Public Enemies Review
Posted by Shawn S. Lealos on 07.03.2009
Michael Mann returns with yet another crime flick, this one a classic gangster film. Does it match up with the masterpieces that preceded it or will it crash and burn in a hail of tommy gun fire?
Directed by Michael Mann Written by Michael Mann, Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman
Cast
Johnny Depp ... John Dillinger
Christian Bale ... Melvin Purvis
Marion Cotillard ... Billie Frechette
Jason Clarke ... John 'Red' Hamilton
Rory Cochrane ... Agent Carter Baum
David Wenham ... Harry 'Pete' Pierpont
Stephen Dorff ... Homer Van Meter
Channing Tatum ... Pretty Boy Floyd
Billy Crudup ... J. Edgar Hoover
Giovanni Ribisi ... Alvin Karpis
Branka Katic ... Anna Sage
Stephen Graham ... Baby Face Nelson
Don Frye ... Clarence Hurt
Rated R for gangster violence and some language.
I don’t believe I have ever been as disappointed as I was when I walked out of Public Enemies. It hit all the right notes for a gangster film and has every important trait you need for a film from one of cinema’s oldest genres to work. It is a workmanlike project and therein lays the problem.
I love Michael Mann. I love Johnny Depp. I love Christian Bale. Yet, all three men played a part in my disappointment of this movie.
There are some movies you walk into with the knowledge that they are not going to be the second coming and when you are entertained, it is still worth the experience. Public Enemies is not one of them and has the ingredients for a fantastic movie. Michael Mann has directed some of recent cinemas best films, from Last of the Mohicans to Heat to Collateral to Miami Vice and I have enjoyed everything the man put out. Johnny Depp is one of my all time favorite actors and I have loved Christian Bale since I first saw him in American Psycho. There was no reason this movie should fail.
It is easy to see Public Enemies as a prohibition era Heat. Playing the part of Al Pacino is Christian Bale, a policeman tasked with bringing down a great, seemingly unbeatable thief. Playing the part of Robert DeNiro is Johnny Depp as real life gangster John Dillinger, a man giving the nation’s police force fits by robbing banks all over the country with ease.
Dillinger is the classic gangster antihero. Just as with the best gangster films, Dillinger is a hero to the lower class. In a scene lifted straight out of Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger stops in the middle of a bank robbery and tells a customer to put his money away. They are there to rob the bank, not the average citizen. It is this trait that makes these criminals heroes to the average Joe. When Dillinger was at the height of his power, the Depression had ravaged the nation causing people to distrust the system and when men like Al Capone, John Dillinger and Pretty Boy Floyd tore across the country, they were the men the impoverished related to.
Public Enemies works well in establishing Dillinger as the sympathetic character of this film. In the same way you wanted to see Bonnie and Clyde escape as the law closed in, it is Dillinger we are solidly behind this entire film. To start the movie, Dillinger walks into a prison and breaks his friends out. In this opening, we get the required moment of no turning back as law enforcement officials are killed during the escape and it is clear Dillinger has doomed himself. Even when he meets the beautiful Billie (Marion Cotillard), you know everything from the relationship to his entire future is doomed. It is no spoiler that Dillinger is gunned down outside a theater, shot in the back. It is written history. The trick of this movie is getting him there and allowing the viewer to leave the film satisfied in this journey. I believe the setup, character development and eventual downfall of Dillinger succeeds in allowing the inevitable to happen while maintaining that it is alright in the end. It is a slippery slope to give you a doomed character to invest in. This movie succeeds in treading the edge and, thanks to the placement of footage from the classic gangster film Manhattan Melodrama, you believe it is alright for his life to end right about now. The fact that Depp looks eerily similar to Clark Gable, the star of that film might have something to do with that. Whatever the reason, the hardest part of the movie was solved in a masterful manner.
It is too bad everything leading up to that is so drearily boring.
