Public Enemies (Mann, 2009) — The Reviews Thread

[mdc3000]

^I agree - Miami Vice was at least TWICE as good as Public Enemies.

[chris_sc77]

I would say the theatrical cut of Miami Vice is pretty terrible and EXTREMELY uninvolving and boring. I thought the directors cut of Miami Vice was much better but still wasnt great or anything. The DC had the benefit of at least having a beginning of a film instead of just randomly starting in the middle of the first act.
But to answer the question public Enemies is indeed better than either version of MV.

[wendersfan]

I really didn't like it. It was certainly well acted (Crudup's Hoover was a scream) but the look of it, the way it was shot, and the pacing were all off. Too many close ups and at least a half hour too long. The high point was seeing movielib on screen.

[Patman]

I didn't like 2 main things about this film:

1. It being shot on DV, hated the look, it felt like an episode of "Cops" when the action got chaotic, but not in a good way.

2. The running time, especially since it just becomes less and less interesting as the film wore for me.

I think it's time for Michael Mann to do a film that doesn't have one gunshot in it because his sonic gunshot signature is becoming cliched, there isn't much shock value in them, even with all the bass embellishments to them.

I didn't hate this film, I just never really got engrosed in it, either. It's just somewhat a bland tale of John Dillinger the bank robber, and the FBI's efforts to catch him. There are a couple of decent shootout scenes, but the DV look just hindered my enjoyment of them.

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

[Finisher]

I love Michael Mann but I hate his decision to keep using DV. Especially for a 1930s period piece. And my sound sucked, too.

That said, Mann shoots in such an intimate way, the empathy level is very high. Seems like this turns some people off, but I really felt for both protagonists. And Mann always turns the antagonist into a second protagonist - they both have compelling motivation and their goals clash at the highest stakes.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by wendersfan

I really didn't like it. It was certainly well acted (Crudup's Hoover was a scream) but the look of it, the way it was shot, and the pacing were all off. Too many close ups and at least a half hour too long. The high point was seeing movielib on screen.

Funny, that was my high point too.

The movie was OK. I did not like the digital photography. I thought the film looked dingy. Mostly it was uninvolving. I think the end picked up a bit, enough to just raise it to the ***½ I gave it in the poll.

Unlike many here, I am not much of a Michael Mann fan to begin with, even though he's been my only director. I think Heat is a borefest and I thought the TV Miami Vice was unwatchable. I didn't even see the film. Collateral, The Insider, Thief and Manhunter were decent. I didn't like The Last of the Mohicans and The Keep was an absolute train wreck which I hate even more because it crapped all over one of the greatest horror novels of all time.

[Suprmallet]

Was I the only one who thought the Purvis scenes were far more interesting than the Dillinger ones? The procedural elements of catching Dillinger were really interesting. Dillinger himself was not.

Also, count me in as someone who hated the DV photography. I liked the stuff he did on Collateral and Miami Vice, and every so often the DV photography made it feel like you were really there, but usually in a "So this is how they shoot a movie" kind of way. One of my friends said he kept waiting to see a boom mic dip into frame because everything looked like behind the scenes footage. It just didn't feel like a movie about the 30's, despite Mann painstakingly recreating every detail of the period. If he wanted a gritty but authentic look, he should have shot 16mm.

[B5Erik]

I liked it. While it wasn't as good as it could have been, it was still a very engrossing movie for me. I thought Depp was really good as Dillinger - better than I expected, and the supporting cast was fantastic.

The script was pretty good, but needed another draft. Some beefing up of the character moments could have helped (just making them resonate a little more), but there were a lot of good scenes in the movie so it ended up working fairly well. The direction was very good (not the best the Mann's done, but still quite good). When it came down to the end I was shocked - the first half hour or so dragged, but the last hour and a half went by a lot quicker than I thought. The movie in it's entirety felt like an hour and 45 minutes to me.

I'll definitely pick this up on Blu Ray - hopefully with a director's cut added on.

I gave it 4/5.

[Matt925]

I liked the photography and staging of scenes, but it moved pretty damn slow and I never really cared about anyone onscreen.

[Blu Man]

It was more boring then I thought. All of the good parts showed up in the trailers. The image didn't look to bad printed on film, but most of the time it looked like a home movie. Mostly in the gun fight at the lodge. One of the worst looking scenes that I have every seen.

[Shilex]

I agree that the night scenes did look especially bad. It really took me right out of the movie. Kinda felt like watching a movie on a 120hz television where the camera work is like a documentary.

Count me in the group that thought the movie was just "meh". Depp never really got to do much with Dillenger except look forlorn. The movie was disjointed and felt way longer than it was. There was no real time for development of any character. Even Bale was underutilized even though he was in half the scenes. Half the characters felt like they were just popping in and out of scenes with no real explanation of who they were. The shoot-outs became monotonous after the first couple. Just bang-bang and drive off. The movie was structured very similarly to Heat, and I think this is where Mann went wrong. He seemed to be grasping at a relationship to focus on when there really wasn't much of one to begin with (Bale/Depp, Depp/Cotillard). There were hints of something developing, but no real follow through (like the unseen train robbery that never happened).

[PacMan2006]

I couldn't get over that this was shot on video. Hard to get immersed in the 1930's when everything on screen is crisp, clear, and buttery smooth.

The film had little character development, as well, which is obviously a big problem.

[AndyCleveland]

Originally Posted by mdc3000

I think there must be a batch of prints with fucked up sound, because I had the same issue when I saw it - the movie sounded like shit and seemed to be mono or 2.0 at best for the majority...I know that theatre is usually great for sound so I just figured maybe they were having an issue that day but if 4 people in different locations have mentioned it, something is up.

add me to the list of people who experienced shit sound. Dialogue was really soft and hard to make out, while background noises were super loud. Gunshots were extremely underwhelming/muffled. And this was in a state of the art theater that always provides the best presentations (I drive past 3 other theaters just for the presenation).

