Public Enemies - not as bad as reported

[Pasquali56]

Finally caught this and enjoyed it. It's certainly no Bonnie and Clyde, but I was never bored. I don't understand why most everyone hated it.

[doubler83]

I saw it recently, too. I agree. Enjoyed it, never bored. Although Bale's accent was starting to grate on me by the end.

[THEUGLYDUCKLING]

i don't get it either, i liked this. it kind had that road to perdition feel. the problem i think, might have been is that people might not have liked johnny depp, he wasn't really likeable and to make this movie really work i had to like his character a little more.

[HLTassin]

I liked this movie also. I thought Depp was good, and I really enjoyed Christian Bale's performance as Melvin Purvis.

In a lot of ways Purvis's character was more interesting. I watched the Bonus deal at the end of the movie, and was suprised to see that the case really broke the man and that he later took his own life.

Despite the accent, I would have liked to see more of Purvis.

[Signal30]

I didn't see the movie, but I recall my grandmother (who grew up then) telling me that Dillinger was more of a folk hero than public enemy, least to a lot of folks during that era.

So, yeah... I can see where coming off of that might have harshed Purvis' mellow.

[snwrist]

Good film. In my top ten of 2009, albeit on the lower end. Don't understand the backlash either.

[Pasquali56]

For what it's worth, I also enjoyed Cinderella Man, another movie in the same era. I know many didn't care for it, either.

[Biohazard]

I agree with Bill Martell (http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2009/07/public-enemies.html).

[wcmartell]

I think there's a major difference between seeing something in a cinema and at home. In a cinema there is nothing else but the movie - nothing else to look at, no one to talk to, no other noises or things that allow your mind to wander. You can't glance over at something in your house or even the clock or wonder what your SO is doing in the kitchen - you only have that movie, so if it isn't involving 100% of every minute, you get bored easier than if you are at home. You can't hit "pause" and pee... you have to hold it.

So a movie at home often seems better than it did in the cinema.

Not to mention - I think digitally shot movies look better on a home screen than on a massive cinema screen, where every freakin' pore on everyone's face shows in perfect detail and hot women often look kinda normal.

My biggest problem was that there is a version that is a million times better out there already... and it was made as a junky low budget movie by AIP.

- Bill

[Signal30]

That's why I didn't bother... I like Johnny Depp, but he sure the hell is no Warren Oates. I didn't need to see it to know he couldn't be believable trying to play Depression era.

[wcmartell]

The thing is - PE doesn't seem to take place during the Depression.

And... why is it plural? Was there an earlier version that was about Purvis and all of the bank robbers?

- Bill

[Pasquali56]

I agree with Bill that it could be that PE is better on the small screen. Being a Michael Mann production with Johnny Depp as the lead gave it pretty high expectations (and hype) at the time it came out -- so I can see how others were disappointed. I personally wasn't disappointed, but I saw it in the comfort of my own home via Netflix -- with very low expectations.

I also agree that it didn't make an attempt to evoke any feeling of the depression era, which was critical to the story and Dillinger's character. That's one of the things I liked most about Cinderella Man.

[Mad Mat]

I agree with Bill Martell (http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2009/07/public-enemies.html).


I've just read Bill's article and I've got to echo Biohazard on this one ... I agree with Bill.

I saw it a while back with some friends at their home and afterwards all three of us just looked at each other and said "What the Hell was all that about?" We just didn't get it.

I understand how Dillinger may have seemed like a folk hero during the Depression, but he was no Robin Hood. OK, he may have never taken any money directly from the 'people', but he sure as Hell didn't give any back to them either!

And this was our point ... why was he robbing the banks (other than to just have the money)? It never once said why he was doing it, why he liked doing it or even what he planned his end game to be.

We know nothing about what Dillinger was trying to achieve (other than show some girl a good time). Not once did I even think he loved her. Maybe fancied her a bit, but never truly loved her.

So once again, Biohazard's signature springs to mind:

Who is the hero?
What is the hero attempting to do?
What is standing in the hero's way?
Why must the hero succeed?

Because in that film, I found it really hard to answer all those questions ...

... and as a result, I just didn't care one iota if Dillinger lived or died.

And since Christian Bale's character was so bland as well, I didn't even care if Dillinger got caught!

But hey, some of you guys enjoyed it and basically that's what counts. We watch movies to be entertained and you guys were. So fair enough. I always say if that if someone enjoyed a film when I didn't, then good on them ... that's what thay paid their money for.

All the best,

Mat.

[Signal30]

And this was our point ... why was he robbing the banks (other than to just have the money)?
It was Willie Sutton (another Depression era bank robber) that responded: "Because that's where the money is."

If the movie didn't evoke the era (or at least convey it to an audience that probably has no clue as to desperation of the times... the unemployment rate was at 25%), then yeah... it needed to explain that.

Bank robbers were the reality tv stars of their time. Which put the Feds in a weird place as far as PR goes.

[Mad Mat]

And this was our point ... why was he robbing the banks (other than to just have the money)?


It was Willie Sutton (another Depression era bank robber) that responded: "Because that's where the money is."


Cheers for the comment Signal (and I don't want this to sound sarcastic in any way, but that's text for you!), but I didn't mean why were they robbing banks and nowhere else, I meant what was Dillinger's motivation for robbing them - besides just obviously wanting the dosh? Because we, as the audience, are supposed to empathize with the main character and if his motivation is just greed, then sorry, I'm not empathizing.

And I'm also (again, without any sarcasm intended) very aware of the hardship of the Depression and that whole dust-bowl era and I can totally understand how those at that time would have loved to have seen the banks get robbed. But at the end of the day, Dillinger wasn't a nice guy. Maybe charming, but still a hardened killer ... and I didn't see anything in the movie to suggest that he was more than that.

In the UK, we had a renowned highwayman called Dick Turpin. He was supposedly charming and witty and only robbed stage coaches. But that's only because they were easy pickings and only rich people travelled that way. And like Dillinger, he robbed and killed people for nothing more than greed. So no matter how famous, charming or witty either of them may have been, they weren't 'doing bad things for good reasons'.

So what else is there about these characters that would make me 'care' about them? And that is where the skill of the writer and filmmaker comes in.

And for me, it wasn't there in Public Enemies.

Mat.

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

I really don't know how anyone could have seen this after the trailers, I mean you almost deserve what you got.

[Juno Styles]

just caught this tonight on dvd. it was a little better than miami vice, but thats not saying much. all the actors did a great job in my opinion....the storyline is what killed it to me. i would've been more interested in either melvin purvus or a little more of something to make me actually give a damn about JD. if he was supposed to be a hero, after watching this i still didnt really "get it", he was only a hero because the film showed a bunch of people cheering for him but without knowing any of the history behind this before seeing the movie you're kinda left shrugging your shoulders at the end like "....so what else is on tonight?" :|

not sure what happened to Mann....i think Heat was my last favorite from him.

[Biohazard]

not sure what happened to Mann....i think Heat was my last favorite from him.

Collateral was a kick-ass thriller. After that, he just lost it.

[Juno Styles]

i agree. i'll give him that.