Comments on: PUBLIC ENEMIES Review

By: Darren C

Darren C — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:26:41 +0000

I finally got to see the movie today after much anticipation.

The first half of the movie was fantastic, however, I was very disappointed with the second half of the movie (the shootout at the Little Bohemia Lodge).

At that point, the movie began looking like a bad CI Channel remake - even the acting from Depp and Bale began to suffer.

All in all, not a bad movie, but certainly not a great one either.

By: Tom Wollenhaupt

Tom Wollenhaupt — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:59:01 +0000

History vs Hollywood has always been a major focalpoint for me. reguardless of the subject, Hollywood has always put it’s twisted slant
on ever subject, from Jesus to Juggling Clowns, from Bach to Bonnie and Clyde.
I have yet to see Public Enemy. I want to. The “Public Enemies” of the 1930’s have fasinated me since I was six years old. (My brother and I found old newspapers in our grandparents upstairs closet in 1966). The Lindburgh kidnapping, Dillingers escape from the Lima OH jail (not shown or mentioned in the movie), Bonnie and Clydes violent demise, and so on. n These were the criminals that bropught the FBI out of infancy and into the full blown KING of Federal Law Enforcement that it is today.
Let’s forget the acting, character selections (Johnny Depp would have made the perfect Alvin”Creepy” Karpis.) Does this movie show the public, what the Public Enemies of that era really were. Cold Blooded, Sociopathic, Theives and Murderers, that had no respect for Law and Order, and no respect or concience for human life itself.
The 1967 Oscar Winning and Groundbreaking film, “Bonnie and Clyde”, shocked movie goers with it’s graphic violence. Truth being told, it wasn’t violent enough to tell the true tale of these two renegades.
Hats off to Warren Beatty, considering what he had to work with. If you were going to make a movie that lasted longer than two hours, your name had better be David Lean, or Cecil B. DeMills. I won’t go into detail about the historical acurracies of that movie, but it did deliver, and for the most part, was above average for accuracy. (The rights of victims, survivors, and other legalities can hamper the acurracy of such a movie).
Don’t spoil PUBLIC ENEMIES for me. I would like to Judge for myself.

By: chuck

chuck — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:06:43 +0000

Badly made when it comes to cars. A 1935 Plymouth and a 1935/6 Chevrolet ? They were made after Dillinger was dead.

By: robert merrill

robert merrill — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:18:24 +0000

pardon an old guy who goes to the movies not to be educated or cultured but to be simply entertained - it was a movie worth the ticket price - it was entertaining

i guess i have a low expectation threshold

By: Gandydancer

Gandydancer — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:57:08 +0000

Left this film wondering why it was made. Historical accuracy might have been enough, but I knew soon enough it didn’t have that. The dialog is mumbled (what did that woman with the child say to Dillinger as he left the first hideout - I asked my companion and she said she was just about to ask me) and the world of the movie is way too clean to be real. Btw — the author of this review needs to look up the definition of “attenuated” before misusing it again.

By: dan

dan — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:22:03 +0000

Matt Gorden said 2 days ago

“The story line was pretty accurate to the truth and the embellishments were captivating and made a great story…”

ahhh, you obviously don’t know anything about the historical accuracy of this story or else you would not have made such a laughably fallacious comment like that.

By: Movies

Movies — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:40:52 +0000

I cannot imagine Depp as gangster.

By: Matt Gorden

Matt Gorden — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:45:16 +0000

The story line was pretty accurate to the truth and the embellishments were captivating and made a great story…

By: miss_bnm

miss_bnm — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:28:14 +0000

Definitely agree with Karina. Too many close-ups, too many “shaky-cams”, gave me a headache. Didn’t understand half of the dialog. Jonny Depp was great. But was disappointed that Bale was in the cast. He can only act as a Batman and great at that, but that’s it. Was very looking forward to watch the film, and had very high expectations, so obviously at the end was very disappointed.

By: Longfade

Longfade — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:18:55 +0000

I have to chime in here and say that I think this review is spot-on. It IS a badly-made film. Frankly, in my opinion, it was worse than just ‘bad’; it was horrible, and certainly a complete - COMPLETE - waste of great potential, both in the subject matter and the talents of Depp and Bale. I can’t elaborate on this review or say it any better than she did, but if you liked the disjointed cinematography, the uneven, period-incorrect music, and the unbelievably insipid dialog, then you just go along your merry way not being able to tell a good movie from a bad one.

