Public Enemies

[Earende]

No one could stop John Dillinger and his gang. No jail could hold him. His charm and audacious jailbreaks endeared him to almost everyone -- from his girlfriend Billie Frechette to an American public who had no sympathy for the banks that had plunged the country into the Depression. But while the adventures of Dillinger' gang -- later including Baby Face Nelson and Alvin Karpis -- thrilled many, J. Edgar Hoover made Dillinger America's first Public Enemy Number One and sent in Melvin Purvis, the dashing "Clark Gable of the FBI." However, Dillinger and his gang outwitted and outgunned Purvis' men in wild chases and shootouts. Only after importing a crew of Western ex-lawmen (newly baptized as agents) and orchestrating epic betrayals -- from the infamous "Lady in Red" to the Chicago crime boss Frank Nitti -- were Purvis, the FBI and their new crew of gunfighters able to close in on Dillinger.
Starring Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Channing Tatum, Stephen Dorff, Giovanni Ribisi
http://www.publicenemies.net/
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810021973/trailer

[Zen Elipsys]

I'm hittin' this one. Fan of ganster movies anyway. I just hope this one doesn't cheese out.

[WS]

Gosh Christian Bale has been busy lately!

[Nick Danger]

We went to see Public Enemies last night. The movie claims to be "based on" the book of the same name by Bryan Burroughs who, by the way, had something to do with this getting this film made. I wonder if he still is glad his name is on it. (I keep thinking about what Robert Wuhl had to say about movies "based on" a true story) Don't get me wrong. this isn't a bad movie. But if you expect to learn anything about John Dillinger, the 1973 movie with Warren Oates and Ben Johnson is almost as good.

The movie is set up along the lines of Heat - hardly surprising since Michael Mann directed both films - with Melvin Purvis being Dillinger's protagonist. In all the reviews I've read, Christian Bale takes a lot of heat but I don't think the fault is his. First off, he is badly miscast, which is not his fault. Melvin Purvis was a short, dapper, ladies man (Well, they got the last part right). Secondly, the script has Purvis being a hard-edged, do-anything-to-get-the-job done sort of a guy. The script credits Purvis with a lot more competency than he had. But what are you supposed to do when the script, as your first appearance on the screen, calls for your character to shoot Pretty Boy Floyd (thereby establishing your reputation as a gangster hunter), when he was actually shot five months after Dillinger was assassinated? Historically speaking, it's pretty much downhill from there.
The movie does occasionally hit some historically accurate marks, though. Although they screw up how Dillinger got captured, his return to Indiana, his press conference, and his escape from jail are pretty much right on. The first half of the actual shootout at The Bohemia Lodge is also pretty much right on (although the events leading up to it is pure crapola), including the fact that it was actually shot at the real Bohemia Lodge. But once the boys go out the windows, so does any history involved (The script calls for Purvis to kill Baby Face Nelson just after the escape; Nelson was killed six months after Dillinger and Purvis had nothing to do with it).

I confess that I have mixed feelings about Depp as Dillinger. People back then looked old for their years, compared to today, and Depp simply looks to young. And I think his cockiness is the type that belongs more to gangster movies than to actual gangsters of the day (although the former did influence the latter). But every once in awhile, Depp gets it dead right. Marion Cotillard is well-cast as Billie Frechette and does a great job. The strength of this movie though, belongs to the supporting players. Stephen Graham is fabulous as Baby Face Nelson (and they have his part well-written, save for his death), Ed Bruce (who you won't recognize), Stephen Lang (as Charles Winstead, the only real pro among the Feds) who you also may not recognize, Giovanni Ribisi as Alvin Karpis, and Peter Gerety as lawyer Louis Piquette (also well-written and well-played). Maybe it has something to do with the way these characters are written, which are all very true-to-life, but they make the movie.

Bottom line: See the movie (even better if you can see it for $4.75 a ticket, like we did). It's fun and you can take your wife/girlfriend and they won't be bored. But this is still, at heart, a 30's gangster film with the moral lessons removed. If you want to learn more about Dillinger, there are several books I can recommend.

[Earende]

Excellent review Nick Danger. A lot of insight. Thanks also for the references. That will be helpful in the decision making of seeing the film.
I really didn't think I would find out anything of interest about Dillinger from this. Seeing that most movies use dramatic license regarding 'based on' films. From the scenes that I have watched, it seemed to glamourized most of his life. Smart movie-goers will find this a little disheartening, but the overall buzz is pretty even.
Thanks again!

