cricketbat How can a big-budget movie about a real-life bank-robber, starring Johnny Depp and Christian Bale be this bland and boring? It's surprising how little I cared about the characters and the plot. I read the actual history of John Dillinger after seeing this movie and I found that to be much more interesting.

SimonJack It's okay to make a modern movie about one of the most notorious criminals in American history. And, the makers and cast of "Public Enemies" did a good job in portraying the main characters. Johnny Depp does a decent job portraying the fun-loving nature of John Dillinger. If anything, he is not as humorous or frequently smiling as the real J.D. And, Christian Bale portrays the always somber FBI agent Melvin Purvis well. Billy Crudup does a good job portraying the young, impetuous J. Edgar Hoover. "Public Enemies" also is a good portrayal of the widespread lawlessness of the time. Prohibition lasted from 1920 to the end of 1933. Bootleg booze was big business and organized crime flourished. The Great Depression was on and many homeless and jobless Americans turned to crime. The almost wholesale corruption of law enforcement in Chicago made it a haven for criminals.Thus, John Dillinger returned often to his base of operations after his bank robberies. To this extent, this film does a good job. But, from then on, one begins to wonder. Dillinger joked with the press and liked publicity. And, there was something of a cult following, especially among the young, including boys. Some had a skewed notion of Dillinger as a sort of Robin Hood. And this film seems to play along with that. If anything the dour Purvis is pictured as an obsessed pursuer. Of all the criminal charges against Dillinger, he had just one charge of homicide against him. But this film shows him in scene after scene with Tommy Guns and pistols blazing away and people falling to the ground. Is one to think that Dillinger couldn't hit anyone and that only others in his gang were able to shoot all those people?The film has a scene of a fictional meeting between Dillinger and Purvis. They never did meet face to face in real life. In the movie, Dillinger is behind bars and Purvis comes to look at him. As Purvis walks away, Dillinger says to him, that he should change his line of work. At that point, Bale (Purvis) stops and the camera holds on him a few seconds, showing that he's obviously thinking something. What was the point of that piece of fiction? Might not the writers instead have had Purvis make that statement to Dillinger? That would have squared more with the matter of right and wrong among those shown in this film. After all, wasn't it Dillinger who was being hunted and constantly fleeing to avoid the law? Wasn't it he who was in the wrong "line of work?"The film overall seems to have slight empathy for Dillinger and his girlfriend, Billie (played by Marion Cotillard). It never shows anything about the FBI agents, police, people in banks or others who are killed. There is no empathy for the families of those people. "Public Enemies" overall seems to glamorize the lives of a bunch of brazen bank robbers and killers. It sure is a lousy public statement about right and wrong, justice and law and order. One wonders why this film was made at all. Incidentally, the Tommy gun could be fired with a 100-round drum or a 32-round magazine feeding bullets at a rate of 900 per minute. In the film, the actors were using magazines. Yet only a couple of times did it show anyone changing a magazine. But many scenese showed the robbers firing the Tommy guns for long blasts, one after another. And never a change of ammo.

Bele Torso I just watched a ytube video of some session musicians covering a famous drummer who passed. First thought was, "Oh boy..." and after 30 seconds of the first tune Gaucho, I knew the drummer did not do his homework and pissed all over the groove. How can this happen!Michael Mann is the same...he seems so into trying too hard to create art he misses the mark. Dillinger was boring, horribly boring. Watch Steve McQueen in The Great St Louise Robbery and it is a better movie than this! That is not saying much because that was basically a low-budget semi-documentary in 1958.Johnny Depp and Mann are a perfect match...guys that think too much. Christian Bale on the other hand knows how to act. Deep has become a personality more than actor over the past years. I looked forward to this movie but could not make it through. That has to be the worst reaction to a director's 2-3 years of planning and effort, your audience left early!

Jawbox5 Michael Mann is one of the few directors where I'll happily watch anything that he is involved in. He is an expert when it comes to telling big stories and keeping them engaging, always fleshing out his characters and writing dialogue that leaps off the screen. Most importantly though his films always leave some kind of impact upon you and really make you consider the stories they are trying to tell. Public Enemies focuses on the famed bank-robber John Dillinger, who became something of a celebrity in his day due to his crimes never actually hurting innocent people. Whilst also looking at the FBI force, led by Melvin Purvis, out to catch him. With Johnny Depp and Christian Bale in the lead roles you're thinking this could be something special with Mann's directing, yet the film falls short where Mann's other films have soared and never becomes anything more than an entertaining little piece.The story focuses on three areas in Dillinger's crime exploits, his relationship with a girl named Billie and the FBI's efforts to catch him. I think all three areas are handled adequately, but never anything more than that. The crimes and shootouts are exciting to watch but nothing we haven't seen before. The romance is very believable but could have been delved into more. It is interesting to see the workings of the FBI yet more could have been shown of their efforts and plans. The big problem with the film appears here. It is enjoyable but it severely lacks the pathos and grandness of Mann's other works, while on the flip side it doesn't go into enough detail on Dillinger himself to be an intriguing character piece that is could have been. It is stuck somewhere between these two styles and would have fared better if it had picked one to go for.Mann is capable as ever behind the camera, he knows how to make the dialogue interesting and create a sense of location. It must be said however that the hand-held camera work and shooting the film in digital do get in the way many times, mainly due some irritating shaky cam and some shots looking distinctly amateur because of the low resolution. Not to mention that quite a lot of the film is shot in close-ups which does appear somewhat unambitious at times. Johnny Depp does a good job with what is a difficult type of performance, he makes Dillinger charismatic and gives his relationships an air of believability. The problems with the role are mostly due to the writing as we're never given a true insight into Dillinger and what makes him tick. Its all well and good making him stylish but there needs to be a complexity to such a character. Christian Bale is solid as Purvis and offers the intensity we've come to expect from his performances, but he is also let-down by the writing. Purvis simply isn't fleshed beyond wanting to take down his prey and he has nothing more than that, we're not shown any witty or intellectual side to the character. Marion Cotillard is good as Billie, bringing a sense of style and respectability to what could have been a forgettable role. Stephen Dorff, Jason Clarke, Billy Crudup and Stephen Graham show themselves as fine actors despite their limited characterisations.The action scenes are very effectively done and have the appropriate amount of tension, it is certainly an area that Mann knows how to do well as he has shown many times in the past. The shootouts and the bank robberies had a real excitement to them as there was a sense of vulnerability to both sides. The sequence at the woodland lodge was extremely gripping and there was an unpredictability to the outcome which is something Mann has done in the past, keeping you gripped to the screen as a result. Dillinger's eventual downfall also lacks the bite that you would expect and is something of an anti-climax given the build-up. Some of the commentary that the film gets in is quite welcomed. The way that Dillinger becomes something of a celebrity whilst the FBI is shown in a not so positive light is smartly done especially considering that most films tackle this aspect in a heavy-handed manner.So Public Enemies falls short mainly because of its unsure story- telling and weak characters. I think the plot, acting and directing are all solidly done yet that is also part of the issue. They're all done well but never especially well because it is lacking in the key areas. You know Mann will provide the goods in these areas but he can never propel the film onward because of the script. We never really know anything in detail about the characters we follow and as a result the film isn't as gripping as it could have been because we are kept at arms length at all times. As said the film would have benefited greatly if it either decided to go all out and tell a big story or if it was an understated character study, but as it falls somewhere in the middle it never reaches its potential. It's all good fun and easy to enjoy, but it is not a film that will get you thinking and it is rather underwhelming when its all said and done.