Public Enemies Review

Public Enemies
Directed by: Michael Mann
Written by: Ronan Bennett, Michael Mann, Ann Biderman (screenplay), Bryan Burrough (book)
Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Stephen Dorff, Channing Tatum, Billy Crudup, Leelee Sobieski, Giovanni Ribisi, Stephen Graham

publicenemies1

The prospect of Johnny Depp playing a 1930’s gangster is probably all that was required to sell most people on Public Enemies, but with director Michael Mann (Heat, The Insider) at the helm, no one really knew whether to expect a summer action movie or a character-driven art piece. What’s more, with the number of great gangster flicks that have been made over the years, Mann had his work cut out for him if he was hoping to create something that could measure up to some of the classics. His last film, Miami Vice, was a bit of a disappointment both critically and commercially despite having the star power of Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx. Could Public Enemies help him reconnect with audiences, or — better yet — put him back in the realm of Oscar contention?

When it comes to gangsters, John Dillinger may not be as well-known as Al Capone, and hasn’t been portrayed on the big screen nearly as often, but he is arguably a more compelling figure. Known as a modern-day Robin Hood of sorts, Dillinger and his gang knocked off nearly two dozen banks between 1933 and 1934, while always being careful to take good care of their hostages (if such a thing is possible). Since the general public had a distrust for banks during the Depression, Dillinger came to be seen as a folk hero. Meanwhile, the FBI was growing in size and strength during this time period, and they were ultimately determined to take him down one way or another.

Based on the book Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34 by Bryan Burrough, Public Enemies offers a surprisingly accurate historical account of Dillinger’s crime spree and some of the changes that were happening in America at the time. Although the movie has a deep supporting cast and initially seemed like it was being marketed as an ensemble piece, the truth is, John Dillinger is far and away the focus of the film. Other criminals like Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson and Homer Van Meter are present and accounted for, but rarely given much screen time.

I suppose this is all understandable when you’ve got Johnny Depp in the lead role, who for the most part, does a great job presenting us with an anti-hero who is both cool and charming, but deep down knows that his days are numbered. Admittedly, he is almost a little too charming at points, since he never really feels all that dangerous or ruthless. Michael Mann does a good job of glossing over the fact that he is a cold-blooded killer, allowing us to easily accept his relationship with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard). It may be a tad manipulative, although to be fair, it is also Marion Cotillard’s endearing performance that ultimately helps sell their ill-fated romance.

publicenemies2

On the flip side, the FBI also plays a prominent role in the film, led by a still somewhat inexperienced J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup). It is Special Agent Melvin Purvis who heads up the manhunt for Dillinger and his associates, played by a grim yet subdued Christian Bale. Thankfully Bale doesn’t give another testosterone-fueled performance along the lines of Batman or John Connor here. Although his character is relatively underdeveloped, he still manages to avoid letting it slip into a cliche and offers enough presence to provide a worthy adversary for Dillinger.

What will ultimately make or break the movie for most viewers is the visual style that Michael Mann brings to the table. If you’ve seen any of his work over the past 15 years, you’ll know that he loves to shoot handheld, and has been doing it since long before the Bourne movies went and made it an action movie requirement. What’s more, Public Enemies is shot entirely on digital video rather than film, and the results are noticeable to even the casual moviegoer.

It is definitely harder to see things in the shadows, with the image being a bit murkier and not as well defined in dark areas. However, it’s a trade off for some of the creative camera work and the added intensity during action scenes. No one does a gunfight quite like Michael Mann, and between the sound, muzzle flash and handheld camera, most of these shootouts and prison breaks are thrilling and unforgettable. I can understand why some people are getting tired of the so-called “shaky cam”, and I know that there are certain expectations for a ’30s gangster flick to look classy and slick. Regardless, I think the visual chaos fits here, and I was quite happy to see Mann give the genre a slightly different aesthetic for once.

