Public Enemies Post-Release

[JacknifeJohnny]

Loved it. Favorite film of the summer so far.

[Bluelouboyle]

How does it compare to Mann's other movies? Some are saying it's his best since Heat. Can't see it topping the Insider, but maybe MV and Collaterall. (though they are both great)

[Hammerhead]

It doesn't have the narrative momentum of some of his other work (I'm mainly thinking Mohicans here). Stuff happens, and then more stuff happens. The closest comparison probably is Heat, but you can feel Mann pulling away from repeating the good cop/good robber dualities of that film. I'm not sure if he has anything to put in their place though.

[JacknifeJohnny]

It's better than Collateral and Miami Vice (both of which I like). It's been years since I've seen Heat so it would be unfair for me to make a comparison, same for The Insider.

That said, I honestly haven't given a tremendous amount of thought to where this fits in Mann's ouevre, several hours after seeing it, I still feel too caught up Dillinger's world to do so.

It really is a gorgeous to look at, and Mann's decision to shoot on DV is nothing but a boon in my eyes, I mean you are there.

Everyone is great, including, I think, Bale, who broke my heart earlier this summer with T:S. He's playing hardfaced and humorless again, but it's easy to tell when he's engaged in the work, and in most cases, you don't have to look any further than the filmmaker he's working with. He hardly gave a shit on T:S, he gives a shit here.

[Alex Augustine]

If you are hoping for Heat with tommy guns you will be disappointed. It's not an epic crime drama but rather a collection of scenes. The character of Dillinger rang completely false for me. I didn't buy him as a romantic or Robin Hood character and by the end I didn't understand or sympathize with him.

[Ben Thomas]

I'm so looking forward to this, but frankly, Best Film of the Summer doesn't mean much this year (Drag Me To Hell, excluded I suppose - thought that's not a tentpole).

[Yeroc7890]

ood, not great.

The performances are uniformly great, of course, though none of them ever really emerge as three-dimensional exactly. But Depp is great as Dillinger realizes he's alone and the whole world is against him.

I loved Bale's work, though he has NOTHING to do; he got a character with no character arc and gave him one, damn it. It's all in the expressions on his face. Watch the expressions on his face after the interrogations; you see a man who has compromised himself and his beliefs. And tell me that last shot of Purvis walking away from Dillinger doesn't perfectly sum up that particular story. Marion Cotillard does a lot with a thankless girlfriend role but doesn't make too much of an impression, honestly. She has some great moments though.

The high-def photography works. Deal with it. It's immediate, immersive and technically gorgeous. The gunfight in the forest is an INSTANT CLASSIC of a scene, and the digital is one reason why. The only thing that doesn't really work in relation to the digital is Elliot Goldenthal's old-fashioned crime epic score, which seems incongruous with the immediacy of the digital filmmaking.

It's not a great film because Bale and the story of the Feds gets the short shrift, and the film doesn't really examine Dillinger's living legend or much about him other than his tendency to rob banks. In other words, it spreads itself too thin, not going into as much detail as you want about the really interesting stuff. I could see a really great film using Crudup's J. Edgar Hoover (GREAT, by the way) focusing on the creation of the FBI, using Dillinger as a secondary focus. This film is, unfortunately, the other way around.

[Andrew Woods]

I loved it, but I could see it really splitting audiences. I think a lot of people are going to go in expecting a movie about Dillinger/Purvis and going are going to get a movie that focuses on Dillinger. I kind of liked this but it may be because I've recently come to the realization that Bale should stick to supporting roles. Depp was great as expected, and I enjoyed seeing him play a character that is much more restrained then we're used to seeing him play. Funny enough, I was really impressed by Giovanni Ribisi in his two minutes of screen time. Actually, all of the supporting actors were fantastic.

I also loved the digital, but can see it really dividing audiences. There were only a few times I was distracted by it, and found it beautiful. most of the time. The few times everything was lit by flares was especially gorgeous.

[halofan1]

It's his best since The Insider. His direction is the best thing about the film and fuck the bad press, Christian Bale did a terrific job as Purvis.

It'd be my pick for best of the year had Kathryn Bigelow not come along with her movie. THAT'S saying something if I'm able to put a film over a Mann movie (he's my favorite.)

