Public enemies (Mann, 2009)

[Morris Schæffer]

The poster has surfaced:

http://content2.catalog.photos.msn.co m/ft/share0/1b2f/0/8d53aa74-cc3a-49ce-9f6d-0d6257a53ddd_Main_PUB_RGB_TSR1 SHT_0225_1_502.jpg


The film's been shooting in Wisconsin and Illinois, and tells the story of FBI agent Melvin Purvis (Bale) and his attempts to capture Dillinger and his notorious gang. His contemporaries included Pretty Boy Floyd (Channing Tatum), Alvin Karpis (Giovanni Ribisi), Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) and Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff). Billy Crudup plays legendary FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover.

[megladon8]

My most looked forward to movie of the year.

I want a damn trailer.

[Stay Puft]

I want a damn trailer.

Yeah, can't wait. I love Mann, and this sounds great.

[ledfloyd]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/publicenemies/

trailer!

[Kurosawa Fan]

What's with the video game character jumping over the counter? Right after Depp says "What else do you need to know?". That looked ridiculous. The movie has potential though. Mann is hit or miss, so I guess I hope he hits with this one.

[ledfloyd]

What's with the video game character jumping over the counter? Right after Depp says "What else do you need to know?". That looked ridiculous. The movie has potential though. Mann is hit or miss, so I guess I hope he hits with this one.
i agree. the techno music kinda worries me. otherwise it looks great.

[number8]

Period movies in digital video look weird.

[Stay Puft]

trailer!

Only had to wait 7 minutes. Nice.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Period movies in digital video look weird.

I actually think it looks really good. The digital video, that is.

[Wryan]

Mmm. I hope they do his death right. He died in such a hilariously unfortunate way: coming out of a Clark Gable movie wearing a white suit and a straw hat.

[Qrazy]

I think this will most likely be Mann's best film since The Insider.

[MadMan]

Random techno music in the trailer aside, that looks pretty damn great. The cast and Mann's involvement also sell me heavily on the whole thing.

[DavidSeven]

Director's Trademark: terrible taste in music.

I'm anticipating this. Prefer Mann, even when he misfires, to most. Some of the digital photography is evocative; some of it looks like shit. The contrast between the modern technique and our expectations of period pieces could be interesting... or horribly distracting.

[Lucky]

They filmed parts of this movie on the street I live on. I'm excited to see how my view across the street is changed for the big screen.

[megladon8]

I think it looks pretty good.

Hope it has Mann's trademark visceral action.

[Sycophant]

Happy to see that it will have Michael Mann's signature assistant or second unit director, Michael Waxman.

This will never stop being amusing to me.

[Boner M]

So it seem like they couldn't find room for Rednex's "Cotton Eyed Joe" in the trailer.

Mann's pretty great, I think. Haven't disliked any of his films 'cept The Keep (which was 1983).

[Qrazy]

So it seem like they couldn't find room for Rednex's "Cotton Eyed Joe" in the trailer.

Mann's pretty great, I think. Haven't disliked any of his films 'cept The Keep (which was 1983).

I thought LA Takedown was pretty bad.

[Kurosawa Fan]

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww46/Amnesiac7/screenshot.jpg

Indeed. He looks a tad artificial there. Did they graft his face onto a stunt double or something?

It looks even worse in motion. Really poorly done. I hope they clean that up before release.

[Ezee E]

I don't think I'd have even noticed it if it weren't for K-Fan's comment.

Now I laugh my ass off when I see it. Thanks.

[Ezee E]

New trailer out, and it is awesome.

My doubts are gone.

[Raiders]

New trailer out, and it is awesome.

My doubts are gone.

These sort of posts require links.

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-GB&vid=8fd15a4a-1c72-4a6a-97ef-fea6d0c5d449

[Watashi]

I just can't get excited about this.

I think it's the digital look.

[Sven]

Looks entertaining, but that dialogue and Bale's southern accent were making my ears bleed.

[Qrazy]

These sort of posts require links.

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-GB&vid=8fd15a4a-1c72-4a6a-97ef-fea6d0c5d449

Hrmm I preferred the first trailer. This one's too long, doesn't really seem to build up any momentum and kind of tapers out at the end. Also I think digital still has another 5-10 years before it's film quality, if it ever will be.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The digital looks great. What are some of you on about.

Looks merely okay, though. I don't think I like Mann as much as most.

[Qrazy]

The digital looks great. What are some of you on about.

Looks merely okay, though. I don't think I like Mann as much as most.

It looks great for digital. I don't think it looks great in the wider spectrum.

[DavidSeven]

The digital looks like balls. Could work for the overall film and create an interesting aesthetic, but it still looks like balls.

[Raiders]

Yeah, uh, I think the digital looks terrific. I don't really get the issues.

[Ezee E]

Those that doubt digital should take a look at Zodiac which I had no problems with at all.

There's a few problems I had from the old trailer, but this new one, with the opening scenes with flares going off, look fantastic.

[number8]

It's really not a matter of the digital camera, E. Nevermind Zodiac, try Benjamin Button! But in those two movies, Fincher used his digital camera to shoot pretty pictures, to shoot filmic images.

Mann insists on making his films look digital. He likes that crisp-handheld-consumer-video look that has every frame completely sharp with no motion blur. He even deliberately achieves this by shooting at a slower shutter speed. It's what they use for reality shows on the Discovery channel.

[Ezee E]

It's really not a matter of the digital camera, E. Nevermind Zodiac, try Benjamin Button! But in those two movies, Fincher used his digital camera to shoot pretty pictures, to shoot filmic images.

Mann insists on making his films look digital. He likes that crisp-handheld-consumer-video look that has every frame completely sharp with no motion blur. He even deliberately achieves this by shooting at a slower shutter speed. It's what they use for reality shows on the Discovery channel.
Some people are just saying they can't get use to the digital look at all.

[Amnesiac]

Speaking of DV, I had always assumed that digital images could exhibit more color and detail than an analog image.

However, I was reading through Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art today and came across the following (p.30):


One frame of 35mm motion picture film can contain the equivalent of over 12 million pixels (picture elements). This creates extremely high resolution and detail. One frame of broadcast quality video (not HD) can display about 350,000 pixels, whereas a DVD frame of a wide-screen film yields about half a million. Various versions of HD video yield about 2 million pixels per frame. The widest range of colors possible in video is about 17 million hues, a staggering number until we realize that film can display over 800 million.

For whatever reason, I always assumed that digital video would be capable of offering more colors than film. I suppose the case might actually be that digital can offer a crisper image, but not necessarily a wider range of colors.

[megladon8]

I want to see this so freaking bad :cry:

[number8]

Everytime I see previews for this it keeps looking worse and worse.

[MacGuffin]

Everytime I see previews for this it keeps looking worse and worse.

I think it looks good even though Christian Bale is in it. I mean, a 1920s gangster movies filmed digitally? I'm warming up to digital filmmaking partially thanks to Michael Mann. Collateral and Miami Vice both looked amazing.

[MacGuffin]

Those that doubt digital should take a look at Zodiac which I had no problems with at all.

There's a few problems I had from the old trailer, but this new one, with the opening scenes with flares going off, look fantastic.

Yeah, Zodiac is a good example of digital cinema at its best.

[trotchky]

I think it looks good even though Christian Bale is in it. I mean, a 1920s gangster movies filmed digitally? I'm warming up to digital filmmaking partially thanks to Michael Mann. Collateral and Miami Vice both looked amazing.

Yeah. It's kind of weird how Christian Bale went from being one of my favorite actors to one of my least favorite.

[Milky Joe]

Yeah. It's kind of weird how Christian Bale went from being one of my favorite actors to one of my least favorite.

Yeah, it is weird. I blame it on Batman, sadly, as it was after that he started this habit of being cast in seemingly every role imaginable. It's a serious case of overexposure. He needs to a) take some time off and then b) come back and start taking interesting roles again. Quit with the super-macho, mythologized male roles already; his best performance remains playing a kind of girly choirboy. He should really think long and hard about this.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, it is weird. I blame it on Batman, sadly, as it was after that he started this habit of being cast in seemingly every role imaginable. It's a serious case of overexposure. He needs to a) take some time off and then b) come back and start taking interesting roles again. Quit with the super-macho, mythologized male roles already; his best performance remains playing a kind of girly choirboy. He should really think long and hard about this.

I'm trying to think of a movie he was good in.

[Milky Joe]

His goodness in Empire of the Sun and American Psycho are, for me, indisputable, but there's also a lot I haven't seen.

[MacGuffin]

His goodness in Empire of the Sun and American Psycho are, for me, indisputable, but there's also a lot I haven't seen.

Oh yeah, American Psycho. I knew he was good in something, I just forgot what it was (I haven't seen the other movie that you named).

[transmogrifier]

Yeah, it is weird. I blame it on Batman, sadly, as it was after that he started this habit of being cast in seemingly every role imaginable. It's a serious case of overexposure. He needs to a) take some time off and then b) come back and start taking interesting roles again. Quit with the super-macho, mythologized male roles already; his best performance remains playing a kind of girly choirboy. He should really think long and hard about this.

My problem with him is a lot easier to summarize: he's deadly dull. There is no life to any of his performances. He's dead-eyed and faintly android-like, kind of what I imagine photorealistic CGI is going to be like.