By: dan

dan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:43:19 +0000

okay, so “Public Enemies” by Bryan Burrough is not a “pot-boiler.” I wrote that at 7am after drinking margaritas all night and recovering from some carnitas nachos. It’s Mann’s film that’s the potboiler. Perhaps a better phrase for it would be: terminological inexactitude. You can catch my drift. I’m going back to bed now.

By: dan

dan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:09:09 +0000

great review. Incidentally, nobody is “wrong” when it comes to reviews. Last I checked this wasn’t Tehran…

The biggest problem I had with this film (besides the 480 historical inaccuracies — okay, I stopped counting after about 50) was they took this eloquent, pot-boiler of a non-fiction page-turner (written by Bryan Burrough) and completely betrayed it. There’s virtually no truth to the events taking place in the film other than John Dillinger had a girlfriend named Billie Frechette; he robbed some banks; broke out of jail (several times); was being chased by a newly-formed F.B.I.; was betrayed by a woman called Anna Sage; and died in an alley outside a movie theater. Nearly EVERY other point you watch in the movie is a complete fabrication.

I wasn’t looking for TOTAL commitment to the truth (this is Hollywood — I get it) but there needs to be equal amounts of fact and fantasy in a film based on the life of such a well-known historical subject. This would be like having a movie about George Washington struggling into Hoboken instead of Valley Forge in the Winter of 1777.

Despite leaving out the fact that John Dillinger had extensive plastic surgery done to his face before the eventual turkey shoot that ended his life, the film chooses to omit a whole slew of critical information on the character and the times. I don’t care if Billie Frechette’s accent wasn’t 100% authentic French-Canadian-Menominee-Wisconsin-Chicago amalgam but I do care that they get the time and place of Baby Face Nelson’s death correct (he was NOT shot by Melvin Purvis at Little Bohemia — in fact, he outlived Dillinger as did Homer Van Meter and a lot of his gang). Changing facts like these do not add to the story — they paint an entirely false version of reality that calls into question the basic integrity of the whole story.

And just for the record: Dillinger and Purvis NEVER met face-to-face. This scene was designed so Mann could have his classic face-off motif between antagonists (De Niro and Pacino in Heat, etc.).

No one is doubting that the film did not look great, or at the very least it *appeared* authentic. That’s what Michael Mann is known for. That’s what he excels at, but when did he stop being a storyteller? Sometime around Collateral I would estimate. Collateral is a beautiful (sort of) action film that degenerates quickly whenever there isn’t something cold or flashy flying across the screen. Miami Vice is another visual affair that has even less going for it. You can now add Public Enemies to that list. What little story Mann managed to wring out of these amazing events he completely ruins with too much fiction and not enough real facts. Facts, mind you — that are actually more cinematic and intriguing than what he and his screenwriting partners managed to skim with a highlighter out of the book.

Public Enemies does indeed fail more than it succeeds. If Mann wanted to shoot an entirely new Dillinger myth (which he succeeded at) he should have just completely invented new names and places and called it something else — like: Road to Perdition (which is a hell of a lot better gangster film — and just better film in general — than Public Enemies is). Shouldn’t these so-called artists be held responsible for their actions? Since when did we start letting them off the hook so easily? When did we start accepting anything that was fed to us?

Lastly, anyone who could keep a straight face while sitting through that ill-conceived, cornball ending with Frechette and Winstead has a lot more endurance than me. I had a better time accepting the historical validity of a movie like Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves than I did this movie. At least Robin Hood had a fab Alan Rickman…

By: pamela

pamela — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:57:22 +0000

I hated the cinematography and editing. Felt like they ran out of post-production money and skimped, rather than choosing a new cutting-edge technology. it was okay until the moment where Billie is inviting Dillinger into the tub, but everything after the police barging in and capturing him was all downhill from there. and the gun battle at the Racine, WI house in the woods (with baby face nelson) was dreadful… couldn’t follow it and got bored after that. way too long. too bad because i loved the costumes and art direction — and those cars! — but strongly feel that the film making ruined the story.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:34:05 +0000

With all the bullets flying around, none of them hit their mark.

By: ED DAY

ED DAY — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:07:00 +0000

I watched the movie don`t need a review step by step on the movie/ maybe because I live in area where alot of this happened it meant more to me , BUT iILIKED THE FILM ALOT / Plan and simple

By: Thom Powers

Thom Powers — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:19:48 +0000

Karina, you are spot on. When Dillinger goes to the theater to watch Clark Gable and William Powell, there’s more character development in the brief clips of “Manhattan Melodrama” than in all of “Public Enemies.”