[mcnooj82]

It really did feel like Bale got shorted when it came to having an actual character to play. I'm sure Mann and Bale worked an entire process concerning the character's in-depth history, but not too much of it is there. As said above, Bale does a lot with with a little and I would've loved to see more of the character and his conflict with Dillinger.

Like Miami Vice, I dug a lot about it. The digital cinematography takes some getting used to, but it doesn't ruin anything for me. It's a new thing. It's something to become accustomed to. The performances do a lot with a little. But like Miami Vice, it doesn't come together at the end for me. I'm getting the feeling that Mann is pushing toward a particular style of storytelling that is leaving me behind. Maybe the action sequences were well done... I don't know. I was never involved enough with the characters to really care too much. Nothing in this film involved me and made my body as tense as simple scenes of dialogue and mood in The Insider.

That's pretty much it. I admire the spirit in which Mann made this film. But I don't really like the film itself.

EDIT: And I recently gave Miami Vice another watch. I still feel the same as I did before. Love the style and the mood, but not the film as a whole.

[HarleyQuinn22]

The parts are better than the sum.

The forest shootout is great, and Dillinger's relentless pursuit of Billie was fun, but overall it played flat to me. Bale is painfully one-note here. I'm pretty sure he only has one facial expression throughout this whole thing. If he really isn't trying to be a "movie star", he is on the right track. He is a black hole here, devoid of anything even resembling charisma. I'm not saying that this role requires a suave pimp-daddy performance, but he is so bland here that it hurts the film. Bale just stands still while Depp dances around him. There's no tug-of-war between the two leads, something that the trailers hinted at, and I was disappointed by that. Depp's good and Cotillard only has one really good scene (the police interrogation).

And I have to talk about the digital. I saw this in a great theater with digital projection. Some scenes look gorgeous. The opening jail escape looks fantastic. The picture quality is astounding. But there are times where the camera pans around and it goes all blurry. There are times where a Steadicam is used and it feels like I'm watching a reality show. I did not like the digital for the most part. It distracted me, and I really didn't see the need for it here.

[devincf]

http://chud.com/articles/articles/20...IES/Page1.html

Reviewed

[mcnooj82]

A little kinder of a review than I expected, but that's pretty close to how I felt about it.

About the digital video... possibly on a subconscious level it felt like "I was there" but for the most part I don't think the use of video really transported me anymore than a more traditionally shot film would have. It didn't hurt nor did it help. Maybe a little distracting at times.

[Hammerhead]

What I did like:

No slowing down for look-at-that-period-skyline matte shots (Changeling. Yeah, you.). The only time I was aware of background tinkering was the racetrack scene.

Cotillard. The interrogation scene is an easy awards clip (and obviously topical) but it works.

The totally goofy bit where Dillinger visits the Dillinger Room. Depp sells the hell out of it.

Stephen Lang. As the old-school Texas lawman who shows the Feds how to run a man down, he made me wish the movie was about him, and I think maybe Mann felt the same way.

Close-up montage of vintage Myrna Loy in Manhattan Melodrama.

ETA, from Devin's review:

Good night and farewell, young Stephen Dorff, but I had no idea who the hell you were in the movie.

Goddamn it yes.

[JacknifeJohnny]

Originally Posted by Hammerhead

The totally goofy bit where Dillinger visits the Dillinger Room. Depp sells the hell out of it.

Allegedly, that happened.

[Holding Back Cynicism]

According to Depp, the Dillinger Room scene actually happened.

[Hammerhead]

It's still a goofy scene. Hadn't the real Dillinger changed his appearance by then?

[Doc Phibes]

Originally Posted by Ben Thomas

I'm so looking forward to this, but frankly, Best Film of the Summer doesn't mean much this year (Drag Me To Hell, excluded I suppose - thought that's not a tentpole).

Up... Moon... Hurt Locker... Tetro... Brothers Bloom... I guess the summer you see is the summer you get.

Dev's review reminds me of what I thought of Heat, one of those flicks everyone seems to love except me.

Anyone see Mann's film and the early 70s one directed by John Milius? Warren Oates is Dillinger, Ben Johnson is Purvis, Richard Dreyfus is Baby Face, with a whole amazing cast backing them up. And shot on film. How do the two flicks compare?