[Rowland]

I wasn't too taken with the film, but I rather liked Bale in Rescue Dawn. Herzog brought out a bit of eccentricity in his performance.

[number8]

I went through his IMDB earlier today and realized that in the past decade, the only film of his I haven't seen are Captain Correlli's Mandolin and his Jesus TV movie.

[MacGuffin]

My problem with him is a lot easier to summarize: he's deadly dull. There is no life to any of his performances. He's dead-eyed and faintly android-like, kind of what I imagine photorealistic CGI is going to be like.

I think, perhaps, that's why he works so well in American Psycho.

[trotchky]

I think, perhaps, that's why he works so well in American Psycho.

I was just about to say this.

I also kind of just realized that the scenes where he kills people are the scenes where he gets the most slap-stick goofy and nuts, which is a pretty big departure from the absolute horror of the murder scenes in the book.

[Ezee E]

He's good in The Machinist as well.

I think he'd be a great villain. Hence, his best role being American Psycho.

[megladon8]

He's pretty much my favorite actor working today.

[trotchky]

He was a real dick to that lighting guy, though.

[Watashi]

Yeah, I'm really tired of Bale too. Looking at his future projects, he looks like he isn't going to change much of his range.

I still think his best performance is I'm Not There.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, I'm really tired of Bale too. Looking at his future projects, he looks like he isn't going to change much of his range.

I still think his best performance is I'm Not There.

That's true.

[trotchky]

Yeah, Bale as Christian Dylan was pretty memorable.

[number8]

I miss the good Bale. Batman really ruined him. Now he keeps getting cast as tough guys who glare and yell at people a lot. It's really a waste of his talent. I share trotchky's sentiment that he went from one of my favorites to one of my least. Not looking forward to his upcoming movies at all.

Unless there's something about it I can't foresee, I'm willing to bet he's going to be bad in Public Enemies, too.

[Ezee E]

He'll be the "bad guy" but only because he's the cop going after the main character. Not a true villain.

I'll be seeing both of his next movies.

[Qrazy]

Bale was good as Batman, not great but you're all selling him short. He was also good in I'm Not There, The Prestige, Rescue Dawn, The New World, American Psycho, Empire of the Sun and Velvet Goldmine (although I don't like the film). His 310 to Yuma performance was adequate, as was the film, nothing exceptional from anyone in that one. So basically he's experiencing the Nicolas Cage phenomenon. His roles in his action films (Reign of Fire, Equilibrium, Terminator) are much less interesting than his 'art' films. Personally I prefer gruff and dull to obnoxious overacting. Terminator performance aside (which I haven't seen) he's still got chops and I'm sure he'll do just fine in The Fighter. I'm not a huge fan of David O. Russell but he tends to get good performances out of his actors.

[Qrazy]

He'll be the "bad guy" but only because he's the cop going after the main character. Not a true villain.

I'll be seeing both of his next movies.

I believe he meant he'll be bad as in will not act well.

[Ezee E]

I saw nothing with his acting in Terminator, it was just a boring character.

[megladon8]

What are we seeing in the trailers for this that looks so bad?

It looks like a Michael Mann period film. Starring Bale and Depp.

I really don't see what could be perceived as looking bad here, unless the person saying this is a particular non-fan of Mann.

[number8]

Terrible cinematography, bland-looking performances (from both Depp and Bale), the hint of a very cliched love story, and overall a really lame cops-chasing-robbers premise. When this project was first announced, I was hoping that it's going to be more about the era, based on the title, because that would be more interesting. But if it's just Dillinger's life as a handsome Robin Hood archetype with Purvis chasing him around, then that just sounds boring. And has been made before.

Basically, this is giving me the same vibe as 3:10 to Yuma in a different period, and 3:10 to Yuma sucked. Mann is better than Mangold, sure, but not really by much.

[MacGuffin]

Terrible cinematography,

No, for digital, I think it looks quite interesting and borderline conceptual as a modern day camera sort of time travels into the past to go exploring.

[Qrazy]

Terrible cinematography, bland-looking performances (from both Depp and Bale), the hint of a very cliched love story, and overall a really lame cops-chasing-robbers premise. When this project was first announced, I was hoping that it's going to be more about the era, based on the title, because that would be more interesting. But if it's just Dillinger's life as a handsome Robin Hood archetype with Purvis chasing him around, then that just sounds boring. And has been made before.

Basically, this is giving me the same vibe as 3:10 to Yuma in a different period, and 3:10 to Yuma sucked. Mann is better than Mangold, sure, but not really by much.

I don't know the most interesting thing about contemporary Mann is the atmosphere surrounding the mediocre story (Collateral, Miami Vice)... I have some confidence he will flesh out this world a bit.

[megladon8]

Terrible cinematography, bland-looking performances (from both Depp and Bale), the hint of a very cliched love story, and overall a really lame cops-chasing-robbers premise. When this project was first announced, I was hoping that it's going to be more about the era, based on the title, because that would be more interesting. But if it's just Dillinger's life as a handsome Robin Hood archetype with Purvis chasing him around, then that just sounds boring. And has been made before.

Basically, this is giving me the same vibe as 3:10 to Yuma in a different period, and 3:10 to Yuma sucked. Mann is better than Mangold, sure, but not really by much.


I pretty much disagree with everything you wrote here. Especially the last sentence.

[Rowland]

I've grown to enjoy and appreciate Miami Vice a great deal more than I did after my theatrical viewing, but I maintain that Collateral is more visually stimulating and evocative as a digital viewing experience.

As for this movie, the trailer doesn't do much for me, but I'll obviously see it hoping for the best. And 3:10 to Yuma was a fine remake, perhaps more efficient than proficient in any particular respect, but as Hollywood products go, I felt it belonged to the upper echelon.

[megladon8]

I've grown to enjoy and appreciate Miami Vice a great deal more than I did after my theatrical viewing, but I maintain that Collateral is more visually stimulating and evocative as a digital viewing experience.


Not to mention Heat is one of the best crima sagas ever filmed. In fact, it may be my favorite of all time.

Collateral is wonderful, Thief was OK - certainly stylish and beautifully crafted, but the story just didn't intrigue me.

Maybe I'll watch Miami Vice in the next couple of days.


Plus I find it hard to judge the depth of a love story or the depth of the overall plot and characterizations for that matter with a 2:30 trailer that focuses on the action scenes.

The film is nearly 2 1/2 hours long. And knowing Michael Mann's previous work, the characterizations will be incredibly deep and meaningful, the plotting and dialogue tightly woven.

He's an incredibly thorough man when it comes to his characters. The work that went into Collateral was borderline obsessive.

And since Mann has gone on record saying he feels this is his most accomplished piece, I'm definitely excited.

[Ezee E]

I've gotta say. I don't think I've ever liked a trailer for a Michael Mann movie.

[number8]

I've gotta say. I don't think I've ever liked a trailer for a Michael Mann movie.

The Miami Vice trailer with Linkin Park was pretty great.

[Watashi]

The Miami Vice trailer with Linkin Park was pretty great.
I actually like the Reno 911 parody trailer better.

[number8]

I actually like the Reno 911 parody trailer better.

True.

[Dukefrukem]

The only Mann movie I've enjoyed was Collateral. I hate the way his movies are filmed.

[megladon8]

The only Mann movie I've enjoyed was Collateral. I hate the way his movies are filmed.


You don't like Heat?

Epic fail.

[Dukefrukem]

You don't like Heat?

Epic fail.

Fuck I forgot Heat. *checks IMDB for any others*

And The Insider.

[number8]

The Insider > Heat > Manhunter > The Average Movie > Everything Else Mann Has Done.

*Waits for trans to come in and talk about Last of the Mohicans so I can promptly say it sucks*

[megladon8]

Heat > Collateral > The Insider > Manhunter > Thief > the average movie

One of my favorite American writer/directors. Probably my very favorite in the crime genre.

[Dukefrukem]

The Insider > Heat > Collateral > Manhunter > Thief > The Average Movie > his other work

[megladon8]

And regarding Bale's overexposure, I agree completely with people who wish he would settle down a bit and start taking the riskier indie roles again.

But this doesn't detract from my view of him as the most capable male lead in English-language cinema right now. The roles he's taken the last few years haven't really required much depth or emotive ability, so it's hardly his fault that he couldn't give the parts something that wasn't even there to begin with.

I look at his performances in American Psycho, The Machinist, Rescue Dawn, the Batman films. Hell, he was even great in Shaft.

So yeah, in complete agreement that he needs to get out of the spotlight for a while and do some quieter, more challenging stuff. But completely disagree about him having lack of range or talent - he's incredible.

[Ezee E]

Bale was GREAT in Shaft.

Why?

Villain.

[monolith94]

I actually like the Reno 911 parody trailer better.
Link?

Also, Marion Cotillard looks so cute in those trailers.

[Grouchy]

1. The Insider
2. Heat
3. Manhunter
4. Collateral
5. Ali
6. Miami Vice

[EvilShoe]

The Insider
Heat
Collateral
Manhunter
Miami Vice
The Last of the Mohicans
Thief
Ali
The Keep1 to 7 are fantastic. Ali isn't bad, The Keep is.