By: Baffled

Baffled — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:35:51 +0000

I rarely agree with Longworth but appreciate her writing, but I have never felt so strongly that she is so wrongheaded than on this. Spinotti’s cinematography is radical and necessary. It allows us to see the pores on the actors, the details in door hinges and wallpaper of the period aiming for total subjective immersion in the viewpoint of its characters. There’s a snarky attitude to this review as well that seems to have brought out the worst in Longworth here. To not see the subtle shadings in any of the performances baffles me - to see movie idols such as Depp and Bale with such flawed and real sweat and hair and wrinkles grounds them in a kind of strange hyperreality that is mindblowing to see in a studio period film. It’s also saturation with detail - from the usage of flares lighting newsreels to the stripping of a thompson machine gun and discussion of its characteristics. To say it’s badly made is such an immature naive statement it makes me think that Longworth needs to give her eyes a rest awhile and gain back some objectivity. And yes it is incredible to see Cottilard rendered so HUMAN, the complete photographic antithesis of what Hollywood wants to do to its stars. More than that, Mann is at times a very corny romantic, and no mumblecore filmmaker would ever reach for such sensual delights as the accuracy of his gunshot noises or a reverse closeup of Depp framed by Bale’s jawline. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

By: Bilge

Bilge — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:23:00 +0000

Karina, your review is well-written, but I have to vehemently disagree with you, particularly regarding the notion that the style is “inexplicable.” I’m baffled by critics who talk about this film as if its style is somehow uniform throughout: Hasn’t anybody noticed that the film becomes more video-y (for lack of a better word) as it progresses? It starts off looking pretty close to film. But the ghosting effects and the pixellation, enhanced by lateral movement and low-light shooting, increase as the film goes on. To me, this seems crucial: In a story about encroaching modernity, the very surface of the film becomes more and more modern. You’re free to not like it, but to say it’s not considered is just dead-wrong.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:43:28 +0000

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

By: jambot

jambot — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:38:18 +0000

I 100% agree with you. I was sooo happy to find this review after I saw the movie because I honestly felt like I was missing something.

By: Kevin Ely

Kevin Ely — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:46:45 +0000

“Frankly– and by this I don’t mean any offense to the other writers on this site– Karina’s criticism is _the_ reason why I read Spout in the first place.”

Agreed. I enjoy the others as well, but Karina is one of the points on my critical compass. I may not always face her direction, but I can always tell where I’m heading.

By: Tom Russell

Tom Russell — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:47:06 +0000

I don’t know whose comments I find more ridiculous– Zetto’s or Aaron’s. As Matt pointed out, time & effort does not equal value, while the most cursory of glances at Ms. Longworth’s criticism will reveal that she appreciates a wide variety of films. (Not to mention the fact that the ad hoc attacks on Swanberg, et al & the cross-pollination of their actors are *so* 2007.)

Or was it some other Karina Longworth who provided such insight during the Synecdoche DVD roundtable?

Frankly– and by this I don’t mean any offense to the other writers on this site– Karina’s criticism is _the_ reason why I read Spout in the first place.

By: Erik McClanahan

Erik McClanahan — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:55:11 +0000

A fair review Karina, though I disagree with everything except your comments on Cotillard, who gets better as the film carries on, but the role is underwritten. I loved the way the raw, you are there look of the HD video combined with a kinetic pace (2 hrs, 20 min flew by for me). It was like watching the classic Warner Bros. gangster flicks of the ’30s shot like a Dogme ‘95 film. ‘Scarface’ meets ‘The Celebration’ if you will. I really enjoyed the look of the film as it gave us something new in this genre, but I’m still not totally sold on big budget films on video just yet. This was Mann in top form, making the kind of film he does best. That is, good men vs. bad men, and how they are essentially the same beast. Loved the two leads - Bale underplays beautifully to let Depp shine, and thank god Depp played a real person (albeit one that is worthy of his fame). All in all, I loved the film, with some nitpicky reservations here and there. Great review nonetheless.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:46:06 +0000

Zetto, are you by any chance Michael Cimino?

By: Rudy Mett

Rudy Mett — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:27:36 +0000

If she doesn’t like the way it was made, then to her, it WAS badly made. Resources and time spent doing something does not make that thing necessarily “good”. But, it is all taste. I don’t think “The Godfather” is a well-made movie, so there’s all types.