"Public Enemies is a good film… but it‘s not “Untouchable”."
I have been eagerly anticipating this film since the first time I saw the trailer. It reminded me of my favorite gangster movie... "The Untouchables" starring Kevin Costner, Robert DeNiro, Andy Garcia, and Sean Connery. And THAT, my friends, is the problem. To compare Public Enemies to the Untouchables is just simply unfair to Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, and all those affiliated with this weekend's release. Its really comparing apples with oranges. Don't get me wrong. Public Enemies is a pretty good film and I recommend it to all moviegoers, but it just wasn't quite what I was craving for.
Basically, the film is the life story of John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), the notorious bank robber of the Depression Era. The 1930's weren't very nice to America and the mobsters took advantage of the Great Depression by going on a rampage. Men like John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd, and others went on a huge crime spree slowing down for no one, hence the title of the film Public Enemies. Enter Melvin Purvey (Christian Bale), an FBI Agent assigned to the Chicago Division by J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) to apprehend Dillinger and company. Purvey stops at nothing to apprehend the men, but the task is a lot more difficult than he originally thought it would be.
All I can say about this whole thing is 'eh'. The title of the film should have been "Dillinger" since approximately 80% of screen time belongs to Depp. The story was interesting, but eventually got tedious in my opinion. Dillinger escapes from prison. Dillinger robs a bank. Dillinger falls in love. Dillinger gets caught and sent to prison. Dillinger escapes again. And the cycle begins again. There was no back story to Dillinger, Purvey, or any of the other characters in the film. We're supposed to care about them without knowing what they're really about. And though we find out later that Dillinger lives for the moment and a back story is unnecessary, why is that supposed to make me care?
Though I know that the FBI organization was in its crawling stages in this film, they really looked overly inept in my eyes. Evidently, getting caught was extraordinarily difficult back in the day. The FBI had a task force to catch Dillinger, but despite the task there wasn't much force. These guys couldn't catch an STD from Paris Hilton. Dillinger is out in the open several times. There he is at the track. Now he's at the movies. And there's John at a fine restaurant. Why, Dillinger would almost have to stroll right into the FBI headquarters to get caught. Oh wait... he DOES and DOES NOT get recognized. Are you kidding me? This is like Osama Bin Laden taking the White House Tour and President Obama giving him a smile as he walked by.
Personally, I think Depp did an amazing acting job, as usual. But I find it funny how other reviewers claim that he captures Dillinger's persona perfectly. That Depp is the perfect Dillinger. Excuse me? How in the world would they know that? Did they live in the 1930's and know Dillinger personally? No critic can possibly know what Dillinger was REALLY like. I, however, will say it this way: I absolutely enjoyed Johnny Depp's interpretation of John Dillinger. He was fun to watch as he usually dives into the characters he's playing. Who else could've played Edward Scissorhands better? Or better yet... Jack Sparrow? Once again, Depp shows why he's in great demand.
Then there's Christian Bale with his character Melvin Purvis. Though Bale always throws himself in his characters like Depp does and does an amazing job at that, Purvis didn't have enough screen time in my opinion. We really learn nothing about him except that he's hell bent on finding Dillinger. And we don't even learn what motivates those feelings except a quick line in the movie. Bale does his best with what he's given.
Too much time was spent on Dillinger's meaningless relationship with his brief girlfriend Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard). Fact is, Dillinger was a swinger and not a one woman man. Frechette was actually arrested visiting a friend in Chicago while Dillinger was in Mooresville plenty far away. It did not occur how it was depicted in the film. After she got caught, a tear might have been shed, but Dillinger quickly went back to his bachelor ways. Guess Mann wanted to input a love story but it just fell flat in my opinion. Cotillard did a decent job with the character though, but like I said, her character was just unnecessary.
As for direction, Michael Mann did a good job with the film, but there were plenty of yawning moments and the pace sometimes felt a little slow. I blame the love subplot for that. The action sequences were interesting and kept the audience awake, but they really weren't extravagant or super appealing. There is no doubt in my mind that Mann has done better work.
So... I'm going to finish my review by saying Public Enemies is STILL a movie that I would recommend the average movie fanatic to see once, but its not a film that's going to urge you to buy a ticket for a second viewing. It won't compel you to discuss the film as you're walking out the theater as there isn't anything really to talk about. And its not the best gangster movie ever made. Public Enemies IS a good film, but its not "Untouchable". (wink wink)
MOVIE RATING SCALE:
5.0 stars = A MUST SEE
4.5 stars = Excellent
4.0 stars = Outstanding
3.5 stars = Good
*** 3.0 stars = Above Average ***
2.5 stars = Average
2.0 stars = Disappointing
1.5 stars = Bad
1.0 stars = Terrible
0.5 stars = Horrible
0.0 stars = UNWATCHABLE
Movie News
2 Comments
28 Comments
Velvet... nice to have a fellow historybuff like me on this site. So you have college credits huh? So how old are you, if you don't mind me asking? Feel free to answer on my homepage or my e-mail (missiongolfcoach@juno.com) if you'd rather keep that a bit more private. Just curious.
Oh, and though I'm not a Harry Potter fanatic, I have enjoyed the films so... I'll probably be watching and reviewing this film either Wed or Thurs. And thanks for the props on the review. ;)
TDK.... WHAT'S UP JOE??? Long time buddy. We need to chat more. Um... yea, I had a dumbass reading OUTLOUD every single subtitle on the freaking screen.... and if you recall there were plenty of them. Not only that, he kept repeating almost every single line that the characters on the screen said. Like he needed to repeat the lines so it could register in his freaking little brain of his. I finally turned around and said "Dude, you need to shut the hell up or I'm calling management". His response? He had the nerve to say "Why? What have I done?". I literally had to tell him that he was reading and repeating everything on the screen. Guess he was doing subconsiously. Did he stop? NO! Did I call management? Yes. Did they kick him out? NO!!!! ARGH!!!!
