I gave it an A for an A-. I liked it, but then again, I've never been too picky about movies. And, really, for me it earned the A for Johnny and Marion's performances. This was like an audition reel to show Johnny's full range of emotions -- cocky, mean, kind, sorrowful, etc. -- as well as showing he can do a very heartbreaking crying scene, can sing good, and is hot in a love scene.

The movie itself -- well, I liked it, but it was rather confusing with SOOOO many characters to keep track of, and personally, I wasn't impressed by Christian Bale at all.

So, yeah, an A for performances from the leading man and lady, a B for everything else, so an A- in the end.

Joy

PS: Yep, I'm baaaaaack!

WB, Tina!

Thanks. It's good to be back. I've missed the place like crazy.

Joy

Well, you have come back at an interesting time. If you enter the watercooler (at your own risk), you will see that the place has gone to the dogs because of some moderator elections and other issues.

The rest of the forum is somewhat ok, although some people may have left after you left and haven't returned.

Me likey Movie. Movie have pretty colours and pretty people. Me likey the Bale/Depp battle of Brain thingies.

Me might watch Movie again, me likey Movies they have pretty colours.

LOL... Love your review.

I'd watch it again, mostly for Depp.

And I actually kinda liked the "shakey cam". It wasn't as bad as other movies, and it made it feel like you were really there.

Joy

I like how, besides its cinematography, it felt like a gangster flick of the 1930s in its story, art direction, costuming, acting style, and well most of its look and feel in general. Not just a film about the 1930s, but rather a film that could sit along the great gangster flicks of the same decade.

But in the end, those aren't the best films ever made.

A-

After I'd seen this film, I wanted to do something to the cameraman, the cutter and the director. They really ruined a film that would've had potential.

If you're doing shaky camerawork in order to create a "documentary-like" atmosphere, you have to know how to use it. Apparently, whoever photographed this could not decide when to use it. Especially in a gangster/love story there are scenes that demand calm and cool camera-movements. The film's camerawork also focused on unimportant objects in the beginning. This, and wild editing, leads up to a point, where I as a viewer do not know where the action happens, where who is, and get to a point where I am simply confused. Which should not happen, it discracts immensely from the film's story and characters.

This annoyed me so much because I felt there was potential in it: the story of Dillinger, the performances of Depp and Cotillard (especially the latter).

Coming to the positive side, I have to admit the camerawork got a bit better towards the end (but still not the quality I was hoping for).
I particularly liked one scene: When Dillinger simply walks into the department which is after him. A very funny, well written scene, but which still is poorly directed and staged.

A disappointment.

Public Enemies is a bit jumpy from point A to B but its a strong gangster film with storng performances across the board. Johnny Depp does a fine enough job as John Dillinger though every now and then his performance feels a bit dried out. Christian Bale is the better of the two leading men as Melvin Purvis as there much more determination and originally put into his character. Marion Cotillard does a fine job as well as Billie Frechette but her time on screen is shorter than need be to really grasp her situation. Stephen Lang isn't too shabby either in his role. Enemies is filled with many intense scenes of action and some of the camerawork is beautiful. However, the plot is almost too much and there is no wiggle room available to bring in a quick side story. Also while some parts of the plot were stretched out too long, others were cut too short. Overall, its a good enough entry to the gangster genre thanks mostly to the actors involved and not much else. **1/2

After watching it again, I was even more impressed. It really is a fantastic movie, and if it wasn't for a little film by Quentin Tarantino, it'd be my favourite of the year.

It's not just a Dillinger biopic; it's a sad, melancholy look at the last years of the golden age of gangsters. It's exciting and thrilling and action-packed (and all of those other things we expect from a Michael Mann picture), yes, but it's also moody and evocative and deeply introspective. We feel bad for these men as they're slowly squished out by the growing crime syndicates and worsening FBI. Their way of life is ending. In that sense, it's similar to the best revisionist Westerns (like The Wild Bunch or Unforgiven) in its tale of hardened men slowly dying off.

Depp is really the perfect Dillinger, as he strikes the perfect balance between natural charisma and world-weariness. Marion and Billy Crudup are great. And Stephen Lang's performance (as compared to his one in Avatar) is the perfect embodiment of the vast chasm between the films.

All of you who say that Mann is just style over substance are so full of shit.

not just a dilllinger biopic?

it's is a movie about him in name only. so historically inaccurate

You're drunk again, aren't you?

I never said it wasn't historically accurate. I just couldn't understand what Jay was saying.

Historical inaccuracy as a criticism, btw, is about as fucking dumb as you can get.

it was also incredibly boring.

better?

No, you're still fucking dumb.

rude. fuckin canadian

fucking arkansasian