While Dillinger is painted as a sympathetic character, Christian Bale is tasked with a drab, boring character in his role as Melvin Purvis, the G-Man sent to bring down Dillinger. He is introduced by gunning down Pretty Boy Floyd (an unrecognizable and wasted Channing Tatum) from behind. When he is sent to take over the Chicago force, he gives boring speeches to a room of individuals and never rises above this to make his character interesting in the least. It is not all Bale’s fault, as his character is written with absolutely no depth, and he does little work to make his character more than a sketch on the page.
Johnny Depp is better in his role as John Dillinger but solely due to his natural charisma. It is impossible not to like Dillinger despite the fact his character is never developed any further than the “Robin Hood” caricature - stealing from the rich while loving a beautiful woman. As great as Depp is, the manner in which his character is written almost wastes his talent. As for Marion Cotillard, it is clear she is uncomfortable delivering her lines in English. I have read she was given the script and not allowed to deviate from it which might explain why she sounds forced and wooden through the entire film. When she is given the opportunity to act, she is great though. There is an interrogation scene in which she shines brighter than anyone else in the film.
What makes Bale and Depp’s characters even more disappointing is their co-stars. Bale is constantly overshadowed by Rory Cochrane, a fellow agent. Cochrane is given very little to do but every time he shares a scene with Bale, he blows the other actor away. Similarly, every time Jason Clarke shares a scene with Depp, as Dillinger’s right hand man, I was in awe of his presence. Clarke has never been more than a background player but he is really quite good in this film. I won’t say he overshadowed Depp like Cochrane did Bale, but he holds his own when Depp should have stood head and shoulders above the rest. One final costar that impressed me was a man who only appears in two scenes, but stands toe-to-toe with Depp. Giovanni Ribisi needs to find a starring role ASAP. The guy is great.
With all this acting talent, I am amazed that Mann, a director I have professed to follow anywhere, disappointed me so greatly. Everything in this movie I had seen before, only better. Bonnie and Clyde, Scarface, Little Caesar, Goodfellas, The Roaring Twenties- all these movies set a template for a great gangster film. Public Enemies follows all the rules in minute detail but it fails by making all events appear as boring as possible. Mann was able to make Heat work with overlong character development because its characters are interesting to follow. When DeNiro and Pacino finally meet, it is an amazing moment. The one scene Depp and Bale share did absolutely nothing for me.
At least thirty minutes or more could have been cut from this movie without hurting the storyline at all. There are two prison breaks (with a third planned). There are at least three bank robberies doing nothing to introduce new elements to the story except the dangerous Baby Face Nelson’s violent actions, previously shown in a hotel scene. There are a lot of gun battles, something Mann excels in, but none of them come close to anything he has shot before. Think about the gunfights from Heat, Collateral and Miami Vice and only one of the numerous gunfights here come close, the one taking place in the woods.
Mann has never failed me like this before. This is the movie I was most excited about this summer making this review a hard one to write. I wanted to like this so much and the fact that I spent the entire film checking my watch makes me sad. With two of my favorite actors and one of my favorite directors, I expected more. It promised a great story but is shot in a long, plodding, uninspired way. It is not a bad movie, but it is definitely the most disappointing.
The 411: When you have a movie that stars Johnny Depp and Christian Bale, directed by Michael Mann, a lot of expectations come along with it. A boring movie is the last thing you would expect, but with Public Enemies, it is exactly what you get. Depp makes it through on his charisma alone but Bale is uninspired in his role and upstaged by at least three to four of his costars. The movie, as a gangster flick, delivers a good story and has a great ending but, by the time that ending came, I was ready for the movie to be over with. That is, in itself, an unforgivable crime.
You're an idiot. Boring? There was like 30 full minutes of pure gunfight goodness. Boring is never a good argument for a movie. It just makes you look like a spoiled jackass. Go ahead and enjoy your Transformers and Harry Potter crap.
Posted By: Joe (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 02:55 AM
I agree...expecially on Bale, its like they asked him to 'mail it in' because of maybe Depp's performance (I don't know, because Bale is usually excellent)
At least 2 of Pervis' G-men stood out more than he did, Rory's character and the older lawman from Texas.
And yea, Ribisi was great!
