quote:

Originally posted by AT:
well, I must say the diverse reviews this movie has gotten has left me wondering about the film and I suppose I must simply make up my own mind after seeing the film what I think of it.

I must make this comments, I have an elderly family member who knew Dillinger. My cousin, Boots, was a child during Dillinger's heyday and gangster would come and stay at Boots' mother's farmhouse in northern Indiana (I assume he and his men, for he always had others with him, were hiding out). Boots said Dillinger was always very good to him and his mother (a widow) and made sure his men were polite to her. When he left he always gave her what seemed to them a large amount of money. So while he may have been a "bad guy" he could be likable to a small child, and he had a sense of decorum about how to treat a widow even if he was on the run.

Yeah, but it's not like widows and small children are going to be a threat to him.

Cool anecdote, though.

Count me among those who think Marion Cotillard gave the best performance in the film. I think Crudup was fine in the film, but he was barely on screen, and really added nothing to the story. Too bad, because I rather like him as an actor.

As for the film itself, my quick review is on Page 2 of the thread. I didn't like it very much. I thought the costumes and sound were the best things in it. I already commented on my disappointment in the cinematography. Editing was lacking, as well. Screenplay was weak, and the acting was so-so.

Bocaboy says he had problems with the film trying to make him sympathize with Dillinger. My problem was that the film didn't make me sympathize with Dillinger ENOUGH. I felt like that is what the film wanted me to do, but it never achieved it. It didn't explore Dillinger at all. Didn't delve into who he was. Or even what made him such a legendary figure to the public. My problem was that I was left feeling indifferent towards both Dillinger and Purvis. If the film had truly generated sympathy for *either* side, I would have found it a better film.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LadyHathor25,

It is super interesting to me how polarizing this film has been, because it doesn't seem like a film that would warrant such polarization. It's not high concept and it isn't particularly strange artistically or directionally. (I haven't seen it yet) But it seems like a pretty self-explanatory film, which is why I'm so startled by the total lack of consensus on reviews. I can't wait to see it and weight in myself.

I am very much so in the middle ground between you lovers and haters. I thought it worked as an action film with some amazingly edited scenes of sustained action. The problem is it is nothing more than an action film. It is no great character study of John Dillinger and does not try to be. Johnny Depp is fine as Dillinger and Christian Bale is fine as his stony pursuer (and fine is a good thing as he has been less than fine in several recent films) but we are not deeply in their heads. Motivation means little to Michael Mann and action means all. Luckily he delivers on that action spectacularly.

I'll agree that Marion Cotillard delivers the film's best performance. Her police interrogation scene is remarkable. Billy Crudup is fun with his clipped voice as J. Edgar Hoover though it is little more than a cameo (it is also an interesting physical performance as the lean Crudup is able to make himself thick necked and broad of body with his posture). Still I would be surprised to even see these two get nominated.

The digital photography is a mixed bag. Sometimes it looks spectacular, sometimes it is blurry and sometimes it looks like gangsters being followed by a local news crew. Michael Mann knows where to place the camera, the framing is usually excellent, and certainly his editors have done superlative work but I wish the picture quality was better from scene to scene. Digital video can be used well in a modern action film but period pieces call for a richer, lusher look (say like in "Bugsy" or "L.A. Confidential") which the video cannot completely provide.

I give the film a B as a piece of action film-making though it could have been, maybe even should have been, more than that.

Wanted to LOVE this one but did not. Depp was good, Cotillard was really good but the pacing was off and the film suffered.

Yes, I'll have to agree with pacinofan. I thought it was a pretty good action film. As I said before, it was a flashy gangster film. I rather liked some of the shootout scenes. As I said before, I loved that shootout scene near the end at night at the lodge. I thought that was great.

I was just hoping for something more than a flashy action movie.

But it wasn't even flashy. The digital camera drained all the flash out of it.

I really enjoyed this film.