Obviously looking forward to Public Enemies.

[Pop Trash]

Pshhh...I love The Last of the Mohicans.

[Robby P]

Heat and The Insider are the only Mann movies that really stick out in my mind. I don't think Public Enemies looks particularly promising, either.

[DavidSeven]

Dig his aesthetic, but his narratives could use some work. Heat is great, but there are so many different places where it could be trimmed. The Insider is far and away his best film. Pacino is amazing.

[Qrazy]

Yeah I'm with those who think Heat and The Insider are the best and lukewarm on the rest. Collateral is his third best but it does have narrative issues. I have zero affection for his pre-Mohicans work (Manhunter, LA Takedown, Thief) and I'd have to rewatch Mohicans to know which category I put that one in as well.

[transmogrifier]

The Insider > Heat > Manhunter > The Average Movie > Everything Else Mann Has Done.

*Waits for trans to come in and talk about Last of the Mohicans so I can promptly say it sucks*

*leans back, basking in the warm glow of my inner rightness*

[Morris Schæffer]

I love Heat and The Insider. The Last of the Mohicans was good, Collateral was totally watchable, Miami Vice I didn't like at all.

[Milky Joe]

I can't wait to see this movie so I can compare the performances of Depp and Bale. I am imagining that one will be really good and charismatic and fun and one will be really over-serious and wooden and forced.

[MacGuffin]

Just saw an amazing trailer for this while watching the end of the Lakers game.

[BuffaloWilder]

Heat
Manhunter
Collateral
The Insider
Miami Vice

Ali.

[dreamdead]

Want to see. So bad. This and Up! are going to be my only summer theater viewings, methinks...

[Morris Schæffer]

Empire reviews it! Five stars (*****)!!

MIGHT CONTAIN SMALL SPOILERS!!


Plot
Chicago, 1933: as John Dillinger’s (Depp) crime spree makes front-page news, the FBI sends its top man, Melvin Purvis (Bale), to stop the brilliant bank robber. Dillinger, meanwhile, is waylaid by the adorable Billie Frechette (Cotillard)...

Review
Great Scott, what’s this? We’re slap-bang in the middle of the summer season — humankind battling for survival against robots the size of fairground rides, buildings crashing around us like piecrust, rom-coms, bromances, Will Ferrell and Spock — and all of a sudden somebody is treating us like an adult. Within seconds of Michael Mann’s latest crime drama, there comes the chilling realisation that, goddamn it, we have got to use our brain. Who ordered this? We were all relaxed, gormlessly sucking up the latest maelstrom of CG, when something quite brilliant turns up. Rich and complicated lives, moral grey areas and man-sized subject-matter, all located in a down-to-the-plug-sockets recreation of 1933? Surely there’s been a rupture in the time-space continuum?

Indeed, after barely a caption, we’re tossed headlong into a prison break. Although contrary to standard operating procedure, our hero — at least, our antihero — appears to be breaking into prison. Then, Mann, who both directs and rewrote novelist Ronan Bennett’s screenplay based upon Bryan Burrough’s vibrant history, is having no truck with the weary tropes of gangster movies, biopics, period pieces or, for that matter, the basic principles of what we know as films...

Whatever James Cameron’s Avatar may resemble in cinema’s ‘big shake-up’ later this year, this less self-aggrandising film, shot entirely on an ultra-high resolution digital format, marks a new cinematic language. The genre may seem familiar, that rat-a-tat-tat of Tommy guns, molls and dapper hoods, but never with this level of immersion. If Mann’s mission was simply to portray the early ’30s with pin-sharp realism, he has triumphed. This is not a film about the ’30s — it is a film in the ’30s.

Those familiar with a Mann’s man — embattled souls with good skills — will spot the guile and moral slipperiness in John Dillinger. Labelled Public Enemy No. 1 by conniving FBI supremo J. Edgar Hoover, we catch up with him cutting loose after nine years in jail. Dillinger left prison less corrected than fully educated in the criminal sciences, and confident enough to walk straight back into Indiana State Pen and pluck out a hatful of assistant crooks.

His gang, with its shifting headcount of hoodlums (the likes of Baby Face Nelson and Pete Pierpont had an irritating habit
of not being as good as him), took down scores across Chicago and the Midwest with impunity. It was a slick operation, in and out in minutes. Mann, too, has the sense not to dwell on the old hat of movie heists, gliding in and out of these marbled banks to get on with the business of Dillinger’s rise to fame. This is not a film about bank robbing, but a bank robber. And given most of the population were on the verge of starvation, the public saw a dashing hero sticking it to the man, not an enemy.

Himself a movie-lover, Dillinger was greatly amused at how Hollywood would riff on his moves in B-movie gangster flicks playing to millions. Onscreen he gleamed up as Clark Gable, and there is a sly resonance to Johnny Depp slipping into the role — a star part-Gable and part-Dillinger. Already au fait with the legend, Depp has embraced his director’s mission to strip away the wise-guy melodrama and Cagney sneer of movie mythology to see what lies beneath. More contained a vessel than those rock stars Sparrow and Todd, Depp’s Dillinger is equal parts flamboyant devil and Zen-like McCauley professionalism. He treated the press like playthings, nonchalantly posing for snappers, but would take on an icy control as he invaded banks; history has it that he only killed one man.

At the centre of him, and the nut that Depp and Mann are out to crack, lies an enigma — just what motivated the rogue? Money, yes; fame, certainly — but he was manically living for the moment. There was no getaway plan, no 30 second back-out if he felt the heat around the corner. To some degree, he thought himself untouchable.

In one of many fantastical moments based on real events, Dillinger saunters into a Chicago police department, the goons too busy listening to the ball game to pay him any heed, to become rapt in the maps of his crimes, details of his partners, and his own mugshot pinned to the wall. On his way out, he stops to check the score. As with many Depp performances, there is this kind of magical undercurrent, an intoxicating compound of angel and demon.

Naturally, Hoover charged his best man with the task of “getting Dillinger”. Melvin Purvis had just put a rifle bullet through the midriff of a Pretty Boy Floyd fleeing through an apple orchard, and the media were lapping up this G-man’s own good looks. Born into wealth, and happy to show it, Purvis had the aura of a gentleman killer. Bale, with a seamlessly genteel purr, paints him as another consumed by the rigours of his task. A master cop hot on the elusive trail of a master thief... Ring any sirens?

Mann may squirm, but the Heat-in-the-Depression tag is inevitable. The comparisons are numerous: cascading storylines, languid cityscapes, architectural framing and that rigorous unpicking of male psychology (cops and robbers are all deep-down misunderstood). Oh, and midway through, while Dillinger and his gang recuperate in a wooded lodge after a job-gone-sour, Purvis catches up with his foe. Fourteen minutes later — after a symphony of submachine gunfire, that ‘Chicago piano’ — you can breathe again. Like Heat’s LA street battle, it is another extraordinary mix of cinematic verve and physical veracity — every muzzle flash and recoil the product of months of research and testing.

Yet, more than just their eras, the two films feel like different worlds. Such is the docu-clarity of this digital skin, you have to readjust your thinking. This isn’t the glamour of the movies, warmly draped in celluloid, but rather an instantaneous, ‘stunning’ reality: every facial pore, every herringbone stitch, every silvery wisp from a smoking gun comes crystal-clear. Strangely, it makes the film both period and contemporary: history through a sci-fi lens.

And more than just the fiery tale of Dillinger’s final weeks — which would happily serve most filmmakers — Mann takes up the canvas of America itself. Here are the forces that shaped a nation: phones; telegrams; the automobile revolution; the Mafia ditching extortion to make piles of dough from gambling scams; and the newspapers and moviehouses spreading headlines across the country in hours. In a small, memorable role, Billy Crudup as the brilliant Hoover, disdained by his antiquated elders, practices the malign magic of spin doctoring. The head of Dillinger would make his burgeoning FBI, buzzing with anonymous G-men, unstoppable.

Dillinger, if anything, was the product of a different era. He was the last of the great outlaws, a trail of exalted but dubious men leading back to Billy The Kid and Jesse James. Mann’s movie lies at a cusp between great American genres: the dusty borderland between the Western and gangster movie.

It also finds time to be a love story. Billie Frechette, a coat-check girl with eyes like light bulbs, is swept up by Dillinger’s electric charm. “I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars... and you,” he oozes, and she melts. As Billie, the wonderful Marion Cotillard is the heartbeat of the movie — she can see the inevitable doom of Dillinger’s run, yet still tries to swerve the car.

True, Mann is asking a lot of you: myriad characters come and go in the hurly-burly of the plot and we are required to keep up. So hard-and-fast-and-vivid comes the digital detail that it can overwhelm — some may even find it too great a leap from the comfort zone of celluloid, too distracting. Alternatively, here is a film alive in a way we’ve not perceived before: a breathtakingly new visual experience, a precision-choreographed action thriller, and a classically minded piece of American art. You up to it?


Verdict
Intelligent and challenging: Mann’s crime epic could take two viewings to fully absorb, but it’s worth every devoted minute.

[NickGlass]

Soon-to-be Oscar Best Picture nominee.

[Ezee E]

Soon-to-be Oscar Best Picture nominee.
This one I'll believe you in.

