies. I'll go after Mann if he makes a movie that I feel is shallow as well. He doesn't get a pass for mediocrity just because he is Michael Mann.

However, Cheers to you if you got something out of it. No hard feelings.

[redfiretruck]

Oh my god, it was so, so, so boring! Confusing too. me and my friend left not understanding half of what had happened. Plus, too top it off, there just wasn't enough Christian Bale. Thank god I didn't have to pay to see this.

[ilovemovies]

I thought it was pretty good. Depp and Bale are both solid. There are a few terrific gun fights especially the one in the woods. It doesn't rival the gun fights in Heat but that entire scene was awesome nonetheless. More development with the Bale character would have been good though. I was surprised at the end when it says in captions that Purvis commits suicide later on. I didn't get anything from his character that he would become suicidal. But good movie as a whole.

7/10

[redfiretruck]

I was surprised at the end when it says in captions that Purvis commits suicide later on. I didn't get anything from his character that he would become suicidal.

Oh yeah, this too. I was like, what?

[fooknasty]

I was surprised at the end when it says in captions that Purvis commits suicide later on. I didn't get anything from his character that he would become suicidal. But good movie as a whole.

Exactly, which is why the lack of character development was one of the flaws. You never once get any inclination that Purvis is suicidal, or why he is so hellbent on catching Dillinger.

[Nikalas]

Exactly, which is why the lack of character development was one of the flaws. You never once get any inclination that Purvis is suicidal, or why he is so hellbent on catching Dillinger.

Considering Purvis was alone at home when he died, after he resigned from the FBI. And it had been 26 years since John Dillinger died. Who the hell knows why he killed himself. But none the less it's an interesting fact that I'm glad was added on at the end.

And I don't think anyone could guess why an FBI agent would want to catch a bank robbing killer...

[Nikalas]

However, Cheers to you if you got something out of it. No hard feelings.

Same here man.
I just had a really good connection with everything.
It had me in tears by the end.

[ilovemovies]

I liked the movie but I was definitely not shedding any tears over Dillinger's death. He may be a likeable guy but that doesn't change the fact that he's a thief and more importantly a killer. I think it's pretty disgusting that he was actually a hero to the public considering that he's a cold blooded murderer who didn't seem to have a shred of remorse for the killings he's done (at least as portrayed in the movie). He's also incredibly delusional if he actually believed what he was telling Billie about never getting caught or killed.

I also had problems with the begining of Dillinger's and Billie's relationship. I can't believe she actually fell for the guy with the way he was being when they first met. He was being pretty thugish and a bit of an asshole.

[bigred760]

I liked the movie but I was definitely not shedding any tears over Dillinger's death. He may be a likeable guy but that doesn't change the fact that he's a thief and more importantly a killer. I think it's pretty disgusting that he was actually a hero to the public considering that he's a cold blooded murderer who didn't seem to have a shred of remorse for the killings he's done (at least as portrayed in the movie). He's also incredibly delusional if he actually believed what he was telling Billie about never getting caught or killed.

"Disgusting" isn't the word I'd go with to describe my attitued toward the public's reaction to Dillinger. It's interesting to me a little in that the reason he was a hero is because he was a public figure; a public figure that appeared in news reels before movies. He probably had a lot in commong with movie characters of the time.

There is some similarities to present day in that public figures are considered celebrities. People who appear on television, reality shows, etc. are all talked about and discussed at some point.

[APzombie]

I liked the movie but I was definitely not shedding any tears over Dillinger's death. He may be a likeable guy but that doesn't change the fact that he's a thief and more importantly a killer. I think it's pretty disgusting that he was actually a hero to the public considering that he's a cold blooded murderer who didn't seem to have a shred of remorse for the killings he's done (at least as portrayed in the movie). He's also incredibly delusional if he actually believed what he was telling Billie about never getting caught or killed.

I also had problems with the begining of Dillinger's and Billie's relationship. I can't believe she actually fell for the guy with the way he was being when they first met. He was being pretty thugish and a bit of an asshole.

I kind of agree. I think it is fascinating that people rooted for him when innocent people were slain in his antics. It would have been nice if Mann explored that more.

What bothers me more is that i felt absolutely luke warm about every character, the lack of emotional investment or even curiosity rendering them cold would have been more appealing than not feeling anything.

It's hard for me to agree or disagree on Billie's attraction to him. We aren't privy to enough characterization from her to really generate any assumptions on her character. She feels more like a dame who was just caught in the web of predictability. He acts suave and she bites- end of relationship. It's a shame too because clearly Marian was fully capable of delivering more had the script give her just an inch or two. I hate the "thats the way it happened, get over it" attitude. Mann clearly didn't care about history when it got in the way of a jolly good action scene (Baby Face Nelson's death), why shouldn't he do the same when at the expense of character? If every filmmaker only relied on facts for characterization, then many films dealing with real life characters would flow like a dictionary.

