Public Enemies

Digital is the world of Michael Man with all its drawbacks. It works up to a point, if you don't mind being distracted by the make up on the actors faces, pimples and blemishes. The final adventures on John Dillinger's life look and feel like a work of fiction and I suspect that in "Public Enemies" they are, 50/50, fact and fiction. Johnny Depp is marvelous no matter what and his is a star performance. There is only a vague approach to a real characterization, but I didn't care because I go wherever Johnny Depp wants to take me. It was like that with Gary Cooper too, wasn't it? Part of the sneaky narrative is to have Dillinger the criminal played by the angelic Depp and Purvis the noble FBI guy played by Christian Bale that emanates evil without even trying. If you're interested in performances, like I am, Billy Crudup is the thing in a sensational turn as J Edgar Hoover in spite of the digital thing, that makes him look as if Hoover suffered from some rare skin condition, damn shame if you ask me. Marion Cottillard is absolutely lovely but we knew that already and the rest of the characters remain an enigma, they enter and leave the scene without us ever having a clue who they are. Giovanni Ribisi, Stephen Dorff, Jason Clark, who were they and Lelee Sobieski? It was startling to see her appear on the third act. Who was she suppose to be? In any case, the film has a Michael Mann feel and it's technically great. The shootings are extraordinary and Johnny Depp totally beautiful. I suppose that should be enough to applaud and recommend "Public Enemies". I did and I will even if, I must confess, I expected more or maybe less.

My grandpa's first reaction when he heard this movie was being released was -why? Why yet another movie about Dillinger? What can it add? My grandpa's question triggered my thinking. Movies and Hollywood filmmakers don't seem to care anymore about adding something to history or the medium. They just seem to compulsively adapt other movies, toy lines or videogames into modern reworkings. It's a culture of thoughtless recycling. Fortunately, and although I haven't seen the '30s or '70s biopics, Michael Mann does have something to show.

The first surprise is how the movie is shot. As one of the most vocal followers of digital video, Mann seems to exploit its handicaps instead of trying to convince us it can look as good as film. Throughout the movie we're treated to 3D video feel, artificial grain and close-ups which show up every pore on the actors skins. It's like someone sent a documentary crew back in time. However, this incongruous approach also made me experience the 1930s in a way I'd never done before, as a reality instead of a postcard. Almost all movie depictions of the "public enemies" era (even the gritty ones, like Bonnie and Clyde) are stylish and sophisticated. Instead, Mann's compulsive attention to prop and costume detail combined with the hand-held camera-work are immediately urging and attention-grabbing.

Mann, as a filmmaker, always seemed to me more interested in technique than depth or story. This is arguably the same film he has made twice before (I'm talking about Thief and Heat), only this time history-based. As I read on about Dillinger and Melvin Purvis after watching the film, I realized the movie's script is very unusual in that it almost seems to strip the juicy bits out of the story. Where is the scene with the people soaking their handkerchiefs on Dillinger's blood, or the '30s era depression portrait? Like you guys were saying, Little Bohemia was in fact an embarrassment to the FBI in which civilians got shot and the criminal walked away unharmed. Except for a weird scene in which Dillinger walks into the Chicago police station and wanders around, there's a very down-to-earth approach to the character, taking away his more mythical elements and leaving us with a career robber who, like James Caan's character in Thief, seems to abstractly decide to fall in love to make up for lost time.

The movie focuses obsessively on this relationship, instead of the more obvious paths it could have taken. Hoover's incompetence and his closet homosexuality are brief side notes. So is Melvin Purvis. The movie strips him of a personality, showing only the professional side of the policeman. This is so evident that when the title card near the end informs us that he later shot himself, I had to laugh it was so random. I seem to be speaking against all of this, but in fact what I'm doing is pointing out how unusual all of these directorial choices are. In fact, I celebrate them. Public Enemies is a movie that might seem frustrating to many, but to me, it was a refreshing, exciting journey into a world too often depicted and too easily neutralized. It's a great thing to see a copmen-and-robbers film without feeling like I've seen it all before. And make no mistake, the film's action scenes are intense.