Nick Danger said:

We went to see Public Enemies last night. The movie claims to be "based on" the book of the same name by Bryan Burroughs who, by the way, had something to do with this getting this film made. I wonder if he still is glad his name is on it. (I keep thinking about what Robert Wuhl had to say about movies "based on" a true story) Don't get me wrong. this isn't a bad movie. But if you expect to learn anything about John Dillinger, the 1973 movie with Warren Oates and Ben Johnson is almost as good.

The movie is set up along the lines of Heat - hardly surprising since Michael Mann directed both films - with Melvin Purvis being Dillinger's protagonist. In all the reviews I've read, Christian Bale takes a lot of heat but I don't think the fault is his. First off, he is badly miscast, which is not his fault. Melvin Purvis was a short, dapper, ladies man (Well, they got the last part right). Secondly, the script has Purvis being a hard-edged, do-anything-to-get-the-job done sort of a guy. The script credits Purvis with a lot more competency than he had. But what are you supposed to do when the script, as your first appearance on the screen, calls for your character to shoot Pretty Boy Floyd (thereby establishing your reputation as a gangster hunter), when he was actually shot five months after Dillinger was assassinated? Historically speaking, it's pretty much downhill from there.
The movie does occasionally hit some historically accurate marks, though. Although they screw up how Dillinger got captured, his return to Indiana, his press conference, and his escape from jail are pretty much right on. The first half of the actual shootout at The Bohemia Lodge is also pretty much right on (although the events leading up to it is pure crapola), including the fact that it was actually shot at the real Bohemia Lodge. But once the boys go out the windows, so does any history involved (The script calls for Purvis to kill Baby Face Nelson just after the escape; Nelson was killed six months after Dillinger and Purvis had nothing to do with it).

I confess that I have mixed feelings about Depp as Dillinger. People back then looked old for their years, compared to today, and Depp simply looks to young. And I think his cockiness is the type that belongs more to gangster movies than to actual gangsters of the day (although the former did influence the latter). But every once in awhile, Depp gets it dead right. Marion Cotillard is well-cast as Billie Frechette and does a great job. The strength of this movie though, belongs to the supporting players. Stephen Graham is fabulous as Baby Face Nelson (and they have his part well-written, save for his death), Ed Bruce (who you won't recognize), Stephen Lang (as Charles Winstead, the only real pro among the Feds) who you also may not recognize, Giovanni Ribisi as Alvin Karpis, and Peter Gerety as lawyer Louis Piquette (also well-written and well-played). Maybe it has something to do with the way these characters are written, which are all very true-to-life, but they make the movie.

Bottom line: See the movie (even better if you can see it for $4.75 a ticket, like we did). It's fun and you can take your wife/girlfriend and they won't be bored. But this is still, at heart, a 30's gangster film with the moral lessons removed. If you want to learn more about Dillinger, there are several books I can recommend.

[Maxim Oleksyn]

I agree with you. I went to see this movie and noticed a few things that were not factual. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy it, but some of the things added/left out/misguided were glaring. It was more of a vehicle for Depp and Bale. Not based on facts.

[Nick Danger]

It was more of a vehicle for Depp and Bale. Not based on facts.

They did get a lot of the locales right, especially the prison at Crown Point and the Little Bohemia Lodge (which were actually shot at those locations). Some fudging is okay simply for brevity; here, they went a little too far.

But some of the scenes were absolutely right on, especially the events after Dillinger's capture. The flight back, the trip to the prison, the (in)famous press conference (which cost Estil his job) and the escape were dead on.

[Zen Elipsys]

Other than Johnny Depp (eye candy) and some action scenes, nothing worked well in this movie.
Marion Cotillard plays so lifelessly. She looked like she was focusing on her accent too much, forgetting to get the role right. She has to put something in that character.
Christian Bale was looking like a road side kill run by a disasterous script that can't decide whether Bale's character was a devil or an angel. His role was too streched out with blah blah dialogues.
There was alot of blah blah in this film. Most of the dialogue was boring.
The film often gets really slow at times for no reason. Too long overall, a good editing could have saved this movie.

As far as the comments, symantics. All of it. I was disappointed in the whole thing. Better off watching the documentary...
Skip it. No one will ever be as good as Dilinger as Warren Oates was back in 1973 IMHO.

[LunaDonna]

I liked it. And yes Depp is eye candy, but I like him as a whole anyway. The script did leave a lot to be desired, but hey, it was beautiful to watch. Plus the action scenes were sweet.

[Zen Elipsys]

The script just isn't there. From Dillinger's background and supposed popularity; little is said, less is shown.