comment #1

byanyother says ...

"This morning"? That review came in a lot earlier

comment #2

OtownRog says ...

I was a little surprised it didn't earn a little more love off MRQE, moviereviewintelligence and rottentomatoes (rotten, barely). But I think "art" over-sells it. Mann steers clear of the cliched way of telling that story, but the movie neither looks (HD) nor feels "epic." A nice star vehicle for Depp and Bale, good work by Cotillard, nuanced Billy Crudup Hoover-as-closeted-gay-man, but "art?" Where's the sheen of myth, the glow of celluloid? Good, not great. Entertaining, not "art."

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to byanyother: Public Enemies opens today and Dargis' review is in today's print edition. I don't care when it first appeared online (which was sometime yesterday, I think).

comment #4

Markj74 says ...

Does anyone pay attention to Lisa Scharzbaum?

comment #5

Nick X says ...

OtownRog: "Where's the sheen of myth, the glow of celluloid?"

What are you talking about? You're saying it's necessary for a film to have something you consider "the sheen of myth, the glow of celluloid" for it to be considered art? You sound like a fucking simpleton. "I only like shiny things! It has to shine just the way I like it to!"

comment #6

Lou Lumenick says ...

PUBLIC ENEMIES is a classic tweener. Too artsy fartsy for the popcorn crowd, and too violent/ star-driven for the art-film crowd. Variety says the budget was likely closer to $150 million, which Karina Longworth cleverly says makes it the most expensive Mumblecore movie ever.

comment #7

PRC says ...

This could easily make more money than Collateral, and that's important coming off the commercial dud that was Miami Vice.

I'm convinced that mainstream audiences will totally dig Depp's performance in this. It's certainly a more controlled and interesting performance than Captain Jack Sparrow, but its obvious Depp is having fun and that's contagious.

comment #8

Floyd Thursby says ...

Our hero chagrined by a mere print reviewer? Say it ain't so.

comment #9

Uncle Larry says ...

You're looking to freaking Owen Gleiberman for validation?

The guy gave "Transformers 2" a B, for god's sake. And a B+ to "Night @ the Museum 2." And an A- to "Confessions of a Shopaholic." Talk about a credibility gap.

comment #10

p.Vice says ...

Don't let the verbal impotence get to you, Jeff. Owen hasn't been relevant since he stopped trimming his vagina circa 1998.

And he'll be out of a job soon.

comment #11

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

Any critic who gives Transformers 2 a "B" is irrelevant.

comment #12

Sabina E says ...

Seeing it tonight. and i'll believe that it's an art film when I see it.

comment #13

TheJeff says ...

Ebert loves it.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090629/REVIEWS/906299997

comment #14

jse33 says ...

Only 53% at Rotten Tomatoes.

comment #15

Chase Kahn says ...

It IS an art film. It's amazing how many people have just missed the boat completely on this thing. I'm hearing from dirtbacks with a laptop on rottentomatoes that "Public Enemies" is a boring, dull, emotionless, half-baked misfire -- they couldn't be more off-base.

It's minimally-scoped, straightforward, cold, restrained and dense. Anybody looking for a broad, warm, kick-ass summer action flick it's coming out of it not knowing what to think so they bring up stock excuses like "The Dillinger myth isn't uncovered", "It's uninvolving", "It's too serious", blah, blah, blah....

Read Scott Foundas' review, or F.X. Freeney's response to Jeff -- or Dargis, or Turan -- they all know what's up.

comment #16

Stringer Bell says ...

75 mil max at the BO

comment #17

vansmith says ...

Johnny Depp - 100mil

comment #18

PRC says ...

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it passes $100M, vansmith. The opening weekend is going to be solid. Plus, Depp is at the pinnacle of his drawing power right now, and I doubt many people over the age of 18 will have a strong urge to see TRANSFORMERS 2 again.

I'm really rooting for this because Mann needs a box office hit.

comment #19

Phatang! says ...

Real art films will always divide reviewers. I'm very skeptical of anything that gets a 90+ RT rating. You want some people to "not get it," or it's too easy to get.

That said, it's hard not to feel like a dip when you call something an art movie and someone scoffs. It's much easier to be the scoffer (fortunately, I usually am). But then it's exhilarating to see the thing again and realize: no, I'M the one that got it right.

comment #20

lens darkly says ...

If anyone is interseted Kim Masters at The Daily Beast has run a somewhat critical piece of Mann's method's. The story claims Depp and Mann were at one point not talking to each other.

comment #21

Scott Mendelson says ...

Absolute, without question, rule number one of film criticism (for me anyway) - Review the movie you saw, not the movie you wanted to see or the movie you had in your head walking into the theater.

comment #22

Stringer Bell says ...

Johnny Depp Playing Jack Sparrow : 200 mil+

Johnny Depp Playing Anyone Else :

comment #23

Stringer Bell says ...

Hmm .. that was weird. wiped out my comments after 'Else'

Depp playing anyone but Sparrow : Less than 80 Mil (and I'm being generous).

comment #24

ROTC says ...

I saw Public Enemies last night. It's magnificently shot with fantastic performances all around. But the script is exceptionally problematic. I'm no Sid Fields-style purist, but this story simply has no arc. It starts off on a fizzy high and then takes well over two hours to crawl downward to a flat, dull conclusion.

It may be a work of art on many levels, but it's certainly not a summer blockbuster. I predict a Sweeney Todd-sized box office tally at best.

comment #25

MarkVH says ...

Depp playing Willy Wonka (a.k.a. somebody not Jack Sparrow): $204 million domestic.

comment #26

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

"I don't care when it first appeared online "

For a man who consistently berates others about online timeliness, that's a rather brazenly hypocritical thing to write.

