Public Enemies (Mann, 2009) — The Reviews Thread

[scott1598]

Please continue pre-hype discussion in this thread: PUBLIC ENEMIES (Michael Mann), 2009 - Depp, Bale

Movie:
"Public Enemies” (2009) (Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Billy Crudup)

Release Date:
7/01/2009

Rating:
R (for gangster violence and some language)

Running Time:
143 min. (2h. 23m.)

Rotten Tomatoes Reviews:
Fresh:133 Rotten:72 (65% as of 7/14/09)
RT Link...

Info:
IMDb Link...

Trailer:


Poster Art:

[scott1598]

this is my 2nd most anticipated since "Star Trek" for the summer. next after is "Inglorious Basterds".

since reviews are coming in and there are Tuesday (6/30) night showings.

taken from the other thread:

Originally Posted by Doctor Gonzo

A bit from the Empire review, and others:

Whatever James Cameron’s Avatar may resemble in cinema’s ‘big shake-up’ later this year, this less self-aggrandising film, shot entirely on an ultra-high resolution digital format, marks a new cinematic language. The genre may seem familiar, that rat-a-tat-tat of Tommy guns, molls and dapper hoods, but never with this level of immersion. If Mann’s mission was simply to portray the early ’30s with pin-sharp realism, he has triumphed. This is not a film about the ’30s — it is a film in the ’30s…

Mann may squirm, but the Heat-in-the-Depression tag is inevitable. The comparisons are numerous: cascading storylines, languid cityscapes, architectural framing and that rigorous unpicking of male psychology (cops and robbers are all deep-down misunderstood).

Yet, more than just their eras, the two films feel like different worlds. Such is the docu-clarity of this digital skin, you have to readjust your thinking. This isn’t the glamour of the movies, warmly draped in celluloid, but rather an instantaneous, ‘stunning’ reality: every facial pore, every herringbone stitch, every silvery wisp from a smoking gun comes crystal-clear. Strangely, it makes the film both period and contemporary: history through a sci-fi lens…

Mann’s movie lies at a cusp between great American genres: the dusty borderland between the Western and gangster movie.


From Variety:

“Public Enemies” emerges as a formidable tapestry documenting the indelible seismic shifts of large criminal and law enforcement entities that significantly define an era. As before in Mann’s work, there is a magisterial inevitability to the way the opposing forces gradually converge until violent confrontation is inevitable, a style that justifies the time and attention to detail involved in creating it.

More enthusiasm from Emmanuel Levy:

Structurally, big action scenes of glorious escape from prison and shoot-outs are integrated into the dramatic proceedings. Occasionally, the narrative slows down, in the romantic scenes between Dillinger and Billie, but Mann is a shrewd entertainer who knows when to switch from dialogue-driven sequences to thrilling set-pieces, which the HD cameras of ace cinematographer Dante Spinotti captures in alluring ways. A couple of scenes are simply breathtaking in their visual pizzazz, conveying through dark screens that suddenly erupt into spots of glaring white light both the movement and effect of gunshots…

In its painstaking attention to detail, “Public Enemies” recalls “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” made by another brilliant and perfectionist director, David Fincher. We get a feel of how things looked, but how people thought, how men courted women, what ex-convicts thought about life, fate, and death.

And the most unrestrained rave so far comes from Rex Reed:

Thrilling, glamorous, richly textured and breathlessly action-packed, it is one of the best movies of the year.