The movie tried way too hard to be a love story
Posted By: Ser Drake (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 03:13 AM
I'll agree with the first 20 minutes after the first breakout. but after that, I loved it. I thought it was great towards the end. The thing is, it needed that first twenty minutes or else it would just be a film full of bank roberies. and the first one was great, the second one eh, and the third to introduce baby face was great, especially the gun battle afterwards.
Posted By: Uh...me (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 04:52 AM
This coming from the guy who rates Transformers .5 points below this in score.
You, sir, suck at reviewing. Or are trying to be the contrarian of the movie section. The Enrique if you will. I haven't figured out which.
As for Bale's performance, he's playing a straight laced G-Man. He's supposed to be as he was, boring. Go re-watch the jail scene where he confronts Depp and take careful note of Bale's expression and subtle change of tone as the conversation wears on.
Posted By: The Burger King (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 09:08 AM
sounds like you wanted to give it a lower score but couldnt bring yourself to it. just give it what you want G. 6.0
Posted By: the fear (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 11:06 AM
I agree...expecially on Bale, its like they asked him to 'mail it in' because of maybe Depp's performance (I don't know, because Bale is usually excellent)
At least 2 of Pervis' G-men stood out more than he did, Rory's character and the older lawman from Texas.
And yea, Ribisi was great!
The movie tried way too hard to be a love story
Posted By: Ser Drake (Guest
ahh hate to tell you but that is bales performance in every movie he does. he is the least charismatic actor in hollywood today.
Posted By: Guest#7227 (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Wow you think this is as good as Transformers 2? Might not make as much money as TF2, but I bet the acting directing and story are way better then TF2. The story probably had little to no holes like TF2, no crappy direction like TF2, and lets not forget crappy actors like TF2 also. What ever your rating scale is, its not working. Then again in another colum you mentioned how much Michael Bay gets you excited about things, so I can see how your bias too. Whatever, your reviews blow like all your other articles.
Posted By: AVC (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 11:45 AM
i can agree with the slow start to the film...it almost lost me. but as it got going, I was loving it.
It's a movie that demands patience, and rewards it handsomely. The end of the movie with the shootouts, and Dillinger's stunning ability to escape almost every trap set for him made up for the slow, almost fatal 1st act.
8.5/10.
Posted By: nastrodamus (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Haven't seen it but Heat aside, Michael Mann's movies are usually pretty boring. Ali had great acting sure, but it's a damn borefest.
Posted By: Jatzel Roman (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 01:36 PM
"Wow you think this is as good as Transformers 2?"
I also like pizza and steak, although for two completely different reasons. Transformers is like pizza, simply a junk food that is fun to eat. A Michael Mann movie should be like a great steak. If you had read the review, you would know how much I wanted to like the movie and how disappointed I was when I didn't.
I feel bad for people who eat steak for every meal and never take a break for a pizza now and again. I also feel bad for people who feel every steak is great, no matter how bland it really is
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on July 03, 2009 at 02:57 PM
Nice pizza/steak analogy in defending your review.
Problem is that pizza can be bland and crappy too. Transformers 2 is not delivery or Digornos...its 99 cent store brand garbage pizza.
Posted By: Guest#2575 (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 04:32 PM
i saw the movie yesterday and i love it so much! not perfect but fascinating as "zodiac" by Fincher ! i love Depp in this movie (the character is unusual for me,he's great),i loved Bale in straight fine intense Purvis with his soft voice as Matt Damon in "the good shepherd"(the scene between Depp /Bale works on tone voices: a conversation between gentlemen you believe but no! it's more fine!),i loved Cotillard so touching ! the gunfight action!
if you loved "zodiac" or "the good shepherd" (not idiotic Transformers)or the real movies with real actors,go to see this movie!
Posted By: kitty (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 05:45 PM
Wow,it amazes me how upset you guys get about a FUCKING MOVIE REVIEW!
Posted By: jonah (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 07:48 PM
wow you called it boreing and uninspired and then you gave it a 7.5 weir
Posted By: TK (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 08:51 PM
A boring and uninspired Michael Mann movie is still better than most stuff out there today.
As for the Zodiac comparison, I loved Zodiac and never felt bored. Really, Publicv Enemies would have been much better with thirty minutes trimmed from the running time.