[Subotai]

What appeals to Mann about Dillinger is the same thing that appeals to him about so many of his protagonists, going back to Larry 'Rain' Murphy in 1979's The Jericho Mile. Frank, Neil McCauley, Vincent, Dillinger, even Ray Luca in Crime Story. These are guys who, in another life, could be captains of industry if not for a society which is extremely biased in terms of race and class, which offers so many favours to some at birth, and others, worse than nothing. The military precision, the dark humour, the lack of neurosis, these are all parts to that character, but not the whole. It's the origin.

As for Public Enemies - a great film. More importantly, a true Michael Mann film. I don't really think he will do it, but I always have a nagging doubt in the back of my mind that Mann will one day deliver some middle-of-the-road Oscar bait to capture the prize he was fucked over for with The Insider. Not this time, baby.

[halofan1]

Originally Posted by Subotai

As for Public Enemies - a great film. More importantly, a true Michael Mann film. I don't really think he will do it, but I always have a nagging doubt in the back of my mind that Mann will one day deliver some middle-of-the-road Oscar bait to capture the prize he was fucked over for with The Insider. Not this time, baby.

To quote one his own films..."his day will come."

The problem with Mann is his style just doesn't work for everyone, at least not a mass audience. You've got your Collateral and Heat, but those are more "commercial" than what he normally does.

[JacknifeJohnny]

Originally Posted by Hammerhead

It's still a goofy scene. Hadn't the real Dillinger changed his appearance by then?

I knew you were going to say that, and I disagree. Dramatic license not withstanding, I think the film successfully humanizes Dillinger, by stripping away the myth (Anna Sage as the "woman in red, etc.") and saying, hey, we're still left with a really interesting guy here.

The film barrels towards an inevitable conclusion w/out distraction because although Dillinger may not realize it until that bullet passes through his head, there's no more story left to tell. In his early 30's, he's already a relic on two legs.

[thrope]

i wouldn't give it much more than a 6/10. i need to see it again, but it seemed very flat. i didn't care for the casting of Depp, the main love story didn't pop like it normally does in mann films, hell none of the relationships between characters were very deep at all. it seemed more like a series of scenes taken from the wikipedia page for john dillinger. if michael mann had decided to write a 1930's gangsta flick from the ground up, it would have been much superior to this.

as overall films i found Miami Vice AND Collateral to be superior

[halofan1]

Originally Posted by Doc Phibes

Up... Moon... Hurt Locker... Tetro... Brothers Bloom... I guess the summer you see is the summer you get.

Only one of those is better than this one.

[buddhabliss]

Originally Posted by halofan1

The problem with Mann is his style just doesn't work for everyone, at least not a mass audience. You've got your Collateral and Heat, but those are more "commercial" than what he normally does.

This is what I love about Mann.He gets to make big budget films for adults & gets to do it his way.Not many American filmmakers like him left.

[Subotai]

Originally Posted by halofan1

To quote one his own films..."his day will come."

The problem with Mann is his style just doesn't work for everyone, at least not a mass audience. You've got your Collateral and Heat, but those are more "commercial" than what he normally does.

Maybe the former, but Heat was not universally loved upon initial release. It got waxed by Jumanji at the BO. Reviews leaned towards the mediocre, or praised more DeNiro and Pacino's performance. Many reviews wanted the romances involving Brenneman, Judd, etc., trimmed.

[wadew1]

I liked it. Of course it looks great and the shootouts are well done. The bank robbery where everything goes wrong and regular people on the street join the shootout was my favorite piece of action. I think I'll drop it in the middle of my MANN RANKINGS. Not as good as Heat and the Insider, but better than stuff like Ali and Miami Vice

The movie's biggest weakness is that it seems like Dillinger is the only character. Mann doesn't spend much time on anyone else. Depp is charismatic and sly, though. His nemesis is a guy who's doing his job. You don't get much else from Mann or Bale. There's nothing that indicates he will quit a year after killing Dillinger and then kill himself. Stephen Lang aka THE PARTY CRASHER aka Crazy Eyes plays...."some guy". I didn't catch a name. He should have been the main cop who was going after Dillinger. Seemed like he knew more than Bale!

[JacknifeJohnny]

Originally Posted by wadew1

His nemesis is a guy who's doing his job. You don't get much else from Mann or Bale. There's nothing that indicates he will quit a year after killing Dillinger and then kill himself.