After about an hour and a half, I walked out (as did my 2 friends)- for two reasons:
-the sound was so distractingly bad
-the movie was really boring

when leaving, we asked if there was an issue with the sound. they said that the sound was presented correctly, but also noted that other viewers had issues as well. the manager refunded the tickets, but we weren't expecting that.

[RD1973]

I saw the movie last night and I give it 4/5 stars. In my opinion, its the best movie of the summer by far. The acting by the entire cast was incredible. The sound and the music were both awesome. The music is especially excellent when Dillinger comes out of the movie theater. I was rivetted from beginning to end (which is a shocker for this summer). As for the character development, I knew everything I needed to know about these characters. Michael Mann is not into spoon-feeding his audience. He conveys alot of information visually. And honestly, for me, that works alot better than half-assed character development (daddy used to beat mommy, so now I'm a criminal, etc.).

My one gripe is the look of the movie. Mann has to get rid of his Digital camera. Most of the movie looked fine, but some scenes (mostly at night) had a porno quality to them. And that's not good.

Still, I'm very happy. The last movie I saw was TF2 (probably the worst experience I've ever had in a movie theater). It feels good to wash that taste out of my mouth.

[golden_rod]

I found it rather dull and uninvolving. I wasn't expecting an exciting action picture because I just never got that vibe from it, but it was the kind of movie that was just there. Doing nothing.

Depp was quite awful & painfully bland, and I found the most interesting parts to involve Bale, but they didn't give the Purvis character nearly enough screentime. Chemistry between Depp and Cotillard seemed to be on vacation, but she sure was pretty to look at.

[GreenVulture]

Originally Posted by Suprmallet

The procedural elements of catching Dillinger were really interesting.

Most definitely; it's just a shame that Bale is so uninteresting here (and in many of his other movies), to the point of being a nonentity in the movie. Depp's performances are usually something to look forward to, but it's like he was on autopilot here. And Cotilliard is completely wasted. This may be one of the few big-budget prestige films I can think of where the main characters are so boring, which is not a word that should be used when describing a film about the manhunt for John Dilliinger.

Not a good sign when virtually everybody in the supporting cast outshines them with far more personality with far less screentime (Billy Crudup, Jason Clarke, Stephen Graham and Stephen Lang in particular).

[farfel81]

The DVD Talk review is right on the money! It amazes me that so many reviewers seem to have seen a movie they wished to see, not what ended up on the screen. By far the best and most accurate review of the film I've seen.

[Dubya]

Originally Posted by Shilex

Count me in the group that thought the movie was just "meh". Depp never really got to do much with Dillenger except look forlorn. The movie was disjointed and felt way longer than it was. There was no real time for development of any character. Even Bale was underutilized even though he was in half the scenes. Half the characters felt like they were just popping in and out of scenes with no real explanation of who they were. The shoot-outs became monotonous after the first couple. Just bang-bang and drive off. The movie was structured very similarly to Heat, and I think this is where Mann went wrong. He seemed to be grasping at a relationship to focus on when there really wasn't much of one to begin with (Bale/Depp, Depp/Cotillard). There were hints of something developing, but no real follow through (like the unseen train robbery that never happened).

I'm a big fan of Mann's films but your review sums up my feelings. I thought the ending was well done but overall it was a disappointment.

[MBoyd]

Originally Posted by farfel81

The DVD Talk review is right on the money! It amazes me that so many reviewers seem to have seen a movie they wished to see, not what ended up on the screen. By far the best and most accurate review of the film I've seen.

Totally. I even noticed the reviewer used the word "smeary" as I did to describe it!

[stingermck]

I haven't seen it yet, and im not trying to start something, but can someone explain to me why the film being clear and shot in DV takes people out of it? Does a period piece have to be shot on film and have grain to be more effective? Does every film that doesn't take place in the present need it?

[joefrog91]

Put me down as another that hated the DV look of the film. I hadn't read anything about the movie before going to see it and immediately thought the cinematography sucked. I liked the movie, but was not blown away by it. For me, a period piece should have a certain look to it. This movie looked too modern for my tastes.

[Shannon Nutt]

PUBLIC ENEMIES should be used in film school (and perhaps over at Skywalker Ranch) as an example of how some movies just shouldn't be shot digitally. This movie begged to be shot on film.

That said, I didn't hate it...but it's not something I'm anxious to see again. It was actually nice to see a Mann movie that was a little slower paced and less "flashy," but the script really needed some charaterzation work...I left the movie feeling both Depp and Bale's characters were pretty one-dimensional.

[Daytripper]

Really liked it. I'd give it an 8.5/10 or 4/5 stars. And my only gripe (like most) was it being shot in digital. That was just a huge mistake. I mean, the clouds sure looked great, but the rest just didn't feel right. Still, not a deal breaker. It's one of the summer's best movies IMO.

[Draven]

Really liked it a lot. Loved the DV look...occassionally I sort of forgot I was watching a movie. Thought Depp and Bale both nailed their parts, great action, interesting script and pacing and made me interested enough to look up some Dillinger stuff, which I've never cared to do before.

Nice to see an actual GOOD movie in the theater this summer.

[Lemmy]

Originally Posted by Draven

Really liked it a lot. Loved the DV look...occassionally I sort of forgot I was watching a movie. Thought Depp and Bale both nailed their parts, great action, interesting script and pacing and made me interested enough to look up some Dillinger stuff, which I've never cared to do before.

Nice to see an actual GOOD movie in the theater this summer.

Right on! I enjoyed it quite alot, myself, as did the ladyfriend who accompanied me.