It’s all here, exhaustively researched and painstakingly re-created. Curiously, there’s no mention of Dillinger’s wife, Beryl, and Michael Mann’s screenplay, co-written with Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman, takes liberties by condensing some events and combining a few characters, but with so many informers, gunmen and tertiary historic plot contributors, it’s amazing that so few key elements found their way into the discard pile. From Billy Crudup, as the silly, publicity-seeking J. Edgar Hoover, to Johnny Depp’s magnetic starring role, replete with neatly cropped hair, piercing dark eyes, no sign of a tattoo and a lewd smile in the corner of his eyes, every role large and small is polished to perfection. (Johnny Depp gives the best performance of his career.) Even the bank plunders in broad daylight seem freshly staged. Since it’s more in the biographical vein of Bugsy than the grand opera of The Godfather, no easy comparisons come instantly to mind. But with the shiny cars with white-wall tires; the tailored, double-breasted pinstriped suits that give you an idea where Giorgio Armani’s fashion inspiration comes from; the music (lots of early Billie Holiday and big band jazz); and the navy blue midnight world of the Great Depression—Mr. Mann does more to illustrate the fabric of the gangster era than any film since Pete Kelly’s Blues.

In the process, Public Enemies becomes one glamorous, glorious, gun-blazing whale of an entertainment.

Originally Posted by Jaymole

I decided to present some more review bits mainly because the post above quotes a bit from an overall NEGATIVE review (I liked the film more than these reviewers did, but they illustrate some of the problems I had with it...and sometimes very high expectations can cause disappointment. I recommend the film, just keep your expectations in check and you will enjoy it).

AP review :

"The director of "Heat" and "The Insider" has said he was fascinated by Dillinger not just as a daring criminal but as the hero he became for regular people, folks who blamed the banks for their financial troubles during the Depression. Dillinger robbed those very institutions, which felt to them like an act of vigilante justice.

But nowhere in "Public Enemies" will you find that sentiment explored or even hinted at in a cursory way. Dillinger is famous here, of course — he's Public Enemy No. 1, hence the title — but there's little sense of his public perception, not much context for his notoriety. Mann also doesn't really depict the poverty or desperation of the time; Dillinger usually spends time in cars, banks and glamorous haunts with slick cohorts. He's more like a charming guy committing questionable acts.

Mann romanticizes him, rather than presenting a complete picture including whatever wildness or darkness might have existed inside him and driven him. (He co-wrote the script with Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman, based on journalist Bryan Burrough's book.)"

From Variety:

"Overall impact is muted. Oddly, too, the film is somewhat shortchanged by its great star, Johnny Depp, who disappointingly has chosen to play Dillinger as self-consciously cool rather than earthy and gregarious.

"Mann's decision to shoot in HD rather than film again has its plusses and minuses; the detail and depth of field are phenomenal in the dark scenes, but the bright flaring, occasional unnatural movements and excessive detailing of skin flaws remain annoying, as does the insubstantiality of the images compared to those created on film. Digital may represent the future, but the future is not entirely here yet, and the pictorial qualities of Mann's films prior to "Collateral" remain decisively superior to the recent trio."

From Box Office:

"Dillinger was a charming psychopath who killed easily and liked risk. He reveled in his notoriety and even played to it where he could, something Public Enemies flirts with as required but ultimately never does more than display."

[Sessa17]

If this movie gets raving reviews, I may go see it, but everything I've seen so far, gives me very little interest in this, even more so after re-watching the paint-by-the-numbers trailer. This just looks so trite, much like Ridley's upcoming Robin Hood movie, this is just a story that has been done so many times & better. I know it's mandatory to drool over anything Depp & Bale do (especially here) but I can't stand Depp playing Dillinger as this uber-suave pretty boy, it's like it's more important to get all the Depp fanboys to go & see this movie, then actually bring a worthwhile portrayal to life & Bale more & more, & I know this is blasphemy just keeps getting increasingly dull & redundant.

[KillerCannibal]

^ I agree 100% with this, and the fact that I just don't agree with Mann's choice of shooting this on HD. Bad move for a period piece, IMO.

[mdc3000]

^That is the only thing so far that I'm not excited about - you can tell it's HD video by watching the trailer and that look does not fit the period of the film...but I still have high hopes.

[Solid Snake PAC]

As a film I hope it's good, as to the method of shooting it..I dunno. Recently saw a trailer of it on TV at work. Looks like they cleaned up some of those shots to not have a HD cam feel. Was nice to see a steady movement of the characters instead of that shadowing/trailing effect HD cams give.