[Pop Trash]

Soon-to-be Oscar Best Picture nominee.
Probably.

[right_for_the_moment]

Jeffrey Wells calls it "the most captivating, beautifully composed and freshly conceived gangster movie since Bonnie and Clyde."

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/06/enemies_forever.php

Even if he isn't necessarily a goto opinion in my book, it's still pretty lavish praise

[megladon8]

This is getting incredible reviews all-round.

I never doubted it for a second.

Can't freaking wait.

[number8]

Seeing this tonight. Funny that the thing I'm most excited about is Channing Tatum.

[Dead & Messed Up]

After seeing Collateral and Heat this past year, I have joined the cult of Mann. The Manninites, if you will.

As long as Bale doesn't rasp it up, this should be pretty awesome.

[Ezee E]

Seeing this tonight. Funny that the thing I'm most excited about is Channing Tatum.
I forgot he was even in it. I bet his part is 5 minutes or less.

[megladon8]

Seeing this tonight. Funny that the thing I'm most excited about is Channing Tatum.


I can't see what you like so much about Tatum.

Everything I've seen him in (Havoc, She's the Man, Stop-Loss and Coach Carter) he's been nothing more than pretty boy #154672962014. I just don't get it.



After seeing Collateral and Heat this past year, I have joined the cult of Mann. The Manninites, if you will.

As long as Bale doesn't rasp it up, this should be pretty awesome.

Awesome, dude. Mann is the man.

I know Bale doesn't rasp it up here, but I do find his accent a little worrisome.

[trotchky]

**1/2 from Nick Schager is about what I expected, both from him and the movie.

[number8]

Well this wasn't very good at all.

[Qrazy]

Reposted from my speculation thread for the hell of it.

"It's Michael Mann. It has a solid cast, a fun premise and for some reason Billy Crudup plays J Edgar Hoover. Furthermore Mann is reteaming with cinematographer Dante Spinotti for the first time since The Insider. This teaming also produced Heat and these two films are the best Mann has to offer in my mind. Unfortunately none of the writers have particularly distinguished themselves and if history has shown us anything with Mann it's that when he stumbles it has more to do with script issues than with his direction. Then again Mann did take some role in the Public Enemies screenplay and he wrote Heat so the script concerns may not be too large. However he also wrote Miami Vice so the script concerns are now reinstated. This film will be better than American Gangster and Miami Vice. However it will not be as good as Heat or The Insider. But it will be a top five Mann film. I give this film a B for script issues and other minor quibbles."

[Sycophant]

Well this wasn't very good at all.

This is a very sad thing I just read.

[transmogrifier]

This is a very sad thing I just read.

This is the guy that prefers Nolan to Mann, and thus his opinion on this is completely ignorable :)

[Morris Schæffer]

Well this wasn't very good at all.

Probably the hardest thing I've ever had to believe. ;)

[megladon8]

No damage at all to my hopes and expectations.

Hope to see this tomorrow, and if not, very soon.

[number8]

I forgot he was even in it. I bet his part is 5 minutes or less.

You were almost right, by the way. He was in it for like 30 seconds. :sad:

Bale was boring. I'm getting irritated by his complacency.

[megladon8]

I'd have to say that I agree that Nolan > Mann when looking at their filmographies.

Even Nolan's worst movie (Insomnia) I'd rate at about 7.

Mann has two 10's, an 8, a 7, and a 5.

[number8]

Oh, yeah -- something funny happened.

At the end of the movie, during the credits, it has that usual "So and so person later did this and died on this year while doing this" text for the remaining characters, right, and that apparently prompted this lady sitting behind me to loudly exclaim, "Oh, is this based on a true story?!"

Pretty much all the guys I was sitting with facepalmed.

[Amnesiac]

Pretty much all the guys I was sitting with facepalmed.

Sounds like a supercilious good time. Honestly, no offense, but who cares? Why did she have to know beforehand? Unless the movie began with a disclaimer denoting its basis in true events, I don't see why it's such a big deal. The lady may not have even seen a trailer, let alone realized it was based off of actual events. It seems more logical to gripe about the volume of her comments (and when she decided to say them) than the content of those comments.

[megladon8]

You don't think that once the name "John Dillinger" was mentioned, she probably should've realized?

I mean, he's America's Robin Hood.

[Amnesiac]

I'm not American, but I never knew about Dillinger until the buzz started around this movie. I guess I'm not the best candidate to argue for or against the idea that John Dillinger is a household name.

I just find it kind of silly to roll your eyes at some random woman who didn't happen to brush up on her 1930s bank-robbing history before going to see the movie.

[number8]

Um, okay. I'm not going to further judge her or anything, but it was a surprising and quite hilarious thing to hear being said out loud after the movie, and we reacted accordingly. I mean, John Dillinger is one of the most famous criminals in American history. Pretty much the most famous robber ever aside from, well, Robin Hood. The movie never had the "true story" label at any point, which should tell you how much it's a given that people know he's a real fella (although I wonder if they'll tack that on for international release).

Imagine if you go see, I dunno, Ali, and someone exclaimed that at the end.

[Sycophant]

I knew the name John Dillinger, but up until about five minutes ago you could've told me he was a 19th century oil tycoon and I would've believed you.

[Amnesiac]

Something about number8's story/reaction just seemed so unnecessarily judgmental is all. Usually I don't mind the 'so and so did this and I totally facepalmed!' stories because they usually involve some unequivocally atrocious behaviour going on in the theater... but this one just struck me as slightly unwarranted.

I guess I really can't relate to the idea of Dillinger being so absolutely ingrained in the social consciousness.

[Grouchy]

I'm not American and I knew who Dillinger was way before this movie.

That old lady is quite bananas.

[Amnesiac]

Okay, I guess we can conclude by confirming that this is a divisive issue (as in me, vs most other people) dependent on whether one knew about or didn't know about Dilinger (and depending on whether those who did know about him consider that knowledge a deciding factor in confirming some random lady's sanity).

[megladon8]

I'm not questioning the woman's sanity, judging her or her intelligence in any way, or anything like that.

I just found the comment comical.

[megladon8]

My comment was a facetious reply to Grouchy's comment about the woman being 'bananas', not a serious accusation.


I know, I was simply making my position clear - I found the comment that the woman made to be funny, but I wasn't making any judgments of her as a person.

[Ezee E]

I'd say Capone is America's most well-known criminal.

[Thirdmango]

Just saw this. It was okay, some parts could have been longer, some shorter. My biggest problem with the film came

in the camera work. There were so many moments which kept reminding me that there was a camera there. It was so much more noticeable then most any film I can think of.

I was happy that I went into it not knowing what it was about, not really until the starting talked about Babyface did I realize it was based on true events. But like others, I had never heard of Sallinger. Babyface and Al Capone are the only famous mobsters I really have heard of.

[Morris Schæffer]

Whoa this has a Tomatometer rating of 57%. Never saw that coming.

[Sven]

I haven't seen the film yet, but this general statement holds true nonetheless:

Warren Oates > Johnny Depp

[number8]

Mi es full review el live.

[Duncan]

Some reviews (Manohla Dargis, in particular) I tend to side with have really like this, so I'm still hopeful.

[Raiders]

Whoa this has a Tomatometer rating of 57%. Never saw that coming.

Higher than Miami Vice, which I thought was terrific, so whatever. I'm still there this weekend.

[Thirdmango]

After watching it I can believe 57%, I might give it slightly higher, but 57 is about right.

The other problem I had with the film that I forgot to mention last night.

It was really hard understanding who all of the characters were since I wasn't familiar with who everyone was. There were so many people and so little saying who they actually were. You had to really pay attention to hearing each name once and remember who everyone looked like. For those who are well versed with the era I doubt it would be a problem but for those of us who aren't it was tough.

[Qrazy]

Just saw this. It was okay, some parts could have been longer, some shorter. My biggest problem with the film came

in the camera work. There were so many moments which kept reminding me that there was a camera there. It was so much more noticeable then most any film I can think of.

I was happy that I went into it not knowing what it was about, not really until the starting talked about Babyface did I realize it was based on true events. But like others, I had never heard of Sallinger. Babyface and Al Capone are the only famous mobsters I really have heard of.

Why was this? Does he break the fourth wall or was it the digital?

[MacGuffin]

I wonder whether the people who don't like this are the same people who don't like Miami Vice. A lot of things I've been reading complain about the fact that the movie is digital. It worked for Miami Vice though and to that movie's advantage, so who knows?

[Qrazy]

I wonder whether the people who don't like this are the same people who don't like Miami Vice. A lot of things I've been reading complain about the fact that the movie is digital. It worked for Miami Vice though and to that movie's advantage, so who knows?

Still context-wise I think (purely hypothetically) it would work better with Miami Vice. I was very mixed on Miami Vice. I thought it had amazing sound design. I liked much of Mann's formal approach but I found the narrative and characters very uninteresting. Probably give it a C+ or something.

[number8]

Why was this? Does he break the fourth wall or was it the digital?

It looks very digital. Very home movie-ish. A lot of the scenes, like characters standing around in the kitchen in their 1930's clothes, the HD camera's just... there. Standing around, panning left and right, handheld.

It looks like someone sent a documentary crew through a time machine.