Also, Nikalas, If it really makes a world of difference to see the film digitally as opposed to converted 35mm, don't you think thats still valid criticism? Not everyone has access to digital theaters, telling people to shut the fuck up for a legitimate complaint for a movie they paid full price for only to be told they didn't see it the "right way" is pretty cruel. Like i've always said, digital may be the future, but the future is not now, and if it doesn't work i won't jst sit back and accept it because it makes the filmmakers life easier.

[rocknblues81]

I kind of agree. I think it is fascinating that people rooted for him when innocent people were slain in his antics. It would have been nice if Mann explored that more.

What bothers me more is that i felt absolutely luke warm about every character, the lack of emotional investment or even curiosity rendering them cold would have been more appealing than not feeling anything.

It's hard for me to agree or disagree on Billie's attraction to him. We aren't privy to enough characterization from her to really generate any assumptions on her character. She feels more like a dame who was just caught in the web of predictability. He acts suave and she bites- end of relationship. It's a shame too because clearly Marian was fully capable of delivering more had the script give her just an inch or two. I hate the "thats the way it happened, get over it" attitude. Mann clearly didn't care about history when it got in the way of a jolly good action scene (Baby Face Nelson's death), why shouldn't he do the same when at the expense of character? If every filmmaker only relied on facts for characterization, then many films dealing with real life characters would flow like a dictionary.

Also, Nikalas, If it really makes a world of difference to see the film digitally as opposed to converted 35mm, don't you think thats still valid criticism? Not everyone has access to digital theaters, telling people to shut the fuck up for a legitimate complaint for a movie they paid full price for only to be told they didn't see it the "right way" is pretty cruel. Like i've always said, digital may be the future, but the future is not now, and if it doesn't work i won't jst sit back and accept it because it makes the filmmakers life easier.

You said evrything I was trying to say. Great post.

[Nikalas]

Also, Nikalas, If it really makes a world of difference to see the film digitally as opposed to converted 35mm, don't you think thats still valid criticism? Not everyone has access to digital theaters, telling people to shut the fuck up for a legitimate complaint for a movie they paid full price for only to be told they didn't see it the "right way" is pretty cruel.

Nope.

[Bourne101]

Saw it again tonight while it's still a fantastic movie, it's maybe not quite as good as I thought it was after the first watch.

[Badbird]

Jesus Christ, what was with the sound?! This was easily the most annoying, irritating experience I think I've ever had with a movie. The sound was seemingly like it was coming from just the front speakers and I couldn't hear anything. Not like the movie's on mute, cause I could faintly hear the dialogue, but it's like the movie was sound edited by a first year film student on a computer with no speakers...

I know it's a little late for this, but I'm pretty sure that was a problem with your theater, not the movie. That sounds like something kicked off the surround sound processor and you were just getting a bad mono feed. It happens.



I thought the movie was good, nothing great. It was all well done, but in the end, it just wasn't that interesting.

I don't get the claims that it was boring. I mean, I'd heard that and was expecting something slow, but I thought it did a good job of always moving forward without ever really getting bogged down.

Eh, I don't really have anything to add.

7/10

[Dr.Frankenstein]

**** (outta 5 stars) Terrific period piece film! Depp was at home in the role-Bale pulled off a 1 dimensional character quite well-set designs were top shelf.

[silentasylum]

I also loved this movie. I love this part of history so I might be biased but I enjoyed the story.

9/10

the information at the end was helpful because I had no idea christian bale's character's story ended the way it did.

[razgriz21]

I only saw it once but I love it. I remember such little details in the settings, characters, and plot. The acting was good from both Depp and Bale.

In my opinion, it is Michael Mann's best film since Heat.

4.6/5.0

[franky4fingerz]

saw it again tonight at the dollar theater. still a great film. Just wish they didnt use that over-the-top C.G.I at the end.

[The Postmaster General]

Remind me where the CGI was. I didn't notice or it didn't stand out much for me.

I'm agreeing with what Badbird touched on in that I don't get the complaints of boredom. I thought the movie was more about the government's attempts to take down these guys. Mann is always shows procedure with his films. If someone wants to compare that to History Channel docs, fine, but he's been doing it for at least 10 years now, so I wish everyone would stop acting surprised. Movies like this kick the ass out of documentaries because they have sequences that match up with the best actions movies, and kick the shit out of action movies because they have a tone that matches up with the best documentaries. It's a damn well made film full of well performed parts. If you want a deep character study, go watch Sophie's Choice.

[EVILxxx]

HUGE SPOILERS DAMN IT!


I believe he is referring to Dillinger's death scene.


I liked the movie but I wanted to like it a lot more than I ended up. It dragged quite a bit, and besides Depp none of the other characters were very interesting to me. I know historical accuracy was at the forefront but I don't think it needed to be as dry as it ended up being.