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on July 04, 2009 at 03:37 AM
This review could have ended at
"Don Frye ... Clarence Hurt"
and this movie instantly goes into the "Must See" category.
Perfectly fitting that a 4th of July movie has the greatest American ever(!) in it.
-Alex
Posted By: Alex Mattis (Guest) on July 04, 2009 at 07:40 PM
I thought this movie was simply ok, mostly because of Bale and Depp's acting. But I think they should have done this as a Dillinger biopic instead of just another "FBI pursues a gangster, shootouts occur" film. It's absolutely predictable and one-dimensional (even more than Transformers was) from beginning to end.
Posted By: JLAJRC (Guest) on July 04, 2009 at 07:45 PM
The fact you guys even compare this film and Transformers like they are in the same category has put me off this site forever.
Posted By: Guest#7166 (Guest) on July 05, 2009 at 03:17 AM
Most Micheal Mann movies are boring actually.
Posted By: Anthony (Guest) on July 05, 2009 at 10:12 AM
This movie was BORING. I actually fell asleep during it and i have never ever done that. I wish i went and saw Ice Age 3 instead. This movie will not do good. And the 5 other people i went with thought it sucked too.
Posted By: Cannonball (Guest) on July 05, 2009 at 03:04 PM
i love how this went from talking about the review of public enemies to a lets diss transformers deal.
as for the movie, i thought it was good, not great, not iconic, or a masterpiece, just simply good, i enjoyed the movie, down the line i would probably watch it again.
if you like movies like the good sheperd, collateral, those types of more dialogue based movies, this one you will like as well. ( and it does havea lot of action scences as well so it even has something for you action junkies.)
Posted By: COdy (Guest) on July 06, 2009 at 01:14 AM
How many noticed how Bale's posture and body language were different in this film from any other he's been in? It would seem few did because many are so caught up in "star-gazing" that they forget to see the quality of these people as actors.
I beg those stating that Bale was "mailing it in" to actually watch Bale's stride, shoulders, movements, etc. on the red carpet, then in this film. Or in another movie, then this film. If you tell me he isn't going above-and-beyond in the realm of acting, I have to assume that you either don't truly understand what acting is or are from some strange school of thought where a boring character in a script is meant to enthrall you as much as the evident showman. A character might be boring but the actor portraying him shouldn't be (and wasn't this time, if you actually WATCH THE ACTING).
You have Bale as the straight-laced man of duty and Depp as the charismatic, eccentric renegade-that's what those men are as actors, yet both delivered genuine PERFORMANCES.
Obviously, an actor is there to serve the director, script and character. Not your want to see everyone try to outshine everyone. So some characters, just as people, come across as more mundane. That's how a WELL-DIRECTED STORY works. The actors compliment each other rather than fend for bragging rights.
To behave as though the largely true story this film portrays is stereotypical, as though it wouldn't be, is ridiculous. THOSE FILMS YOU MENTIONED WERE BASED ON EVENTS SUCH AS THE (REAL LIFE) ONES WHICH WERE DEPICTED IN THIS FILM. This isn't a case of "same ole, same ole"...it's a case of someone with misplaced expectations judging the film based on THOSE rather than whether the film succeeds at what it sets out to do.
Your pre-judgments about what it should be or what should happen or related to what you've "already seen" are what ruined this film to whatever extent you disliked it. Not anything in the film itself.
The review is about the movie, Shawn. It's not about YOU. Your pizza/steak analogy is evidence of your inability to understand that. For examples of how far off-base you are in relation to expectation, you state, "A Michael Mann movie should be like a great steak." Why's that? Because you said? You also state, "It is a slippery slope to give you a doomed character to invest in." There's a genre dedicated to that called "TRAGEDY" wherein the ENTIRE POINT is the investment in the doomed character. You wouldn't say, "It's a slippery slope to have the lead character in a film be comedic." when the evident point is the humor
You went in with all the wrong expectations and then blamed the film for it. Your loss, but don't then profess to others that it's the film that's lacking in quality rather than what this review was more about (the reviewer)
Posted By: Ash (Guest) on July 06, 2009 at 04:52 AM
man people get uppity when somebody disagrees with them about a movie, calm down people.
as for the movei, i whole heartedly enjoyed it, not oscar worthy by any means but a really solid flick that is def worth checking out. Depp FTW!!