[MacGuffin]

Still context-wise I think (purely hypothetically) it would work better with Miami Vice. I was very mixed on Miami Vice. I thought it had amazing sound design. I liked much of Mann's formal approach but I found the narrative and characters very uninteresting. Probably give it a C+ or something.

Fair enough I guess if you're approaching it as a narrative movie, but I don't think it is one.

[Qrazy]

Fair enough I guess if you're approaching it as a narrative movie, but I don't think it is one.

This isn't Brakhage. It's a narrative film and it can either succeed, fail or fall somewhere in between on a narrative level. Although that is not it's only level. I don't think it was very successful on that level. The style was to me interesting, what it was communicating was at times interesting but largely (in my eyes) not.

[MacGuffin]

This isn't Brakhage. It's a narrative film and it can either succeed, fail or fall somewhere in between on a narrative level. Although that is not it's only level. I don't think it was very successful on that level. The style was to me interesting, what it was communicating was at times interesting but largely (in my eyes) not.

For a narrative, it doesn't have much of a coherent plot. I enjoyed the movie more as a mood piece and an exercise in onscreen light-play.

[Mysterious Dude]

I thought the digital cinematography in Miami Vice looked really bad, especially the night scenes. I'm amazed that I am, apparently, in the minority about that.

This film looks like a typical shoot-em-up from Mann.

[Qrazy]

For a narrative, it doesn't have much of a coherent plot. I enjoyed the movie more as a mood piece and an exercise in onscreen light-play.

Well that's what I'm saying. The plot is not interesting and I think that it could be. I also don't think the film's ideas are all that interesting.I also enjoyed it's atmosphere and to a certain degree it's aesthetic, but I don't think having a compelling atmosphere and aesthetic precludes a worthwhile story.

[Qrazy]

I thought the digital cinematography in Miami Vice looked really bad, especially the night scenes. I'm amazed that I am, apparently, in the minority about that.

This film looks like a typical shoot-em-up from Mann.

I kind of agree.

[MacGuffin]

Well that's what I'm saying. The plot is not interesting and I think that it could be. I also don't think the film's ideas are all that interesting.I also enjoyed it's atmosphere and to a certain degree it's aesthetic, but I don't think having a compelling atmosphere and aesthetic precludes a worthwhile story.

Okay. I didn't approach as a narrative when I heard comparisons to Brakhage and I liked it more than I thought I would.

[Pop Trash]

It looks very digital. Very home movie-ish. A lot of the scenes, like characters standing around in the kitchen in their 1930's clothes, the HD camera's just... there. Standing around, panning left and right, handheld.

It looks like someone sent a documentary crew through a time machine.

See that sounds kind of awesome to me. Anyways, a lot of critics I respect (Dargis, Scott Foundas, and Ebert, to name a few) really like it so that's enough for me to be there this weekend. Oddly, I haven't seen a Mann film since The Insider and I was wondering why that was. I think it was due to me not being a huge fan of Will Smith, Tom Cruise, or Colin Farrell (or Jamie Foxx to a slightly lesser extent) but if I like this I think I'll go back and watch Collateral and Miami Vice. Still gunna skip Ali though.

[trotchky]

Yeah, Dargis sold me on the film. I'll be seeing it as soon as probable.

[Lucky]

For those who have seen it, I'm curious if they actually mention he was jailed in Crown Point or just condescendingly say "Indiana" like they do in the trailer.

[The Mike]

After watching it I can believe 57%, I might give it slightly higher, but 57 is about right.

The other problem I had with the film that I forgot to mention last night.

It was really hard understanding who all of the characters were since I wasn't familiar with who everyone was. There were so many people and so little saying who they actually were. You had to really pay attention to hearing each name once and remember who everyone looked like. For those who are well versed with the era I doubt it would be a problem but for those of us who aren't it was tough.
Definitely agree with this. Other Mann's I've loved have done such a great job of drawing out characters, even in supporting roles, but here it's just a mess. Heck, the people that did get introduced got introduced while their faces were in shadows.

I also was annoyed by how characters......
vanished from the story (to jail somewhere), and then show up on the DECEASED board at the end with no explanation.

Plus, the thing was just poorly shot. Way too many closeups, the action scenes were 97% flashing guns, and a jiggly camera in random moments.

So disappointing. I have trouble believing the real Mann directed it.

[ledfloyd]

But like others, I had never heard of Sallinger. Babyface and Al Capone are the only famous mobsters I really have heard of.
he's known for staying out of the public eye.

[MacGuffin]

he's known for staying out of the public eye.

Wait, J. D. Salinger?

[trotchky]

Wait, J. D. Salinger?

Whoa, Salinger is a criminal now?

[MacGuffin]

Whoa, Salinger is a criminal now?

Wait, didn't J. D. Salinger stay out of the public eye?

[trotchky]

Wait, didn't J. D. Salinger stay out of the public eye?

Yeah, he did.

So it makes sense that he was involved in organized crime, I guess.

[trotchky]

That's pretty fucking disappointing, though. I really admired him when I was younger.

[number8]

You guys are kidding around, right?

[Kurosawa Fan]

You guys are kidding around, right?

God I hope so.

[Derek]

God I hope so.

You are unaware of the Salinger crime family?

[Rowland]

Matt Zoller Seitz's defense of the film.

http://www.ifc.com/news/2009/07/new-wave-old-guard.php

[Kurosawa Fan]

You are unaware of the Salinger crime family?

This explains the connection between Catcher and the Rye and serial killers. :eek:

[Derek]

This explains the connection between Catcher and the Rye and serial killers. :eek:

Plus, if you read between the lines, Franny & Zooey is obviously based on the Bonnie & Clyde story. I'm not sure how Bloomberg fits in there; maybe as the silent assassin.

[number8]

Thirdmango, I hate you so much right now.

[Sycophant]

I don't know, I find this whole mixup very, very amusing.

[Eleven]

"Reclusive novelists-turned-folk hero criminals" could work as a Python sketch.

[Raiders]

John Dillinger... J.D. Salinger...

COINCIDENCE?

I don't think so.

[eternity]

Whenever I read critics talk about a movie like Crank being a "video game movie", I always shake my head because the critics tend to be really out of touch with what a video game is.

Public Enemies is a video game movie. Every action scene conveniently placed out and in a mission styled format; robbing a bank, escaping out of a prison, evading the cops, all with checkpoints throughout Mann's direction and a pretty laid out structure. Then to the film's own demise, everything in between these action sequences are wafer-thin and completely wasted, making all the emotional and important aspects of the later parts of the film mean absolutely nothing. I hear some say that's the point, but there's no added benefit to having a bunch of built up screentime be increasingly worthless as the film goes on.

But damn, Dillinger has balls the size of my head.

[Thirdmango]

Thirdmango, I hate you so much right now.

The funny thing is, I was actually being serious. I know very little about famous criminals in US history. The Mob is something I've done very little study on.

As for the camera work I like the time machine comment cause that's what it felt like. It was very jarring because I would be in one of those states where I'm so engrossed that I forget it's a movie and suddenly I would become very aware of the camera like when the camera was in the car on the bumpy road or right up in someone's face as they were walking around the room. It kept breaking the 4th wall for me and taking me out of the mood they intended me to be in.

[Rowland]

It kept breaking the 4th wall for me and taking me out of the mood they intended me to be in.I haven't seen this yet, but maybe Mann's intent was for these instances to function as intentional distancing effects to keep you out of period immersion. Just throwing that out there, since I don't know if such an approach would fit the movie.

[Stay Puft]

Whenever I read critics talk about a movie like Crank being a "video game movie", I always shake my head because the critics tend to be really out of touch with what a video game is.

Yeah, but in the case of Crank, it actually is a "video game movie" (functioning basically like a GTA adaptation, or critique).

I can think of a couple other examples where this would be true, too (like Speed Racer).

[Sven]

Yeah, but in the case of Crank, it actually is a "video game movie" (functioning basically like a GTA adaptation, or critique).

I can think of a couple other examples where this would be true, too (like Speed Racer).

Yeah, for reals. You would have to be willing yourself into denial if you insist that Crank does not demonstrate even contemporary video game functionality.

[trotchky]

Crank's final shootout basically takes place in the Mushroom Kingdom.

[number8]

I think video game movies are more like Resident Evil or Mortal Kombat.

[Thirdmango]

I haven't seen this yet, but maybe Mann's intent was for these instances to function as intentional distancing effects to keep you out of period immersion. Just throwing that out there, since I don't know if such an approach would fit the movie.

A friend actually gave me this argument today in much greater detail and once he did I totally saw what Mann was going for, he was able to sway my thoughts on the matter.

[Sycophant]

The Crank movies sure tried to signal to us they were video game movies through their aesthetics. They wanted to make sure we didn't miss that.