I'd like to finish by pointing out that the movie has a hell of a cast. Johnny Depp is a revelation in a time when it looked like his awesomeness was exhausting itself. Christian Bale is not given much to do as Purvis, but he's competent, mostly the Bale serious face we see too much of all the time. Billy Crudup's Hoover is great, he deserves his own flick. Marion Cotillard is a great foil to Depp. There are a lot of very famous faces on the film (in fact, maybe too many), and some of them are only in for very brief seconds - Lily Tomlin, Giovanni Ribisi and Leelee Sobieski enter and leave the screen and they're all very good, but none have any big scenes. This might be the artsiest blockbuster I've ever seen. Which, in my mind, is a compliment.

I liked PUBLIC ENEMIES but I didn't love it. It comes close to feeling like an epic at times, detailing the cat-and-mouse games between infamous bank robber John Dillinger and the G-man on his tail. Unfortunately the screenplay feels a little bloated at times and the truth is that while Michael Mann is a consummate professional as director, his films always possess a certain coldness that makes it hard to get close to the characters.

And that's the case here. Superficially, the movie looks good and the characters go through the motions with aplomb, but you never really care about what happens to them. Bale's protagonist is totally unmemorable, leaving Depp to hold the fort as the anti-hero of the piece, but whenever the film moves away from a complex action set-piece it falters. Depp's romance with Marion Cotillard is particularly gruelling and heel-dragging.

Nevertheless, the drama and excitement when it comes is very well handled, with the shoot-out in the woods particularly fine and the bank robberies all staged very well. As ever, Mann has a steely eye for the action so the film zips along when concentrating on them; it's everything else that's a bit lacklustre. In addition, the cast is so big that the supporting players, like Stephen Dorff, James Russo, Billy Crudup, David Wenham and Stephen Lang get lost in the mass, each lacking truly memorable scenes. The ending, when it comes, seems almost arbitrary.

Whenever a Michael Mann movie comes out, I am besieged by expectations. This is one director whose style I seem to consistently like. The Insider, Heat, Collateral, The Last of the Mohicans, and yes.. I LOVED Miami Vice the movie (despite the many negative reviews it seemed to have got). So, when Public Enemies came out, and seeing Mann team up with Johnny Depp and Christian Bale, I knew I could not miss this. However, probably because of the high standards he has set for himself, I was a little disappointed with this.

The story is about a gangster bank robber, John Dillinger(Johnny Depp), back in the '30's, who pulled off a couple of daring heists and prison breaks. He was generally considered a hero among the public, as this was during the years of the great depression and Dillinger was seen as someone who steals from the rich man. A fledging FBI, led by the peerless J. Edgar Hoover, decide to hunt him down so that they can grow the organization, and name him Public Enemy Number 1. Melvin Purvis(Christian Bale) is assigned the task of leading this group of agents.

Johnny Depp is as usual great, but you get a feeling he would have been even better if the script had given enough scope to explore the character of Dillinger. The same goes with his love interest, played by Marillon Cotillard. Again, a wonderful actress, but at times the love story seemed forced into the story. Despite this, they have great chemistry.

Which brings me to Christian Bale. This is an actor who has so much more to offer than the half baked roles he has been getting this year. You get a feeling this year that he is being offered big movies which don't give him a character he can bite his teeth into. First there was Terminator Salvation, and now this. In both, his character never really seemed into the movie as compared to the others. I'm waiting to see a movie again where he will assert himself.

Despite the flaws, this is still a good movie from Mann. Just don't go in expecting it to out do his best.

Public Enemies is a crime drama based on the true story of the infamous bank robber of the 1930's, John Dillinger. Johnny Depp does an outstanding job playing the main character, but I don't feel that this is his best performance. Perhaps it is a lacking script that causes the unimpressive characterization. Christian Bale plays the FBI agent chasing Dillinger with fervor. His betrayal seems a bit dry and lackluster. The story is interesting and well paced, but there is slightly too much time put into the setup and not enough in the execution of the plot. The action sequences are quick and the machine gun shoot-outs are mind blowing. Overall, I left the theater feeling that this was a decent film with room for improvement. It is worth a watch, especially if you like the period portrayed. I give this movie 7 stars for a just-above mediocre production. I hope this review was helpful. -MovieJuice