The film does paint Purvis as a man not entirely comfortable in his own skin, but he didn't off himself until 1960, and it may have been an accident. In this respect, the film sort of deceives by omission. I think if anything, Purvis is the opposite of Dillinger insofar as that he doesn't seem in control of his own destiny, whereas Dillinger rushes towards it.

[nekkerbee]

Does the film at all touch upon Machine Gun Kelly, Bonnie and Clyde, or Alvin Karpis and the Barker gang?

Anyone who left the film yearning for more owes it to themselves to read Bryan Burroughs' Public Enemies.

[JacknifeJohnny]

Alvin Karpis is portrayed by Giovanni Ribisi, neither Machine Gun Kelly or Bonnie and Clyde appear in the film.

[wadew1]

The film does paint Purvis as a man not entirely comfortable in his own skin

He didn't seem entirely comfortable with his role as leader of the Dillinger taskforce, but that was about it.

[le Stephanois]

How is the shootout?

[JacknifeJohnny]

Originally Posted by le Stephanois

How is the shootout?

Which one? Because they're all good.

[mcnooj82]

I found the shoot-outs to be pretty underwhelming. But I think that mostly comes down to the fact that I wasn't all that invested in any of the characters.

I think Bale isn't the blank that some people are calling him in here. I think he's doing a lot of nice subtle stuff that Mann simply doesn't give him enough opportunities to pull off. Unlike T4, it's not as if Bale had a hand in the writing or editing of the film. There was a story to be told about his character that leads to the pre-credits detail about him committing suicide. Or at least it seemed like it. But neither we nor Bale got to have anything to latch onto.

[cobane]

I felt the main thing keeping Public Enemies from reaching Heat level is the lack of pre-heist planning. Whereas a significant chunk of Heat is dedicated to building up the bank heist, Public Enemies spoils us with robbery after robbery. (Or maybe that's the point -- did Dillinger even plan his scores?) Either way, pre-heist planning would've given precious time to develop the other members of Dillinger's crew. There's a scene near the end where Depp listens to Giovanni Ribisi lay out a plan for a train heist; something like that before the other jobs would've been nice (or maybe it'd just screw with the pacing, I don't know).

Still, it's a damn good film. Mann cannibalizes his own material and hits similar beats to his other films, but hell if he doesn't do a good job at it.

[halofan1]

Originally Posted by Subotai

Maybe the former, but Heat was not universally loved upon initial release. It got waxed by Jumanji at the BO. Reviews leaned towards the mediocre, or praised more DeNiro and Pacino's performance. Many reviews wanted the romances involving Brenneman, Judd, etc., trimmed.

His films, outside of The Insider and Collateral, don't find their audience right away. I do remember the buzz on Heat being meh, but at this point it's hailed by many as his best so that's why I used it there.

I do feel time is going to be kinder to this than it will Miami Vice.

[rainbowtrout]

Cotillard's accent becomes VERY obvious during the interrogation scene. I'm surprised they didn't do another take since she sounds very foreign all of a sudden.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny

Loved it. Favorite film of the summer so far.

Had a blast myself, although it's not my favorite film this summer. And that's only because I loved Up, Star Trek and Drag Me to Hell too. So it's hard to make a preferance.

[Keith F]

Loved it. I'm not going to rank it or compare it to his earlier work, what's the point?

Christian Bale was pretty damn good here. I don't know what kind of arc you guys were expecting, but he's great as this guy that is more bullets than brains, shoved into a position that he probably wasn't qualified for, but he's good with the press, isn't he? This Melvin Purvis isn't that bright, he's no match for Dillinger.

Speaking of, to complain about other characters getting the short shrift, this is Depp's movie. He is wonderful here- yeah, in another time, another place he might have been a rock star, or even a movie star, but instead his path was to pick up a Tommy gun and never look back.

Marion Cotillard also does exceptional work, being the emotional anchor of the movie. I wish Mann would have let us spend a little more time with Dillinger and her before his bust in Florida.

Another shoutout to Stephen Lang. Indeed I would watch a whole movie about his character.

I no longer have any doubts about digital cinematography. This movie is visually breathtaking.

Mann deserves the biggest kudos for making a foregone conclusion exciting and suspenseful.