Posted By: stronelis (Guest) on July 06, 2009 at 09:33 AM
the movie was great...heat was more boring than public enemies. a gangster movie does not have to be all action i.e. goodfellas, godfather, etc.
Posted By: Guest#5549 (Guest) on July 06, 2009 at 02:34 PM
"man people get uppity when somebody disagrees with them about a movie, calm down people."
I don't mind if he disagrees with me about a film, but he should be able to back it with valid points and something aside from bias and "I expected this..." and "I expected that..." Indeed, about the only forgivable thing to base a review on in relation to expectation for most films is expecting it to be "a good movie".
But if we're all using ridiculous analogies, then let me put it this way. If you go somewhere and you order "food" expecting to receive a pizza for some reason and they give you a steak...and you eat the steak and it's the best steak you've ever eaten-it makes no sense to bitch about the steak being an inadequate pizza. It's a STEAK. You should then say it was a GREAT STEAK. Not an inadequate pizza.
What is the basis for his Public Enemies review? More or less, "I expected something else." So he expected something else, but oh, what he got was kind of good, too. No-that's not the case. Almost the entire review is about how he didn't get "what he wanted"...so then it becomes obvious that for that final score, he realized that, to him, it was actually pretty good beneath all of his biased views and unnecessary expectations...so he probably shouldn't rate it quite as low as those would make him want to. Thus, it gets a 7.5.
So let me state this once again. The issue isn't that he disagrees. It's that the view he puts forward, whether agreed with or not, is put forward poorly and with little rational basis.
If his comments are any indication, he bases his reviews largely upon expectation rather than what is actually in a film. That means his reviews aren't about the movie-they're about him.
Yes, if the trailer makes you think it's a comedy about a single father struggling to make ends meet and then it's a documentary about herding sheep, you should tell people the trailers are misleading and why. But you shouldn't then say the documentary about herding sheep sucks because it's not a comedy about a single father. That's just asinine. Yet that seems to be Shawn's approach to reviewing.
That's not how one REVIEWS A FILM. If we go back to ridiculous analogies...
A doctor shouldn't list his ailments to a patient in the hope that his self-diagnosis provides them with the medical attention they need. It wouldn't because that diagnosis is not about the patient. Although the one he forms should be.
Shawn couldn't any more clearly tell me what's wrong with himself in relation to a subject under the guise of telling me what's wrong with something else...than he does in reviews such as this one.
The formation of his views on a film relies almost exclusively on what he "expects"/"wants" rather than what a film actually is. Thus, he's a bad reviewer.
Posted By: Ash (Guest) on July 06, 2009 at 04:32 PM
"The fact you guys even compare this film and Transformers like they are in the same category has put me off this site forever.
Posted By: Guest#7166 (Guest) on July 05, 2009 at 03:17 AM"
You'll be back.
Posted By: Todd Vote (Guest) on July 06, 2009 at 05:43 PM
I completely agree with the review. I really wanted to like the movie, and I like a lot of the actors in this film too. But it never felt like it completely drew me in.
I think it got better as it progressed, but I couldn't help but feel like the movie was dull overall.
Posted By: Guest#4016 (Guest) on July 07, 2009 at 05:20 PM
"The formation of his views on a film relies almost exclusively on what he "expects"/"wants" rather than what a film actually is. Thus, he's a bad reviewer."
I expected and wanted a great movie. I got a boring one that simply rehashed the same situations over and over until Dillinger died. Forget that I wanted the movie to be good, if that hurts your acceptance that this was not a great movie.
The pizza and steak analogy was simply in relation to people bringing up Transformers in comparison which is asinine.
I also never said this movie was stereotypical. I said it hit all the notes of the gangster genre, which is a good thing, although you seem to believe it is bad. It is not bad. I know this because I studied the gangster genre extensivly in film school and know what to expect. This acheived those things, albeit in a boring manner. If you think doing those things are stereotypical, you don't know too anything about the genre.