[hardercore]

The book got stunning reviews, but i've heard mixed things about the film. At the end of the day, though, this is the man who directed The Insider and is capable, if nothing else, of producing solid works of entertainment (Collateral) so I'll definitely give it a shot.

[Ash Ketchum]

I saw this at a preview the other night and I'm about halfway through the book. I tend to be a stickler about historical accuracy, so things bothered me that might not bother the rest of you. But just on a dramatic level, the whole Dillinger-Billie Frechette romance is played out in a series of really badly-written cliched scenes. And there's too much time spent on it. It really slows the film down. And the French actress who plays Billie is just profoundly uninteresting. You ask yourself what Dillinger saw in her. Besides, Billie grew up with her American Indian mother and not her French father, so she wouldn't have had a French accent.

Also, I was hoping Depp would really nail Dillinger's character, clearly the most fascinating of the Depression-era bandits and the only one who wasn't an outright sociopath (like Clyde Barrow) or psychopath (like Baby Face Nelson). If you see newsreels of Dillinger, you understand why he became a folk hero in his time. You don't really see that here. Depp is somehow lacking Dillinger's charm. And he could have played it that way. I think it's a case of bad direction.

I didn't like Bale's performance, either. He's never believable to me. That accent sounds awfully forced.

The supporting cast has a lot of good people in it, though: Stephen Lang, Giovanni Ribisi, LeeLee Sobieski, James Russo, Stephen Dorff, Lili Taylor, John Ortiz, and a few others.

There are a few good scenes, though, especially the raid on the Little Bohemia lodge. Very well-shot and edited. If you're a film student, you might want to see the film just for this sequence. It's brilliant. And the scene where Dillinger visits the Dillinger Squad office at the Chicago P.D.--a bit of a stretch, and only lightly alluded to in the book, but still a clever scene. The finale is very good, too. And I like all the Frank Nitti/Chicago mob scenes. An interesting touch I've never seen in a Dillinger film before.

I think there'd be a much better film here if they cut out some of the slower scenes, esp. the ones with Billie Frechette, and made it a much shorter movie. It's way too long.

I won't rule out seeing this again, though.

[Jaymole]

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum

And the scene where Dillinger visits the Dillinger Squad office at the Chicago P.D.--a bit of a stretch, and only lightly alluded to in the book, but still a clever scene.

I completely disagree, this scene was by far the worst of the film...a total Hollywood cliched contrivance just to show how cool Depp/Dillinger is.."hey look at me, I can walk into the Dillinger squad room and talk to the guys but nobody will recognize me because i'm wearing shades...I'm so cool!!!"... I literally groaned out loud during the film when this scene played out.

There are a few good scenes, though, especially the raid on the Little Bohemia lodge. Very well-shot and edited. If you're a film student, you might want to see the film just for this sequence. It's brilliant.

I agree with you....a great scene, (except for the use of video), and the highpoint of the film for me.

[Ash Ketchum]

Originally Posted by Jaymole

I completely disagree, this scene was by far the worst of the film...a total Hollywood cliched contrivance just to show how cool Depp/Dillinger is.."hey look at me, I can walk into the Dillinger squad room and talk to the guys but nobody will recognize me because i'm wearing shades...I'm so cool!!!"... I literally groaned out loud during the film when this scene played out.

I hear what you're saying and, yeah, it's doubtful the cops wouldn't have looked twice at him. But, according to the book, he apparently did this (although the book doesn't go into detail on it), and I liked the way the scene explored the moment, showing us the vastness of the room, seemingly empty when he walks into it, and the details of it and having Dillinger slowly look at the stuff on the walls and go over the pictures of the men who died. There was a nice feel to it. I would have preferred he was dressed more appropriately--period-wise, in jacket and tie and with a hat on, not in a casual sport shirt--and that the cops weren't in the room when he was there.

I differ with you, though, on the use of video in the Little Bohemia scene. I'm not normally inclined to support the use of hi-def, but I thought it took us into the scene and gave it a real immediacy and sense of being there in this remote location at night in the cold. And the gunfire was amazing. I've never seen it captured that way before.