Just walked in the door, still abuzz from this flick. Can't wait to get into the meat of it.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Can't decide which was better casting - Depp or Crudup because both were perfect in their perspective roles. I agree that Bale was great (i.e. wasn't just phoning it in like he did with Terminator: Salvation) although this is 100% Depp's movie.

[Henry_Hill]

Very good. Michael Mann's films always grow on me over time so I expect after a few more viewings that I will be in love with it.

Crudup and Lang did so much with so little...the hell with DeNiro, let's see Lang as Frankie Machine.

The digital didn't bother me, but the historical inaccuracies bugged me a few times.

Loved the shot of the casing leaving Lang's gun in slow mo.

Too bad this couldn't have been expanded to mini-series length.

[Andrew Woods]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

Can't decide which was better casting - Depp or Crudup because both were perfect in their perspective roles. I agree that Bale was great (i.e. wasn't just phoning it in like he did with Terminator: Salvation) although this is 100% Depp's movie.

I think Bale is great when he's a supporting player. The man just isn't a movie star.

[Subotai]

Originally Posted by rainbowtrout

Cotillard's accent becomes VERY obvious during the interrogation scene. I'm surprised they didn't do another take since she sounds very foreign all of a sudden.

That's intentional. She cleans herself up, off the reservation and out of Milwaukee, but she loses it when Chicago PD starts smacking her around.

[Subotai]

Originally Posted by wadew1

He didn't seem entirely comfortable with his role as leader of the Dillinger taskforce, but that was about it.

Mann doesn't have Bale go through the whole emotional crisis thing (one of the many things I love about Mann - he doesn't pander), but the fact is things got worse for Purvis after he left the FBI. Hoover screwed him out of jobs, severely damaged his professional pride. What happened to Purvis over the next 25 years is another topic better served by reading his son's book, perhaps. But not in the context of this film.

[wadew1]

Christian Bale was pretty damn good here. I don't know what kind of arc you guys were expecting, but he's great as this guy that is more bullets than brains, shoved into a position that he probably wasn't qualified for, but he's good with the press, isn't he? This Melvin Purvis isn't that bright, he's no match for Dillinger.

I liked the movie too, but you guys are going a bit overboard with the Bale love. More bullets than brains? Not too bright? All I really saw is that he wasn't experienced enough to be leading the taskforce. He didn't seem stupid. As for Purvis being great with the press, really? His press greatness consisted of a 30 second press conference where he kissed Hoover's ass.

Bale does fine with what he's given, but this is his character:

Purvis: What do we have?

*some guy gives Purvis info about Dillinger*

Purvis: Ok let's go. And remember: these guys are dangerous.

[Keith F]

That thirty seconds were all I needed to see that this guy was great with the politics and soundbite- kissing Hoover's ass is what I'm talking about. He knew how to play that game.

He came off as kind of dim to me, but at least he was smart enough to know that he was going to have to bring in some agents that were better equipped to deal with Dillinger.

[Greg Clark]

The scene where Purvis has to admit to Hoover that his much ballyhooed "G-Men" can't cut it against men like Dillinger is where Bale really shines, though. Purvis as a whole is kept on the sidelines in this movie, this peripheral character in Dillinger's world who won't go away, but in a scene like that Bale gives him some shading, and does a pretty damn good job, I thought.

The thing about Mann is he's gotten so good at this that he's started showing us character bits not in dialogue, but in visual shorthand. So much of this movie, like Miami Vice, is shown and barely told, with Mann behind all the chaos with a steady hand guiding us through this tornado of a man. It's a cold approach, sure, but I dug it.

Neither this or Miami Vice hit me on the thematic level that Heat or Thief or Collateral did, which is probably the main criticism I can come up with--it lacks a thoroughline to drive it home at the end. Mann didn't want to really mythologize Dillinger (he forgoes a lot of the "modern day Robin Hood" stuff), but he didn't want to deconstruct him through a revisionist take either--Dillinger's a private man with a wall between him and the rest of the universe, and the movie plays that way.

I need to see it again to see how it settles, but right now I'd plug it solidly in the middle of Mann's filmography, mainly because I do long for a film from him that lets me in with the characters--I can't say I've felt truly connected with anyone in his films since Collateral. Interested, fascinated, yes, but that connection that elevates your involvement has been missing these last two trips out, and it's something I'm beginning to note.