[Melville]

This was a really good movie. By far my favorite of Mann's. The digital photography is great; it actually looks good, which I wouldn't have exprected from the trailers, and it does a lot more than just give the film a contemporary, "this is happening now" feel (though it does that really well). The whole take on the gangster genre is very interesting. Little things like the preponderance of woody terrain, when combined with the cinematography, distance the movie from typical gangster iconography. There's a lot of other very self-reflexive stuff too, with gangster movies appearing and Dillinger being filmed by newsmen. But it also manages to have a pretty compelling cast of characters and narrative, which I think Mann frequently fails to do. And there's a lot of interesting stuff with the FBI too, which is used to give the whole thing a feeling of witnessing a historical shift in crime and crime-fighting. There's a very intriguing collection of contrasting elements: the gangster tropes (which are definitely there even if they're being reinterpreted), the feeling of historical importance, the self-reflexivity, the gritty immediacy of the cinematography (with the best gunshots I've ever seen...bursts of light in the darkness), and the characters who are depicted as very real and flawed but simultaneously living on an epic scope.

[Pop Trash]

I thought it was good, but never quite jumped up to greatness. The second half is better than the first half. It seemed to rev up into another gear from about the cabin shootout until the ending. Very intense from then on.

Formally, I still have some misgivings with how Mann shot this thing. It's not so much the HDDV that I have issues with, it's more of some of the overly sloppy camerawork (intentional or not) and how Mann likes to have the cameras way up in the actors' grill a lot of the time. It's not good enough to have a standard close-up, it's like he wants the camera lens to be touching their chin.

I actually thought the action scenes were the best things in the movie, but whenever I explain this to people (in real life) I keep thinking I sound like some sort of Transformers loving popcorn muncher. Like "dude, the action scenes were sweet but the love story was weak yo!" but that's pretty much how I felt about it. Mann spacially and (like Melville mentioned) audio-wise just knows how to shoot a viscerally intense action scene. The gunfire sounded great, but it was the same way in Heat (which is a better film overall).

A lot of the self-reflexive stuff was interesting. but it reminded me of The Assassination of Jesse James, which is just a superior film in general in terms of cinematography, music, acting, directing, etc.

Overall it's a good film, and it might improve on multiple viewings, but never quite leaps in to greatness.

[Wryan]

I liked it, but I didn't like the photography...and I love Spinotti. Love.

Sometimes the camerawork is intense and immediate and it works. Other times it looks like the home movies of the community theatre players. They look like actors and not characters. Possibly didn't help that so many bit parts were played by familiar (by face) actors. The night driving forest shootout at the end looked grainy as all fuck. I do concede, though, that all of this gave the violence some truly vicious punch, helped along by the gut-vibrating sound and effects, because it feels like real people are getting shot to shit. I dunno. Mostly effective but I didn't like the cinematography all that much. I guess I prefer the slightly soft and dreamy film look. Looks more fantastic and distant.

[Melville]

A lot of the self-reflexive stuff was interesting. but it reminded me of The Assassination of Jesse James, which is just a superior film in general in terms of cinematography, music, acting, directing, etc.

Yeah, the friend I saw it with also compared it to The Assassination of Jesse James. I never would have thought to compare them, since they go about their genre reinventions and takes on famous criminals so differently, but the comparison makes sense. I agree that the Jesse James movie was the better of the two.

[Sxottlan]

It's nagging at me that there was some other film recently that used "Bye Bye Blackbird" and now for the life of me I can't remember what it was.

On the whole, I found this movie to be a little dry.

[Chac Mool]

Matt Zoller Seitz's defense of the film.

http://www.ifc.com/news/2009/07/new-wave-old-guard.php

That's an excellent defense. I don't, however, agree with two of its main points.

The replacement of a conventional narrative structure by a collection of real-time scenes is said to add immediacy. Maybe it does, but there's a reason the traditional language of movies evolved as it does -- emphasis, whether through acting or a visual cue or music, serves to build drama and empathy, and to make connections between viewer and character. Public Enemies lacks these features, leading to a lingering aftertaste of "So what?"

And while Seitz argues that the use of high-def DV adds also adds immediacy and a certain level of immersiveness (as if we're watching home video), I found it jarring. My mind knows that this type of digital video did not exist in the 1930s, and so this dichotomy takes me out of the film. My mind is, however, used to period pieces shot on "normal" film -- the latter approach would have been more discreet, drawing less attention to itself, and would probably have led to a more immersive experience for me.

[Chac Mool]

It's nagging at me that there was some other film recently that used "Bye Bye Blackbird" and now for the life of me I can't remember what it was.

On the whole, I found this movie to be a little dry.

King Kong.

[Mysterious Dude]

A lot of the self-reflexive stuff was interesting. but it reminded me of The Assassination of Jesse James, which is just a superior film in general in terms of cinematography, music, acting, directing, etc.I actually thought of Jesse James, too, but mainly because I now compare almost all crime films to Jesse James. It's just so good.

[Sxottlan]

King Kong.

*slaps forehead*

Yes! Thank you! The most haunting part of that film. How could I have forgotten it?

[Thirdmango]

*slaps forehead*

Yes! Thank you! The most haunting part of that film. How could I have forgotten it?

Because King Kong was the longest most boring movie in years?

[Skitch]

Because King Kong was the longest most boring movie in years?

No.

[Wryan]

Because King Kong was the longest most boring movie in years?

Wrong! KK was awesome. And it used "Bye Bye Blackbird" a bit better; overkill here. We get it. It's her theme song.

[transmogrifier]

Because King Kong was the longest most boring movie in years?

Incorrect. Some days I think King Kong, Live Free and Die Hard and Mr and Mrs Smith are the only fully enjoyable big-budget actioners in the last five years.

[lovejuice]

Incorrect. Some days I think King Kong, Live Free and Die Hard and Mr and Mrs Smith are the only fully enjoyable big-budget actioners in the last five years.
KK is not boring, but it's sure overblown. LFaDH is awesome, agree. can't ever understand the love for MaMS.

[transmogrifier]

KK is not boring, but it's sure overblown. LFaDH is awesome, agree. can't ever understand the love for MaMS.

I don't know there is all that much love for MaMS around these parts.

Anyway, it could have been one of the best action films of all time if the last shoot out sequence had been any good.

[Sxottlan]

Because King Kong was the longest most boring movie in years?

Checking... Checking... No.

[lovejuice]

Anyway, it could have been one of the best action films of all time if the last shoot out sequence had been any good.
ok, now i somewhat agree with you. the sequence really turns me off the whole movie.

[Morris Schæffer]

KK is not boring, but it's sure overblown. LFaDH is awesome, agree. can't ever understand the love for MaMS.

Agreed on all of these. King Kong is a tad indulgent, but my god compare it to most overblown summer blockbusters and it's a friggin' godsend.

[Sven]

Possibly the best movie (heh, out of what, 5?) that I've seen this year. So good, so exciting. The digital photography, though occasionally expressive, nerfs its potential for greatness. When watching the montage of actresses within the film at the end, one can't help but note that the rich allure of "The Pictures" is thus far impossible with digital, transforming human skin into a porous, sickly thing. With a proper film mounting the same shots, this could be a masterpiece. Depp is a bit miscast (a little too badass, perhaps?), though is occasionally brilliant. The big surprise here was the smoldering performance by Bale, which was excellent. Shoot-outs, incredible. Love the style, love the way it was subtly a film about film stardom (or maybe obsession?). Mann is officially back in my good graces after the limp Ali and the inept wankery of Miami Vice. I just wish he'd drop the digital.

I am convinced that nobody is as good at shooting the sky.

[Sven]

I forgot about Crank 2, which definitely uses its digital qualities more expressively than this one does. That's my favorite of the year. This is a close second. I like the way Melville mentioned its layered reflexivity. I don't really have the confidence to talk about PE's "meta" qualities, but as a work of crafty action, it is impeccable. I'd put it on par with Heat, both tied for my second favorite Mann film after Collateral.

[Ivan Drago]

I forgot about Crank 2, which definitely uses its digital qualities more expressively than this one does. That's my favorite of the year.

I love you. :pritch:

[Rowland]

I'd put it on par with Heat, both tied for my second favorite Mann film after Collateral.Collateral is bewilderingly underrated by most of the critical establishment, so kudos for this opinion. Its direction alone is masterfully expressive and endlessly canny in its perceptiveness.

[ledfloyd]

i enjoyed it but flat characterization and a roughshod screenplay kept it from entering the realm of collateral, the insider or heat for me.

[Derek]

Collateral is bewilderingly underrated by most of the critical establishment, so kudos for this opinion. Its direction alone is masterfully expressive and endlessly canny in its perceptiveness.

It's 86% on RottenTomatoes and, at least from what I've come across, seems to be Mann's most highly praised film since The Insider. I'd give the bewilderingly underrated Mann film award to Miami Vice, which I at least prefer to Public Enemies and Ali from this decade.


i enjoyed it but flat characterization and a roughshod screenplay kept it from entering the realm of collateral, the insider or heat for me.

Yeah, I thought the screenplay was the weakest part of the film as well.

[Rowland]

It's 86% on RottenTomatoes and, at least from what I've come across, seems to be Mann's most highly praised film since The Insider.Yeah, I guess I sometimes forget that the writers I follow don't necessarily reflect the critical establishment. I should have said that it's underrated by my bubble of critics I follow, most of whom seemed to prefer Miami Vice, which you're probably right as being more underrated by the mainstream critical establishment.

[Derek]

Yeah, I guess I sometimes forget that the writers I follow don't necessarily reflect the critical establishment. I should have said that it's underrated by my bubble of critics I follow, most of whom seemed to prefer Miami Vice, which you're probably right as being more underrated by the mainstream critical establishment.