You are also 100% wrong about it being a slippery slope since it is a tragedy. You must do everything you can to make the audience care about your character so when his end comes it means something. That is not my opinion, that is a solid fact. Killing your main character at the end of the movie can kill a film if not done right, a slippery slope indeed. In my review I said the movie succeeded at this task.
Every movie must stand before every movie that came before. If Public Enemies can not stand toe-to-toe with the movies in its own genre, then it is a wasted attempt. Once again, this is not my opinion, this is fact.
You said I did not justify why it was not good. I said it was boring, thanks to it being about thirty minutes too long and could have trimmed the fat to make it a better experience. I said Bale's character was criminally underdeveloped, making him boring and giving me no reason to care about him.
Those sound like reasonable criticisms to me.
I said it is not a bad movie, but nowhere near as good as it should have been. You have to know how to read movies to review them. I stand behind my review of this film (and I am actually more positive than many others considering its low ratings on Rotten Tomatoes). This movie was average, only made good because of Mann's camera, Depp's acting and the supporting actors.
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on July 07, 2009 at 06:26 PM
last word
Posted By: Guest#9238 (Guest) on July 08, 2009 at 02:32 AM
Looks like I'm not the only one who's confused as to how you managed to get a 7.5 out of 10 at the end of that review? I happen to agree that the film is a disappointment, and think your actual review is pretty much spot on, but why have you then given it 7.5 out of 10? Its a 6 at the most. Very strange
Posted By: Big Poo Johnson (Guest) on July 08, 2009 at 09:04 AM
When commenting upon the "slippery slope", I was referring to your having bothered to state such a thing in the first place-as though it wasn't obvious. Hence, why I immediately said, "It's called TRAGEDY." You might as well have said, "It's best if there's some amount of lighting on a scene, as then we can see the action." Obviously. For me to then start pointing out how lighting setups work or how it effects the tone wouldn't make me "wrong".
The comment referring to you believing the film to feature stereotypical elements (although you didn't use those exact words, no), was meant to stress how ridiculous it is that you even spent that much time pointing out that it does or doesn't live up to constructs established in storylines which are unrelated to this film. Because that's all about your expectation, once again.
So the reason those subjects were covered is that you're constantly stating the obvious as though it's profound-and it's almost always about your expectation rather than what the film actually involved.
"Forget that I wanted the movie to be good, if that hurts your acceptance that this was not a great movie."
It doesn't. That's your opinion, your view. But the manner in which you seemingly insist that your view is backed up by the subjects you discuss in this review is ultimately what makes it contestable.
I agree that comparing Transformers to Public Enemies is quite foolish. But still-the things you stated in defense of your review of Transformers only pointed further toward your expectations clouding your judgment of the film. Once again, I point toward the comment about a Mann film being a great steak. Why should it be? Because you've got your head wrapped up in some expectations rather than acceptance of a film's genuine qualities, including its faults?
As for your comments about finding the film and Bale's character "boring" and how I found you did not justify those views, you essentially just said your justification for your view ultimately comes down to your opinion? "It's boring." I thought you were a reviewer-you say you even went to film school. Why aren't you justifying your view with the "facts" you seem so fond of pointing out your views as in relation to WHY or HOW it was boring?
Bale's not the ultimate focus. In a sense, it's a Dillinger character study. The man Bale portrayed WAS fairly boring. He was straight-laced and all that which I already noted. Did you want him to be dressed as Rambo, blowing stuff up and yet shedding a tear when Dillinger died? He's a man of duty.
The problem isn't that you found the film to be average or anything of that sort. It's that you don't convey much of anything about HOW, which is related to you perceiving the film through a lens of expectation rather than anything objective.
Posted By: Ash (Guest) on July 08, 2009 at 03:05 PM
Ash for the win! Bye, Shawn, you are vanquished.
Nah, man, I just playing...you alright...just not good at the movie reviewing this one time.
Posted By: Guest#4262 (Guest) on July 08, 2009 at 07:25 PM