[Hammerhead]

Originally Posted by Greg Clark

The thing about Mann is he's gotten so good at this that he's started showing us character bits not in dialogue, but in visual shorthand.

Could have used some of that restraint in the scene where that one guy monologues to Dillinger about how their gambling network has outpaced simple robbery, when the first shot of Depp taking in the wall full of numbers says it all.

[Atomic Ross]

My review lazily pasted from another forum I post in:

I just got back myself and was fairly ambivalent about it, as well.

The biggest problem, overall, is that you have a 2.5 hour run-time that has absolutely zero character development. Depp, Cotillard, and most obviously Bale suffer from having absolutely no arc within the entire film. They end the movie in virtually the same place they start it in.

Bale suffers worst, however. While giving a fine performance, his role of "intense enforcer" is practically typecasting at this point, and I'm sad to say that even as the second lead in this film, Bale had more to work with in either Batman film. Or hell, even Shaft. Here, he's virtually reduced to plot motivator status; he tracks criminals, he works hard, the end. There's no intercharacter dynamics with any other cast members for him to build on, and in a parallel to Mann's "Heat," there's only one scene of dialogue between Bale and Depp, but sadly here it's just boiled down to "Smug Cop" vs. "Smug Crook." Mann has three of the finest actors working today, and gives them absolutely fuck-all to do other than follow the script.

In a similar pattern of confusing choices, Mann starts the movie at the end of Dillinger's career, but instead of a Tarantinian fractured narrative that fills in the gaps, Mann just hits the gas and stays in the moment. And that's a large part of the film's problem; you never feel like you're watching a movie. Instead, it feels like a documentary you've missed the first two thirds of.

And that's feeling which is made worse by Mann's intentional choice of photography. He shoots the movie much like his better work, "Collateral," with in-your-face steadycams and digital HD film. That would work if he filmed this movie from a very guerrilla, "fly on the wall," warts-and-all approach, but it's just the opposite. His movie is cinematically approached like every other prestige period picture, with very traditional compositions and musical cues, but instead of fluid shots and luxurious 35mm we get low-grade handheld versions of the same thing.

The best part about the movie comes about two-thirds in with a awesome twenty-person shootout at night. But even this is undone by the limitations of the HD camera, as motions blur and black levels get pixelated to the Nth degree. It's hard to take a period film seriously when I'm constantly being reminded of the modern hardware used in its production. It might as well had the date/time printed on the bottom corner.

Combine all of this with some other smaller issues, such as the total interchangeability of tertiary players (on both the good and bad guy's sides), Cotillard virtually disappearing for the middle hour of the film, and rampant over-casting of meaningless roles, and you've got a fairly disappointing film on your hands. Such as, in regard to that last bit about casting, LeeLee Sobieski plays a hooker with exactly three lines and half that many minutes in screentime. And I didn't even know Steven Dorff was in this movie until I saw the credits. I did recognize Giovanni Ribisi, however, because I guess I didn't blink in the two scenes he's in.

The film entertained, but was a bit bloated, and more than a little incoherent. It also seemed to care much more about the details of the period and case than the people involved. The film coasts along on Depp's charisma and on the intensity of Cotillard and Bale, but just barely. Were the actors anyone else, this movie would likely be a total failure, suitable only for late-night showings on the History Channel.

There's a lot to like about this film, but far more to loathe. At this point, anyone who genuinely finds this film a hallmark entry in the career of an esteemed director is just as nebulous and obtuse to my sensibility as an anime fetishist, waxing masturbatory about Studio Ghibli..

[Mercury318]

So do they use technical wizardry to make the 6 foot something Bale appear closer in stature to the 5 foot something Purvis?

Dude was TINY and it factored into everything he did.

*Aaaand early twentieth century crime fangirl hat is removed.*

[Atomic Ross]

Originally Posted by Mercury318

So do they use technical wizardry to make the 6 foot something Bale appear closer in stature to the 5 foot something Purvis?

Dude was TINY and it factored into everything he did.

*Aaaand early twentieth century crime fangirl hat is removed.*

Actually, no. Bale's height (and really, he's only about 5'11") was actually fairly prominent, and really highlighted in the scene he has with the much shorter Depp. And no, it's not even mentioned.