I was actually expecting it to be around 60-65% when I checked and was shocked, though happy, to see it that high.

[trotchky]

Incorrect. Some days I think King Kong, Live Free and Die Hard and Mr and Mrs Smith are the only fully enjoyable big-budget actioners in the last five years.

Whoa, whoa, let's slow down here a second. Mr. and Mrs. Smith? I don't know if I've ever hated a movie more than that one. I don't know what anyone could possibly see in it...and I don't know if I'm prepared to find out...

[transmogrifier]

Whoa, whoa, let's slow down here a second. Mr. and Mrs. Smith? I don't know if I've ever hated a movie more than that one. I don't know what anyone could possibly see in it...and I don't know if I'm prepared to find out...

Well, you won't from me, so worry not.

[trotchky]

Well, you won't from me, so worry not.

Just to be clear, I was only joking around. Of course your thoughts on movies are always appreciated, even if it were this one. :)

[transmogrifier]

Just to be clear, I was only joking around. Of course your thoughts on movies are always appreciated, even if it were this one. :)

Oh, I wasn't offended. Mr and Mrs Smith is hardly a film that needs to be analyzed in order to understand and/or appreciate. It's pretty much all there in the blurb and the poster. You either like it or not, and there's not really much else to be done about it :)

[Sycophant]

At 3:00 p.m. I was a believer in digital as the way of cinema future.

At 5:25 p.m. I was a skeptic.

And even apart from that, I was kind of disappointed.

[Mysterious Dude]

One thing that really bugs me about this movie. I'm a big fan of location cinematography, and this film was shot on location in Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana. But what is the point of going all the way to Indiana to film a movie if you're going to have the camera so close to the actor's faces for 90% of the film that you can't see the location at all?

And I wonder about the digital video. I was aware of it throughout the film, but when I talked to my friends later, they did not notice the difference. I'm sure I just have a somewhat more trained eye when it comes to movies. What I realized, though, is that there's nothing really "wrong" with the picture. It's perfectly clear and detailed, so why does it seem wrong to me? It's something in the way things movie that reminds me of a news report or a sitcom, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it, is there? I know digital is the way of the future. I assume it will eventually get to the point where I can't tell the difference, but maybe it won't. Maybe it'll always look a little wrong to me.

[BuffaloWilder]

I saw Moon instead of this. Is it worth making another trek back across town for?

[Sycophant]

I've seen many films shot digitally where it didn't stand out to me like it did in this film. Including Zodiac, Superbad, Prairie Home Companion. And I don't think it was the period setting that was throwing me off. This didn't always look like digital cinema; sometimes it just looked like video with awkward, inherently video effects (like light pooling and pixelation). In other pictures, they strategically shot around these limitations of video, or lit properly. Maybe it's not that digital cinema is not the future. Maybe it's just that Dante Spinotti won't be the one to take us there.

Also, I gotta agree with Antoine that the film's lack of focus on geography was kind of confusing, especially since so much was shot on location.

[ledfloyd]

i was thinking about that the other night. that things like Zodiac, Superbad and Prairie Home Companion didn't bug me like Public Enemies. i think those guys were trying to make digital look like film where Mann seems to underscore the digitalness of digital. i suppose it's unfair to expect digital to look like film as they are completely different media, but the... 3dness of video is unsettling. this worked to the films advantage in the nighttime shootout scene, the immediacy of it left me a bit nervous and unsettled. but generally it's just ugly and bothersome.

[Dukefrukem]

I hope I didn't miss all the discussion on this. But I thought this film was pretty meh to me. There were three great scenes that stand out; The Escape from the jail (not the prison), The forest gunfight, and the last bank job. I loved the music during the escape from the jail... soft guitar and drums. Nicely done. Depp is great as he usually is and I LOVED the line; " I like baseball, movies, good clothes, whiskey, fast cars... and you". The movie just didn't have any interesting ideas. Everything was dull (except for Depp) especially the ending. Bale was god awful. I could hear him fumbling over the 30's dialect and waiting for him just to say "fuck it" and speak with a British accent. Mann's worst film.

[eternity]

Is there some sort of significance to the film being set to Otis Taylor's "Ten Million Slaves" the whole time?

[ledfloyd]

Depp is great as he usually is and I LOVED the line; " I like baseball, movies, good clothes, whiskey, fast cars... and you".
i've been reading the book and apparently dillinger never drank whiskey, he drank beer if he drank anything and the members of his gang only recalled seeing him drunk on one occasion.

for a movie praised as being historically and factually accurate there are quite a few things in the first half of the book that are changed in the film.

[Sycophant]

for a movie praised as being historically and factually accurate

Is it? As I understand, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd died in ways and at times that were nothing like what's in the movie.

[ledfloyd]

Is it? As I understand, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd died in ways and at times that were nothing like what's in the movie.
well, i've read about mann's attention to historical detail and shooting on location etc. etc.

i haven't gotten that far, but so far dillinger's involvement in the opening jailbreak amounted to throwing some guns over the jail wall. purvis wasn't on the dillinger case until halfway or so through the movie. purvis was pretty inept at running investigations. and dillinger wasn't the leader of his gang until after the wooden pistol jailbreak.

[Sven]

OMG, they changed history!

[Sycophant]

I should clarify that I don't give a tenth of a damn about whether or not the thing's historically accurate. But it did strike me as odd that it would be "praised" for its accuracy when accuracy was obviously the last thing on its mind.

[Sven]

Praising a film for its historical accuracy is about as meaningless as praising an actor for how good their hair looks. Fine, if you're in the history or hair business or hobbies. But does it make the movie better or worse? A resounding "no."

[Sycophant]

I agree.

[Sven]

I don't think what I awkwardly said there conveyed precisely what I meant to say. Because I don't think that reality shouldn't be a part of gauging a film's text. I suppose I just think of it more like falling within a grand and timely tradition of embellishment for meaning. It is a little disingenuous when these unspoken alterations are consumed by an audience assuming historical accuracy (which is in large part due to the film's advertising and absence of a noticeable disclaimer). But I contest that this is still more the fault of the audience, having too idealized notions of the filmmakers' role as journalist. I mean... how many Greeks actually bought as explanations of defeat that Apollo shot their armies full of arrows from Olympus? I doubt many, though that could be a faulty assumption. Still, I'd love to live in a world where it was universally understood that historical entertainments did not have to be accounts of facts.

[Dukefrukem]

i've been reading the book and apparently dillinger never drank whiskey, he drank beer if he drank anything and the members of his gang only recalled seeing him drunk on one occasion.

for a movie praised as being historically and factually accurate there are quite a few things in the first half of the book that are changed in the film.

well that's unfortunate.

[megladon8]

I loved it.

[ledfloyd]

i agree you guys that historical accuracy is meaningless as a criticism. bonnie and clyde is terribly inaccurate yet a great film. i suppose public enemies failings cause me to pick it apart more.

the other thing is the way mann presents the material. it's almost like a documentary/you are there approach. he seems to flaunt general dramatic conventions and give it an art film feeling. i suppose it's still irrelevant that he changed things, but it seems more substantial when attempting a documentary style.


(which is in large part due to the film's advertising and absence of a noticeable disclaimer). Still, I'd love to live in a world where it was universally understood that historical entertainments did not have to be accounts of facts.
i agree with this. but it has me thinking maybe the fact that it's credited as an adaptation of a non-fiction book and not as a dramatic retelling of dillinger's life is the difference here. previous films on dillinger were not credited as adaptations. which leaves one expecting less in the realm of historical accuracy.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I liked it. I thought it felt more like a Michael Mann movie than a John Dillinger movie. I mean, two guys on opposite sides of the law, stuck in their routines because it's simply what they're good at, a woman on the sidelines who's there to mostly be enamored of and victimized. I wish Christian Bale was given more to do - his straight arrow isn't allowed any real dynamism or passion. And I really wish Mann didn't depend on handheld camera so much. He can get some striking compositions and rhythms when he locks down the camera and builds his sequences. But overall, a fascinating close-up of a man who spends most of his time avoiding the truth of his impossible lifestyle.

Also, I demand a Hoover bio-pic with Billy Crudup.

[number8]

i haven't gotten that far, but so far dillinger's involvement in the opening jailbreak amounted to throwing some guns over the jail wall. purvis wasn't on the dillinger case until halfway or so through the movie. purvis was pretty inept at running investigations. and dillinger wasn't the leader of his gang until after the wooden pistol jailbreak.

Read about the FBI too, if you can. The incident at the Little Bohemia Lodge is supposed to be one of the biggest black eyes in their history. Unlike in the film, it was actually a complete failure. The FBI mistakenly killed 3 innocent people, lost a man and killed/captured none of their targets. The whole gang escaped. The movie made them look better by having Purvis take down Nelson, which didn't happen until months later, and not even by Purvis.

[eternity]

Dang, this movie is quite the history rapte, isn't it...

[Robby P]

Read about the FBI too, if you can. The incident at the Little Bohemia Lodge is supposed to be one of the biggest black eyes in their history. Unlike in the film, it was actually a complete failure. The FBI mistakenly killed 3 innocent people, lost a man and killed/captured none of their targets. The whole gang escaped. The movie made them look better by having Purvis take down Nelson, which didn't happen until months later, and not even by Purvis.