Thanks to everyone for their comments. Much appreciated.
Raven... Yea... I'm planning to see little Harry do his thing.
As for the era of the Great Depression... it started with the Stock Market Crash on Black Tuesday in 1929... it's low point was the winter of 1932... and then gradually improved until 1937 (where the Recession of 1937 brought back 1933 levels of unemployment). Then of course, WWII bailed us out.
And you're right... the film depicted a more intense Little Star Lake... but that was of course to put more action in the film and keep us interested. I personally would have liked to have seen more creative Dillinger robberies.
RavenX5... yes I am. Why would that surprise you? Do I not look like a history teacher? haha
The BI was inept in this case. Purvis couldn't coordinate a race around a half track if his life depended on it. JEH even disliked the guy. Purvis was just a default choice for the case. And yes, Dillinger did escape that many times, though probably didn't stroll into the BI's investigative division. (creative licensing) Remeber the real Little Bohemia at Little Star Lake? It was a tactical dream come true, but Purvis fucked up the whole thing cause he was too damn impatient. Nothing stopped him from contacting local authorities on his way there afterall, and why not take them? Why risk being seen & losing everyone at the scene? Nobody knows. But he did just that and offered his resignation afterwords.
As for knowing the real JD, plenty did and lived long enough to tell of him, like numerous lesser known associates, his girlfriends, Polly, Billie, cops who apprehended him, guards and fellow inmates from his 9yr stay in prison. So it's not hard to get data to know what the real JD was like to base him off of such that it could be considered a good job at capturing the real thing.
As for the lack of personal connections between the characters, I agree 200%, that aspect was completely absent from the film, though unfortunately, even in reality the antagonist & protagonist of this story were the same way. They never knew each other, and met once, maybe twice if you count Little Star Lake, which obviously wasn't nearly as intense as it was depicted in the film.
In regards to caring for the characters, lots of flicks are the same way and don't reveal a thing about their lives prior to the events of the story, but you stick with them anyway cuz the film follows them. Like Alex in "A Clockwork Orange." The novel did it better as exemplifying him w/out revealing too much (if any) backstory. Or the Joker in TDK, whom has had literally a dozen separate origin stories from respected comic book writers over the years, yet nothing revealed to show his lunacy in the movie, if you indeed see it as such, which I didn't. Point being that lots of characters don't have much to them, but we like them anyway.
As for the title, I also agree. IT needs a change badly for fans of the era. It's like when "Season of the Witch" had the 'Halloween III' banner over it. A potentially good cult film loses everything. This would've been much better done as a series of ensemble flicks following the Public Enemies' lives in chronological order, and intercutting all the character's stories to keep it that way. THAT would've been great.
Good review too by the way MB. I gave it 4.5.
Both were about FBI agents trying to take down a mobster criminal by any means. Yes, Capone was more famous than Dillinger, but there is no reason why I shouldn't compare the two. Both took place at the same time. Capone was captured by Elliot Ness in 1931 while Dillinger was shot dead in 1934. And I'll tell you something else... Public Enemies was not about bank robberies. Because if it was, I would have been more interested. They robbed ONE lousy bank as far as I can remember... maybe two. No this film became a love story between Dillinger and Frechette. It was just a boring biopic about Dillinger. If you liked the film, fine... I did too, to a point. I just feel that the Untouchable is a far better film about the era than Public Enemies. It really depicted the times better. This film was just about Dillinger, where as The Untouchables showed how many people were scared of Capone and other mobsters. It showed what it was like in the 1930's... about political clout. How the mob had police commissioners, judges, even senators in their pockets. Dillinger was not. I'll check out your review to see what you have to say about Dillinger.... even though I'm sure you don't compare it to any other film of the era.
Its this simple... Dillinger is an ok movie, but I've seen better about the era. I just simply mentioned my favorite film about the 1930's. If you think that's a comparison... then sorry.
Blaze.... always nice to hear from you. Comparing Heat and Public Enemies is simply not fair because its two entirely different eras. One takes place in the 1930's while the other in the 1990's. But as far as feel, its kind of the same. Depp is in DeNiro's role while Bale is in Pacino's. The old cat and mouse game.
Thanks to both of you for the comments... whether we agree or not. That's what the comments are for. ;)
Firep07... thanks.
Raven... thanks.
Shelly... Thanks for the kudos. Its a good movie, but yes... wait for the DVD. No need to spend nine dollars on this film.
kbell... I thought American Ganster was a good film as well... Denzel rarely makes bad movies... but in my opinion, The Untouchables is still in a class of its own. If you've seen it, then it looks as though you don't agree, but if you haven't... rent it, watch it, then get back to me and tell me what you think. The Untouchables is an awesome flick.
Zz... thanks for the kudos. Very much appreciated. I wouldn't go as far as saying the cinematography resembled a home movie, but maybe an HBO special. It really didn't feel like a theatrical release.
Thanks to all of you for your comments.
Though I have not seen the film, I heard the cinematography resembled a home-movie; or at least, lacked that professional guise, which distinguishes Hollywood from Joe Blow and his mom's Sony handycam. What's your thoughts on that?
Once again, nice review.