I get the feeling you were the kid no one wanted to play games with because you had a rep for changing rules to suit the occasion...

comment #27

SHR says ...

Having seen PUBLIC ENEMIES last night I have no problem with it being called an art film. The problem I have is with a studio spending 150 million dollars to make an art film that will most likely not have a profitable return on its investment. And where did all the money go---the picture looks good, but $150 million? Michael Mann's films consistently cost way too much and under perform---and often under satisfy. If this film underperforms you will not see any studio in the near term risking that kind of dough on a Michael Mann film---he will be forced to make much less expensive movies. And you know what---they will probably be better.

comment #28

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

$150M? I thought it was more like $80M, no?

I do wonder what kind of movie Mann would make with say a firm $50M budget.

comment #29

jesse says ...

SHR, why on earth do you have a problem with whether Public Enemies turns a profit? Being *puzzled* by the budget, I can understand. I've seen lots of movies that supposedly cost 50 or 100 or 150 and have been truly stumped as to where the money went (even stuff with a lot of effects, like Wolverine -- the movie looked relatively cheap). But who cares if a studio spends 150 on an art film? I'm sure this movie is better and better-looking than most other movies in its price range.

I guess a failure to return on viestment could hurt other ambitious movies' abilities to get $150 million to play with, but it doesn't sound like you'd particularly want that anyway. Maybe it's just the waste of money in general? For me, it becomes pretty damn abstract after you're out of single-digit millions, so I can't say I much care.

Stringer Bell, Depp may not be worth $200 million in any old movie, but he has had a number of post-Pirates movies do better business than I would've guessed: Secret Window, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Sweeney Todd all did around $50+ million; not gangbusters, but none of them were exactly four-quadrant crowd-pleasers, either.

comment #30

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Jesse - studio filmmaking is a zero sum game, what Mann wastes (and boy did he waste it in Miami Vice) others could have used. It also makes the studios gun-shy about pulling the trigger on other "arty" films.

comment #31

LexG says ...

I had assumed with TF2 out making bank, PE would get marginalized to the shoebox wings of most big multiplexes, but strangely in LA it seems a lot of places have PE and Ice Age in their prestige big rooms today.

For example, the standalone Vista in Los Feliz, who had to have been selling out every show last weekend for Transformers, has already bumped it for PE. Arclight's got it in the big rooms... some 4-plexes around town have PE and Ice Age in their 500-seaters with TF2 bumped down to the 200-seaters.

Probably a money-losing decision, no?

comment #32

lipranzer says ...

I saw it this morning. I could go with calling it an "art film," given the way it looked, and how despite all the gun battles, this never feels like your typical action film. And the performances of Depp and Cotillard are as good as advertised.

Having said all that, this was definitely a film I admired more than I liked. It didn't draw me in to the story and characters the way THIEF, MANHUNTER, LAST OF THE MOHICANS, HEAT, THE INSIDER, ALI, and even, to a lesser extent, COLLATERAL and MIAMI VICE did. Part of the problem is Bale - he doesn't really do anything distinctive with the role. The film does deal with the way Purvis didn't always make the right decision, but the only time I really felt anything was when Purvis is rescuing Frechette from being beaten.

Overall, good, but it probably won't show up on my top 10 at the end of the year.

comment #33

LexG says ...

^^ How come nobody, NOBODY, ever lists THE KEEP? Is it just because all modern film geeks ONLY rely on Netflix and DVD to catch up with classics, and since THE KEEP isn't on disc, you guys don't bother to watch it even when it's on Encore?

That thing was a Showtime perennial in the mid-80s, had an awesome VHS box, and came equipped with a weird NBC re-edit that aired in '89 or '90.

You all have had 3000 chances to see it, and should be including it in your Mannography, as it's one of the weirdest and most awesome (and most 1983) movies ever made.

Talk about an "art" film.

comment #34

Mark B says ...

Just saw it. Art film? Certainly. GOOD art film? Without a doubt. However, I expect that PUBLIC ENEMIES will be the type of film whose stature will probably increase over time. Wells, Ebert and Dargis are ahead of the curve on this one.

comment #35

Terry McCarty says ...

Slightly offtopic: If Mann is budgetarily constrained for his next film, maybe he could remake THE JERICHO MILE with Jeremy Renner in the Peter Strauss role.

comment #36

Chicago48 says ...

I'm with Jeff, it's an art film, but just short of a popcorn film, simply because of the way it was filmed. The actors really didn't have a lot of dialogue, but there was def chemistry between Depp and Cotillard. I can see him running away with her, leave the little French wife behind.

I enjoyed watching it. Wouldn't mind seeing it again, simply for the film quality and cinematography. I mean there were some stunt scenes that were shot that are indescribable.

It's Depp as a "normal" person, thank goodness, but he's regresses in his next project with Tim Woods. Too bad. I like this Depp vs. the clownish makeup Depp.

comment #37

T. S. Idiot says ...

Look at the reviews Heat received. Reviewers didn't get it, and it's only the greatest American film of the 90s.

Have subscribed to EW since first issue, and while OG is frequently insightful, unlike poor Lisa, he is wildly inconsistent. Seems to be one of those unpredictable, as opposed to eccentric (Armond White) reviewers whose judgments are influenced by outside factors. If he's in a good mood, he'll love your movie.

Given the studied artlessness of Chesire's Moving Midway, which I love, he may be jealous of Mann's artfulness.

comment #38

gafi says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of what is high availability

comment #39

Natali Watson says ...

Great article!) Thank you!
music