[Jaymole]

But, according to the book, he apparently did this (although the book doesn't go into detail on it),

I was going to ask if the writer had any proof that he did this, but how could he unless one of the police officers actually admitted to it happening? I would be interested in what he wrote in the book about this as it seems way too far-fetched to be true...I remember that when I was watching the scene I really thought it was going to be a dream sequence.

As to your comment on HD, I know it is completely subjective so I can understand both people who like it and don't.

[Ash Ketchum]

Originally Posted by Jaymole

I was going to ask if the writer had any proof that he did this, but how could he unless one of the police officers actually admitted to it happening? I would be interested in what he wrote in the book about this as it seems way too far-fetched to be true...I remember that when I was watching the scene I really thought it was going to be a dream sequence.

Here's the mention I found of it, on p. 393, in the book:

"Much later, the Chicago Daily News would report he felt safe enough to visit Chicago's detective bureau four separate times. [Polly] Hamilton was applying for a new waitressing job, and her prospective employer required she obtain a medical certification. The medical examiner was in the same building as the detective bureau; four times Dillilnger waited for Hamilton outside the examiner's thirteenth-floor office, while two floors below, the Chicago police busied themselves looking for him."

No footnotes for this, and not exactly incontrovertible proof that he ever actually entered the bureau office. A little artistic license, I daresay.

[Jaymole]

Thanks Ash...Mann definitely went overboard on the artistic license and, IMO, a very poor decision to use it in this case.

[Doctor Gonzo]

David Denby's New Yorker review:

Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies” is a ravishing dream of violent gangster life in the thirties—not a tough, funny, and, finally, tragic dream like “Bonnie and Clyde” but a flowing, velvety fantasia of the crime wave that mesmerized the nation early in the decade… It’s the American poetry of crime. Throughout the movie, blazing tommy guns emit little spearheads of flame, just as in a comic book. Men get their skulls bashed with gun butts, and get thrown out of cars, but, despite all the violence, the movie is aesthetically shaped and slightly distanced by the pictorial verve of gangland effrontery—the public aggression that Mann makes inseparable from high style… As a piece of direction, “Public Enemies” is often breathtakingly fast, but it’s always lucid.

The high-definition digital images are crisply focussed, and much of the movie (in contrast to the usual shock-and-awe thunder of action films) is on the quiet side. Billie Holiday’s plaintive tones show up on the soundtrack, a touch of melancholy high civilization amid the mayhem. Some of the dialogue is spoken sotto voce—in a darkened restaurant, say, or the back of a car, where suave hoods lean toward each other, exchanging confidences. Like Barry Levinson’s “Bugsy,” the picture happily exploits what movies can do to create a sinful nexus between criminality and elegance… There’s almost an unspoken compact between director and audience in a movie like this, a compact of pleasure in everything looking so good. Twenty-five years ago, in “Miami Vice,” Michael Mann brought visual glamour to television; he’s still an incomparable maker of svelte, flawlessly integrated images.

[Solid Snake PAC]

Question: Does the big gunfight here top or at least at the same level as the one in Heat?

[mcfly]

I'm looking forward to it. Gangster film, Johnny Depp, Bale, and Mann equals my ass in a seat. I've liked all of Mann's work (even Miami Vice), so I'm truly pumped for this. My next movie after this isn't until Inglorious Basterds. July is a shitty month.

[Jaymole]

Originally Posted by Doctor Gonzo

David Denby's New Yorker review:

Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies” is a ravishing dream of violent gangster life in the thirties—not a tough, funny, and, finally, tragic dream like “Bonnie and Clyde” but a flowing, velvety fantasia of the crime wave that mesmerized the nation early in the decade… It’s the American poetry of crime. Throughout the movie, blazing tommy guns emit little spearheads of flame, just as in a comic book. Men get their skulls bashed with gun butts, and get thrown out of cars, but, despite all the violence, the movie is aesthetically shaped and slightly distanced by the pictorial verve of gangland effrontery—the public aggression that Mann makes inseparable from high style… As a piece of direction, “Public Enemies” is often breathtakingly fast, but it’s always lucid.

