Public Enemies

EDIT:
I’ve been asked by Joseph Torrillo of the National Museum of Crime & Punishment in Washington D.C. to post a link to their “John Dillinger” subpage on their website about a new exhibit they will be hosting. If you are around the D.C. area then I would suggest you go check the exhibit out!

Visit The Exhibit Link Here: http://www.crimemuseum.org/exhibits/JohnDillinger/

Thanks.
Lucas Tetrault

Well to start off – let me say that I didn’t feel as privileged as I thought I would for having the opportunity to watch this movie on the Monday a week before it was released in theatres. I thought that I was going to be able to bring my wife to a private screening where only about 20 to 40 people would be attending. Nope. The place was packed with a bunch of people that received the same free pass to see this movie. So anyways I don’t know who all was there who were also reviewers such as myself but I bet they walked out of the theatre with the same thought as I did. Public Enemies was way too hyped and fell flat to the expectations that were laid before it.

SYNOPSIS:
In case you haven’t read up on your current movies – Public Enemies is the story of John Dillinger. A bank robber from the 1930’s who was somewhat infamous for being nonchalant about his public persona and the way he went about his business. This movie jumps right into his life in 1933 where he is robbing banks and a new law enforcer (Purvis aka: Christian mother f*cking Bale) is given the opportunity to take him down.

PROS of the FILM:
Well if you haven’t already guessed – Johnny Depp and Christian Bale are (in my opinion) the best part of this movie. Johnny Depp really pulls off any character he is given now-a-days and does so with extreme accuracy and grace. It’s amazing how well he becomes John Dillinger – as if he was related to him in some way. (as if he might’ve been a great uncle or something) Then we have his nemesis – Purvis – played by Christian Bale. Now I for one think that Christian was definitely given a much better opportunity to stretch his acting talents more so in this film than in Terminator Salvation. Granted it wasn’t a huge role, but the moments that he is on screen – he seems to just demand the attention of the audience without even saying a single word.

Another Pro for me was the scenery and the overall style of the film. Everyones clothing and the sets were all spot on and seem to mimic pretty much what you would expect from the 1930’s. Granted I’m not from that era nor have I done much research on that time, but I was pretty sold on everything from the cars, to the hats, to the Tommy Guns being used – everything seemed quite authentic.

I also found it interesting that the cast of the film was filled with quite an eclectic choice of actors and actresses. Even Claire from Lost (don’t know her name – sorry) had a small part as a damsel in distress so to speak. There were just too many to ramble off – but because of using good actors for these small parts, the movie never faltered due to someones lack of ability to pull a scene through.

The music will be my final nod to the film and the director. I really don’t know who has the final say in what movies soundtracks will be – but I wouldn’t mind to pick this one up. It really seemed to get me going in scenes when the music kicked in. It had this sort of bluegrass/jazz type feel to it while still maintaining a sense of rhythm that told you a action scene was coming or at least something was going to go down. I kept finding myself tapping my foot to the beat and really enjoying those scenes where that particular music started in.

CONS of the FILM:
Let me say this first – it’s not a bad movie – it definitely was not what I expected nor what I really wanted it to be.

With that, I’m going to start off by saying that the cinematography for this film seemed way out of place. Now I understand that Mann was using HD and was really trying to push the look of the movie but overall I would’ve enjoyed it more had it been presented in a fashion such as the Untouchables or American Gangster. Both of these films seem to be more “movie-esque” than what Public Enemies was. I’m not sure what I’m shooting for when I say “movie-esque” … I guess the handy cam shaky aspect of the entire film got old – and the up close and personal aspect of everything got annoying. I wanted more shots to be taken out from the action so I could see what the heck was actually going on and who was firing at who. There were plenty of sequences where both me and the wife were looking at each other asking who was that?! Who shot who?! etc. (can I just give a nod to David Fincher for getting Cinematography correct in almost every film that he has done … wish Mann would take notice …)

The lack of explanation really started to get to me. Now I think this is probably what Mann was going for – by just thrusting us into the time period and the story – to get right into who John Dillinger was and what he was doing. Yet, if you didn’t do some type of research on Wikipedia or US history in high school then you might not even understand who he was or what was going on. Which I know that I’ve said this before, but I’m a sucker for the throwback story. Where they do a flashback here and there to show how the character has become who he is today. It helps to involve the audience and to give us some reason to care for our hero … or anti-hero in this case.

There were also bits and pieces of details pertaining to Purvis and the director of the soon to be FBI – J. Edgar Hoover that they seemed to leave out – I guess because it wasn’t too important for the overall scheme of things – but it would’ve added to the story and character depth.

So let’s see – I’ve said that the way the movie was shot was bad, the lack of explanation as to who John Dillinger was sucked, the lack of character development, what else could I mention? Oh, possibly that the movie couldn’t figure out what it wanted to be? It seemed like it started off as a crime drama, then turned into a action movie, back into a crime drama, that then turned into a love story and so on. Pick a GENRE! Why is it so hard for some films to just pick something and stay true to it? American Gangster didn’t seem to have this problem – sure there was a love interest but it didn’t destroy the heart of what the movie was and who it was about.

Also attention to details is key. I know that a lot of people going in to see this movie are not going to know probably one of the biggest things that bothered me about the end of the film – so I’ll go ahead and complain about it. It has to do with the story of the lady in the red dress. (this is not pertaining to the girl wearing the red dress at the beginning of the movie … ) No, towards the end of the film – you’ll understand when you get there – but the dress was supposed to be red! And the lady they pick to be wearing it – is indeed not the correct lady nor is she wearing the proper attire. Why would Mann choose to go this direction?

Ok I’ll get off the topic and just finish this up.

SUMMARY:
I’m sorry – I was disappointed. Period. Like I said, I’m not sure what I was looking for out of this movie – maybe I wanted it to be like American Gangster but with a boy from Indiana playing cops and robbers. Bad character development, poor execution of story, and in my opinion the worst way to shoot a movie as far as cinematography goes – destroyed the chance of this being an alright film. I don’t think I will see this movie again, nor will I buy it on DVD but I am glad that I got to see it for free.

FINAL MOVIE RATING: 6/10

~ by phoenixwave on June 30, 2009.