Everyone seems to dislike the camera work.
I thought it "fit" the film although the camera
could have pulled back from too many close-ups.
The first prison break scene shot outside the prison was wonderfully filmed. The blue sky with the weathered building looked magnificent. To go from that to the vertigo-inducing shot of Dillinger holding on to an escapee shot under the guy with the car moving shot up looking at Dillinger was fantastic. Lots of quirky shots like that made the film for me. Billie on the phone on the far left of the frame. Purvis aiming for Floyd in the apple orchard. The jail break in Mrs. Holly's car waiting at the red light. I could go on and on.

Most period films remind me of Bugsy Malone. Youngsters playing in vintage clothing. The costumes in this film felt natural on the actors, from Billie's 3.00 dress to Dillinger's sunglasses and Purvis' suspenders. It all felt right.

I also thought the performances were in step with the film the whole way. Bale's cold monotone (should I say bland) reading of Purvis. Cotillard nailing the outcast-ness & never fitting in of Billie. And Depp low-key approach to Dillinger rather than playing to the excesses.

Alot of the complaints about the film remind me of the Monday morning reviews of Sunday's showing of The Sopranos. Most people thought the shows without graphic violence were dull & uninteresting. A let down. Those were the episodes I loved the best. As in this film, the quiet scenes are the most revealing & gripping to me.

Just my 2 cents

quote:

Originally posted by a610guy:
I really enjoyed this film.

Everyone seems to dislike the camera work.
I thought it "fit" the film although the camera
could have pulled back from too many close-ups.
The first prison break scene shot outside the prison was wonderfully filmed. The blue sky with the weathered building looked magnificent. To go from that to the vertigo-inducing shot of Dillinger holding on to an escapee shot under the guy with the car moving shot up looking at Dillinger was fantastic. Lots of quirky shots like that made the film for me. Billie on the phone on the far left of the frame. Purvis aiming for Floyd in the apple orchard. The jail break in Mrs. Holly's car waiting at the red light. I could go on and on.

Most period films remind me of Bugsy Malone. Youngsters playing in vintage clothing. The costumes in this film felt natural on the actors, from Billie's 3.00 dress to Dillinger's sunglasses and Purvis' suspenders. It all felt right.

I also thought the performances were in step with the film the whole way. Bale's cold monotone (should I say bland) reading of Purvis. Cotillard nailing the outcast-ness & never fitting in of Billie. And Depp low-key approach to Dillinger rather than playing to the excesses.

Alot of the complaints about the film remind me of the Monday morning reviews of Sunday's showing of The Sopranos. Most people thought the shows without graphic violence were dull & uninteresting. A let down. Those were the episodes I loved the best. As in this film, the quiet scenes are the most revealing & gripping to me.

Just my 2 cents

I said in my brief review that the framing of shots was spot-on, I did especially like the shot of the inmate being dragged by the car, but it is the visual quality of the digital video itself that bothered me at times.

I'm personally kind of tired of the DV trend. I really wish people would use film more... unfortunately it seems to be on the way out (it must be so expensive to get now, IDK if they even sell it anymore).

Enertaining film. I thought the pacing was off this started out slow, and I started out disliking this film, but it ended up being a very good action film. Like many of you have said Mann's films rarely go into character development.

I would have liked to learn more about Dillinger, but Depp did a fine enough job and he plays comedy very well. Depp's strong suit is comedy. Bale plays the stone face very well as usual. I will say Cotillard was great but I think that come nomination time she may be forgotten.

I really liked the camera work I know many found faults in it, but I enjoyed it and Mann's films always have the best camera work like in Collateral.

I would give this film 3 out 5 stars. Come Oscar time I think come Oscar time this should be nominated for (at this point):

Best Supporting Actress: Cotillard
Best Art Direction
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Sound

This is a good technical film

Cotillard was very impressive but she also has NINE to contend with come Oscar. But I must say, she's having one of the best post-Oscar roles for an actress. And the girl's French.

Yeah, i really liked this flick. Extremely well-made film...it's only fault is that its really not that original.
Johnny Depp is fantastic here. I loved his performance. He deserves another Oscar nom for this. He's so dang charming here so effortlessly. What really sold me on his and Cotillard's performance is how they pulled off their relationship so quickly. Like Jamie Foxx and Jada Pinkett Smith in "Collateral", the 2 actors don't have a ton of screentime to establish the connection their characters have...but they make it work. And that established connection is CRUCIAL to the rest of the film.

