comment #1

frankbooth says ...

Just got back. A nice empty thread, all mine!

I honestly don't understand most of the complaints. It's a cliche, but "did you see the same movie I did?" comes to mind.

I was riveted throughout. Tension that occasionally exploded into all-out mayhem...who could possibly be bored or complain that it wasn't engaging? It was cat-and-mouse all the way through, even though the outcome is preordained by history.

Depp was great. I've grown weary of his cartoon characters, and had my doubts when his casting was announced. But he was perfect. He was tough and wary, charismatic without trying too hard to win us over, cocky but not arrogant. And somehow, as only the best actors can do, he transformed himself physically without any prosthetics or weight tricks. He's a bit too good-looking, sure; but as Ebert said: most actors are too good-looking for the roles they play. He made himself look like the guy in the photos through sheer force of will, and he made me forget Warren Oates, which is very impressive.

Bale was good, too, as a decent guy out-of-his depth, trying to play tough and not quite having the stomach for it. It was a low-key role, and he did well without trying to elbow into the limelight. Cotilliard was luminous, if underwritten -- but that's Mann and female roles. Wrong accent, but I got over that quickly. We see why he's smitten and willing to risk so much for her.

Crudup was also quite good. Too handsome, obviously, but his face has widened and he either gained weight or was padded. His accent was dead-on for the period, and he conveyed well the superficial, effete press-whore that Hoover most likely was.

I didn't love the digital cinematography, but it wasn't a deal-breaker, either. When it worked, it worked well, by conveying that "this-is-happening-right-NOW" feeling. Other times (the distractingly pixelated leaves during the apple orchard scene, or the nighttime grainstorm moments ) I would have preferred celluloid. There's got to be a happy medium between this approach and the embalmed, over-composed, Seabiscuit/Road To Perdition thing -- you know, "it's a period film so lets burnish it with seventy-four coats of nostalgia and drown it in mythification syrup and golden haze."

I do wish the other gang members had been given more time. This is another complaint I often have with Mann -- he makes these long films, and gets first-rate actors for the smallest roles, but skims over everyone but the leads. If I hadn't recently seen the Milius version, I might not have known what kind of guy Baby Face Nelson was, exactly, or grasped Dillinger's attitude toward him, other than that he didn't much like him. I'd also like to know where other famous criminals and lawmen fit into the picture. Were Bonnie and Clyde running around at the same time? Capone associate Frank Nitti is in the film. Where was Eliot Ness during all of this?

Also, the depression. The Milius film touched on this -- how desperate folks were, and why they made a hero of Dillinger and guys like him. Maybe Mann just assumes we know all this, but a few shots of boarded-up buildings or raggedy poor folks wouldn't have slowed the pace too much, and would have given us some context.

But these are quibbles. I'll go so far as to predict that in a few years, this film will be be as highly-regarded as Heat is now. As you may recall, acclaim for that film was nowhere near universal when it was released. It took some time.

comment #2

Chicago48 says ...

Me too. I couldn't see another Depp movie where he's made up like a clown. And they said that Depp and Cotillard didn't have chemistry. What movie did they see? They were perfect together.

comment #3

Chicago48 says ...

The Depression: Me too. The opening title stated 1933. So what? What does that mean to a 16 or 21 year old. They dont' know we're in a depression NOW. Would have been nice to see people in food lines. He seemed to glaze over that.
Otherwise, it was a good, not a great movie and I would see it again.

comment #4

Chase Kahn says ...

Complete bullshit -- Give me one reason why I should take stock in fucking Owen Glieberman's opinion? And why do a video with no dissenting view?

I don't think there will be another studio picture this year as good as "Public Enemies" and it's because it's so unlike a studio picture -- these clowns just can't see that.

comment #5

BurmaShave says ...

"Take me with you Mister" was everything Mann needed to explicitly say about the Depression and the appeal of John Dillinger. Saw the film again, ready to say it's almost as good as THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD.

comment #6

Chicago48 says ...

Burmashave, let me tell you. I was sitting on the first floor and when the woman said those words, I couldn't hear her. It took me a few moments to realize she said those words. Maybe Mann could have shown food lines in the beginning overt the 1933 title? People rummaging through garbage?
Like you I would like to see it again.

comment #7

Chicago48 says ...

Can someone answer this: Why Doesn't Depp get the Leonardo Dicaprio roles? Why does he continually work with Wood as a weirdo wearing clown makeup?

It seems other "name" directors don't have him in their movies; why? (like Scorcesee)

comment #8

frankbooth says ...

Burton owns Depp. Mann had to threaten to break his toys in order to borrow Johnny for just this one film.

comment #9

frankbooth says ...

Serious answer: he LIKES the clown weirdo roles.

He's got to. It's not like he's Crispin Glover and can't get hired as anything else.

Plus, he probably feels he owes Burton for first seeing the weirdo inside the pretty boy, and saving him from Grieco-hood.

comment #10

markj says ...

This video is a spoof, right?

comment #11

frankbooth says ...

I dunno, mark, but it's good for insomnia.

comment #12

StoneFan1 says ...

Once again, I'll post a link to a review that sums up my feelings (based on a single viewing) of "PE." I do reserve the right to change my opinion over time though. I do disagree with the reviewers opinion of the HD cameras though, I though the film looked fantastic from start to finish.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/37762/public-enemies/

comment #13

Jay T. says ...

If these two tasteless idiots don't like Public Enemies, now I know I'm going to like it.

comment #14

Pelham123 says ...

On "Public Enemies" I'm going to agree with everyone who has posted thus far. StoneFan1 makes an interesting note that his perception is based on a single viewing of the film which is an important point to make with serious filmmakers like Michael Mann. His movies seem to change with each viewing, they become richer (& clearer?) as we delve deeper into each one. I saw the film last night & while I liked a lot of it, I wasn't certain about my feelings. Today, the more I think about it the more I do like it. I think Depp & Cotillard had a great chemistry & both were perfect in their respective roles. Sure, her accent slipped a couple of times, but hey, it's a French accent, something I could listen to a woman whisper all night long. I thought Bale & Crudup were excellent (& well cast) as well. After "T4" it was a relief to not have to listen to Bale snarl for 2 & 1/2 hours. I would have loved to see more of the henchmen (& well, everything) but then I imagine the time constraints for this film were intense. Universal & Mann both need a hit & I hope this one delivers big time. I plan on seeing it again, if not today, then over the long weekend.

comment #15

StoneFan1 says ...

It's a hit! $10 million yesterday and $25 million since Wednesday. I'm happy for Michael Mann after the box office performance of "Miami Vice." I think "PE" will end up with around $120 million domestically.