The high-definition digital images are crisply focussed, and much of the movie (in contrast to the usual shock-and-awe thunder of action films) is on the quiet side. Billie Holiday’s plaintive tones show up on the soundtrack, a touch of melancholy high civilization amid the mayhem. Some of the dialogue is spoken sotto voce—in a darkened restaurant, say, or the back of a car, where suave hoods lean toward each other, exchanging confidences. Like Barry Levinson’s “Bugsy,” the picture happily exploits what movies can do to create a sinful nexus between criminality and elegance… There’s almost an unspoken compact between director and audience in a movie like this, a compact of pleasure in everything looking so good. Twenty-five years ago, in “Miami Vice,” Michael Mann brought visual glamour to television; he’s still an incomparable maker of svelte, flawlessly integrated images.

Since Doctor Gonzo has AGAIN taken the positives from a review that was given a NEGATIVE overall at Rotten Tomatoes, here is some more of the review:

"There’s something missing—a sense of urgency and discovery, a more complicated narrative path, a shrewder, tougher sense of who John Dillinger is...Dillinger’s popularity is only hinted at in a couple of scenes, and Mann, as he did in “Heat,” divides his admiration evenly between criminals and cops. Both are risking everything. The movie is structured around repeated scenes of wounded men (agents as well as criminals) dying as they look into the eyes of their friends. Yet some of the dying men are barely known to us, and the device, though beautifully staged in each case, doesn’t have the power it should have had. The movie is emotionally neutered."

[RocShemp]

I hate comments like "the detail and depth of field are phenomenal in the dark scenes, but the bright flaring, occasional unnatural movements and excessive detailing of skin flaws remain annoying" when it comes to digital video. Film, if correctly focused, is just as detailed. Why do people think video magically shows detail that film does not?

[scott1598]

Originally Posted by Jaymole

Since Doctor Gonzo has AGAIN taken the positives from a review that was given a NEGATIVE overall at Rotten Tomatoes, here is some more of the review:

"There’s something missing—a sense of urgency and discovery, a more complicated narrative path, a shrewder, tougher sense of who John Dillinger is...Dillinger’s popularity is only hinted at in a couple of scenes, and Mann, as he did in “Heat,” divides his admiration evenly between criminals and cops. Both are risking everything. The movie is structured around repeated scenes of wounded men (agents as well as criminals) dying as they look into the eyes of their friends. Yet some of the dying men are barely known to us, and the device, though beautifully staged in each case, doesn’t have the power it should have had. The movie is emotionally neutered."

what is Gonzo's point for taking out the rest of the review? seems silly and stupid.

[Jaymole]

I believe the film will get mostly positive reviews and even the negative ones won't be too harsh. On the other hand, I don't expect it to receive a lot of glowing reviews like Rex Reed's either. The film is a solid 3 star entertaining film but it could/should have been much more.

[scott1598]

will see this tomorrow and looking forward to it.

[badlieut]

Ebert's review 3 1/2 stars.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/906299997

[FuQ]

Originally Posted by Jaymole

I completely disagree, this scene was by far the worst of the film...a total Hollywood cliched contrivance just to show how cool Depp/Dillinger is.."hey look at me, I can walk into the Dillinger squad room and talk to the guys but nobody will recognize me because i'm wearing shades...I'm so cool!!!"... I literally groaned out loud during the film when this scene played out.



I agree with you....a great scene, (except for the use of video), and the highpoint of the film for me.

Dillinger actually did this, sorry you didn't like the scene but it is historically accurate.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by badlieut

Ebert's review 3 1/2 stars.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/906299997

Exactly what I thought and expected.

I'm stoked.

[Dr. Mantle]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC

Question: Does the big gunfight here top or at least at the same level as the one in Heat?

Nothing will ever top the gunfight in Heat, so the answer is no.