Christian Bale doesn't get a ton to do...but he's quite fine in the film as well.

It was interesting and distracting to see such recognizable actors in tiny TINY roles. Channing Tatum, Leelee Sobieski, Shawn Hatosy, Emile De Ravin, Matt Craven, Lili Taylor, and others appear in extremely small roles. For some of them (Tatum, Ravin), you barely even realize it's them its so blink and you missed them.

I also noticed the camera work here. I'm amazed that it works so well. The colours, the film grain, and angles are constantly changing from shot to shot...but I found it all extremely interesting.
B+

I thought that the film was fine, though I never really had the expectation going in that this was going to be some big Oscar film or the one for Johnny Depp. I ended up getting what I was expecting for the most part. Filming this in digital was a ballsy move on Michael Mann's part, but I think it paid off. I loved just looking at it, and it felt like I was seeing a gangster film through new eyes. The action sequences stagings were superb, especially the woods sequence. Johnny Depp was the John Dillinger that the film needed him to be, but the characterization wasn't especially deep, and I didn't leave the film with a better view of the man than I had when I walked into the theater. Marion Cotillard was excellent though and was much more than the script demanded. Her interrogation scene really is the best in show. I also liked seeing all of the familiar faces here, even if most of them were underused, like Jason Clarke, Leelee Sobieski, Channing Tatum, Lili Taylor, David Wenham, Giovanni Ribisi, Domenick Lombardozzi, Shawn Hatosy, and on and on. Both Christian Bale and Billy Crudup could have been given more to work with. Loved the costumes and cinematography and wouldn't mind if either were nominated. I'm glad that I watched the film regardless.

For some reason, i found the effects of this film on me to be strangely muted. When i watch a gangster movie like Bonnie and Clyde or The Untouchables, i tend to come alive. But this doesn't seem to be the case with Public Enemies, even with its very admirable cast. Can't quite place a finger on why though.

My Review -

http://danielmontgomery.wordpr...es-cops-and-robbers/

The film was extremely underlit in the theater where I saw it, probably the fault of the projectionist and not DP Dante Spinotti, but it didn't help a film that already wasn't impressing me.

quote:

Originally posted by bocaboy7:
...and it was hard to hear what some of the actors were saying because it sounded like they were constantly mumbling, with the worst offender being Bale...

Saw Public Enemies last night and I agree with you totally on this point. The person that I saw the movie with said to me a couple of times, "What did he/she say?" and I didn't have a clue.

quote:

Originally posted by Russ_Shigekuni:
Cotillard was very impressive but she also has NINE to contend with come Oscar. But I must say, she's having one of the best post-Oscar roles for an actress. And the girl's French.

I made the exact same comment to a friend of mine after I saw the film. Definitely followed up her Oscar win with another cracking performance.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Marion picks up a few critics awards especially if she nails her role in NINE. Because Critics love nothing more than giving awards for two performances in the same year, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by nrlondon76:

quote:

Originally posted by bocaboy7:
...and it was hard to hear what some of the actors were saying because it sounded like they were constantly mumbling, with the worst offender being Bale...

Saw Public Enemies last night and I agree with you totally on this point. The person that I saw the movie with said to me a couple of times, "What did he/she say?" and I didn't have a clue.

Yeah. I was doing the same, trust me! That was one of the downfalls of the film too. The film was just overall a TERRIBLE FAIL! The only good part was Cotillard (and some techs here and there)! That's it. It was just a mess of a movie.

Since this film is still being discussed, I wanted to add something.

My boss is in the cinematographers guild. He gets a monthly magazine sent to members which I often read. There was an article in it with an interview with Dante Spinotti, the DP. He said Mann wanted to shoot on film, but Spinotti convinced him to use digital. Spinotti said they did a few tests shots on both and looked at them side by side. Mann eventually decided to go with the digital.

I found that surprising, to say the least. Just thought I'd share.