Yes, this entire scene really bugged me. Not just for the fact that it was historically inaccurate and comically executed but also because Mann completely failed to grasp the significance of the event, choosing to avoid a compelling thematic angle in favor of staging yet another mindless gun fight orgy.

Really disappointed in this movie. Rare moments of transcendence surrounded by prolonged bouts of insufferable tedium. Probably my least favorite Mann picture thus far.

[Dukefrukem]

Yes, this entire scene really bugged me. Not just for the fact that it was historically inaccurate and comically executed but also because Mann completely failed to grasp the significance of the event, choosing to avoid a compelling thematic angle in favor of staging yet another mindless gun fight orgy.

Really disappointed in this movie. Rare moments of transcendence surrounded by prolonged bouts of insufferable tedium. Probably my least favorite Mann picture thus far.

Aside from the historical inaccuracies you mention, I agree. It reminded me of Miami Vice way too much.

so Mann;

Heat (1995)
Collateral (2004)
The Insider (1999)
Ali (2001)
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
Manhunter (1986)
Miami Vice (2006)
Public Enemies (2009)

[number8]

Yes, this entire scene really bugged me. Not just for the fact that it was historically inaccurate and comically executed but also because Mann completely failed to grasp the significance of the event, choosing to avoid a compelling thematic angle in favor of staging yet another mindless gun fight orgy.

I agree. I don't nitpick about historical accuracy and I believe dramatic license is excusable, but to an extent. When you take a significant event, probably the most significant scene in the story aside from Dillinger's death, and you turn it into just another action scene (and a badly shot one at that), while you manufacture fictional scenes that are much less dramatic than the real thing, you are simply doing it wrong. Now you're entering Ron Howard-Akiva Goldsman territory.

[Wryan]

Maybe it's just that Dante Spinotti won't be the one to take us there.

Did he do Ali and wasn't part of that in digital? Anyway, I love his film work. Possibly right that he hasn't gotten a good handle on digital yet.

[Sycophant]

Did he do Ali and wasn't part of that in digital? Anyway, I love his film work. Possibly right that he hasn't gotten a good handle on digital yet.

That was Lubezki. Spinotti's last collaboration with Man was The Insider.

[Wryan]

Kk.

[Chac Mool]

so Mann;

Heat (1995)
Collateral (2004)
The Insider (1999)
Ali (2001)
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
Manhunter (1986)
Miami Vice (2006)
Public Enemies (2009)

I am in full agreement with that list.

[ledfloyd]

Read about the FBI too, if you can. The incident at the Little Bohemia Lodge is supposed to be one of the biggest black eyes in their history. Unlike in the film, it was actually a complete failure. The FBI mistakenly killed 3 innocent people, lost a man and killed/captured none of their targets. The whole gang escaped. The movie made them look better by having Purvis take down Nelson, which didn't happen until months later, and not even by Purvis.
yeah i just got to that part in the book. purvis gets taken off command of the dillinger squad not too long after that. reading how he repeatedly fucked up makes his suicide make a hell of a lot more sense than it did in the film.

[megladon8]

Held up really nicely on a second viewing.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm seeing this on tuesday. I still think I'm going to see absolute greatness.

[chrisnu]

2 1/2 hours of meh. The most interesting aspect of the story, for me, was J. Edgar Hoover and the contrast of the shiny G-men image and the torturous interrogation tactics. I also like how defiant Dillinger was in the face of the police.

[Fezzik]

Read about the FBI too, if you can. The incident at the Little Bohemia Lodge is supposed to be one of the biggest black eyes in their history. Unlike in the film, it was actually a complete failure. The FBI mistakenly killed 3 innocent people, lost a man and killed/captured none of their targets. The whole gang escaped. The movie made them look better by having Purvis take down Nelson, which didn't happen until months later, and not even by Purvis.

100% spot on. Again, historical accuracy is not the measure of a great film, but in this case, I find the actual events to be much more interesting.

When the FBI got to Little Bohemia, the lodge owner's dogs started barking but Dillinger and his gang paid no attention because the dogs were always barking.

It wasn't until after the FBI mistakenly gunned down two diners leaving the lodge - the report is they called for the car to halt but the people inside couldnt hear because the radio was on - that the gang knew what was up and was able to mount a defense.

Bohemia was a disaster for the FBI in reality, but Mann decided to forgo that and just use it to stage a somewhat cool gunfight on screen.

I also find it interesting that they changed the confrontation at the Biograph at the end.

In the movie, Dillinger calmly walks out of the theater with his hands in his pockets, walks down the street a bit before realizing something is amiss, starts to draw his gun and is shot several times.

According to police reports, the real Dillinger recognized one of the agents as he left the theater, ducked down an alley and drew his weapon and was shot several times (including the one to the face that killed him) as he faced down the agents.

I'd be interested in knowing why they changed that.

Overall, the movie was OK. Nothing great. I thought Depp rose above the material but again Bale disappointed me. He looked (and sometimes acted) like a mannequin in his scenes.

Crudup was awesome, though. I agree we need a Hoover biopic with him at the center.

[Izzy Black]

This flick kicked a whole lot of ass. Beautifully shot - well acted.

[Grouchy]

http://extracine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/public-enemies-poster.jpg

Public Enemies
Michael Mann, 2009

My granpa's first reaction when he heard this movie was being released was -why? Why yet another movie about Dillinger? What can it add? My granpa's question triggered my thinking. Movies and Hollywood filmmakers don't seem to care anymore about adding something to history or the medium. They just seem to compulsively adapt other movies, toy lines or videogames into modern reworkings. It's a culture of thoughtless recycling. Fortunately, and although I haven't seen the '30s or '70s biopics, Michael Mann does have something to show.

The first surprise is how the movie is shot. As one of the most vocal followers of digital video, Mann seems to exploit its handicaps instead of trying to convince us it can look as good as film. Throughout the movie we're treated to 3D video feel, artificial grain and close-ups which show up every pore on the actors skins. Like one of you guys said, it's like someone sent a documentary crew back in time. However, this incongrous approach also made me experience the 1930s in a way I'd never done before, as a reality instead of a postcard. Almost all movie depictions of the "public enemies" era (even the gritty ones, like Bonnie and Clyde) are stylish and sophisticated. Instead, Mann's compulsive attention to prop and costume detail combined with the hand-held camerawork are inmediately urging and attention-grabbing.

Mann, as a filmmaker, always seemed to me more interested in technique than depth or story. This is arguably the same film he has made twice before (I'm talking about Thief and Heat), only this time history-based. As I read on about Dillinger and Melvin Purvis after watching the film, I realized the movie's script is very unusual in that it almost seems to strip the juicy bits out of the story. Where is the scene with the people soaking their handkerchiefs on Dillinger's blood, or the '30s era depression portrait? Like you guys were saying, Little Bohemia was in fact an embarassment to the FBI in which civilians got shot and the criminal walked away unharmed. Except for a weird scene in which Dillinger walks into the Chicago police station and wanders around, there's a very down-to-earth approach to the character, taking away his more mythical elements and leaving us with a career robber who, like James Caan's character in Thief, seems to abstractly decide to fall in love to make up for lost time.

The movie focuses obsessively on this relationship, instead of the more obvious paths it could have taken. Hoover's incompetence and his closet homosexuality are brief side notes. So is Melvin Purvis. The movie strips him of a personality, showing only the professional side of the policeman. This is so evident that when the title card near the end informs us that he later shot himself, I had to laugh it was so fucking random. I seem to be speaking against all of this, but in fact what I'm doing is pointing out how unusual all of these directorial choices are. In fact, I celebrate them. Public Enemies is a movie that might seem frustrating to many, but to me, it was a refreshing, exciting journey into a world too often depicted and too easily neutralized. It's a great thing to see a copmen-and-robbers film without feeling like I've seen it all before. And make no mistake, the film's action scenes are fucking intense.

I'd like to finish by pointing out that the movie has a hell of a cast. Johnny Depp is a revelation in a time when it looked like his awesomeness was exhausting itself. Christian Bale is not given much to do as Purvis, but he's competent, mostly the Bale serious face we see too much of all the time. Billy Crudup's Hoover is great, like someone was saying, he deserves his own flick. Marion Cotillard is a great foil to Depp. There are a lot of very famous faces on the film (in fact, maybe too many of them for the arty approach), and some of them are only in for very brief seconds - Lily Tomlin, Giovanni Ribisi and Leelee Sobieski enter and leave the screen and they're all very good, but none have any big scenes. This might be the most arty blockbuster I've ever seen. Which, in my mind, is a compliment.

[Dukefrukem]

NIce write up. Although I don't agree with your Bale assessment at all. I agree with Fezzik.


Bale disappointed me. He looked (and sometimes acted) like a mannequin in his scenes

His dialect was not very convincing.

[Ezee E]

Loved this. Yes, there are a few shots of awful digital photography, but then there's some that are amazing. The use of the flares, the movie theater scene are some of the best filmed scenes this year.

Depp adds this to the list of his great characters.

His reasoning of why Marion should stick with him is the reason I loved the movie essentially.