Public Enemies is relatively long at 2 hours and 20 minutes, but that’s certainly nothing new for Michael Mann either. The important thing is that it doesn’t ever really lose focus, and Depp and Cotillard keep you invested in their characters throughout the dramatic scenes. It’s certainly not a full-on action movie, but there is more than enough gunplay and suspense interspersed throughout to keep you on your toes.

No, it’s not a perfect film, but I think there are a lot of interesting elements within Public Enemies, from the public fascination with criminals to the development of the FBI to the ethics of various police tactics. Michael Mann injects a modern style into an old-fashioned story, but I think the best reason to see it is probably just the cast and their performances. While Public Enemies will probably not end up being counted among the best gangster films of all time, overall I had a great time with it, and I do think there’s a chance it may be remembered come Oscar season. At any rate, it’s certainly one of your better options for a night’s entertainment this summer. — Sean

SCORE: 3.5 stars



Recommended If You Like: Heat, Road to Perdition, Bonnie and Clyde



  • My fears are abated. The videoness and runtime didn’t hurt the film? Great. Hope I feel the same way.

  • jim

    I disagree a bit. Alhtough I usually don’t have a single problem with video, I feel it got in the way of the story. Mostly because I couldn’t help sometimes feeling I was watching a television show… You know how you said the visual STYLE didn’t fit the story? Well, for me I think the video the fit the story… But maybe that’s just me, and it’s a solid film either way.

  • Henrik

    The shootouts in this film looks like fucking EastEnders!

  • Colin

    Wow. Public Enemies was a wet pile of a movie. It was a structureless snooze-fest that might have broken the record for most time-checks during a film. I can’t believe how poor the sound mixing was and the whole film had a disgusting “digital” look to it.

  • Neil M

    Yeah, I couldn’t believe how poorly the sound was mixed. I convinced myself that it had to have just been a problem with my theatre. Guess not. I liked the movie, but it was a bit of a mess.

  • I definitely noticed a few sound issues during the opening scene but after that they either went away or I was just oblivious to them.

  • dan

    Nice review, Sean…I enjoyed the film as well, but wasn’t completely blown away by it. I wished they would have fleshed out Dillinger’s chums’ characters just a bit more. The camera-work and look of the movie was a major highlight for me. Mann used some pretty unconventional angles and moving shots that weren’t exactly jarring, but lent to a very fluid and alive feel. It was a very modern and unique way of shooting a 30’s gangster flick, and it worked for me.

    I think Mann gets off on gun fights, cause they’re a shitload of shoot-outs in here, and they were all pretty awesome. They were shot beautifully, as well–lot’s of stuff I haven’t seen before.

  • Matt

    This post contains spoilers, for those of you who haven’t seen Public Enemies.

    Public Enemies lacked anything compelling: characters, story, scenes, and performances indicted. The movie spent so much time following around John Dillinger that it was forced to ride on the strength of his character, and when he remained largely undeveloped throughout, it failed. The film could hardly offer a somewhat interesting portrayal of a fascinating man. His idolization in the eyes of the public is underutilized; we only get a brief taste in the scene where he is being driven through the streets in the back of the cop car as people line the sidewalks to get a glimpse of him, as well as the scene in which we witness his charming exchange with the reporters. The focus isn’t on WHO HE IS, but rather WHAT HE DOES.

    As such, it’s an incoherent blitz of gunfights and robberies, which aren’t all that fun to look at, due to the fact that Mann’s direction and cinematography make it difficult to understand what the hell is even going on and who is involved. Between the majority of the action being shot in the dark and the fact that nearly every scene in the movie is a close-up, it can be hard to follow. Where’s the build-up there? Even if we can determine who it is that meets their demise, it makes no difference – most of said characters have been introduced in the last 90 seconds anyways. The only significant death that actually occurs in the movie is that of Dillinger himself, and due to the fact that he’s portrayed as such a static character throughout the entire whopping two hours and twenty minutes of the film, it’s hard to really give a rip!

    How about Dillinger’s opponent, Depp’s co-star, and the other major attraction of the film, Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis? Flop. Does he do anything interesting? Not really (other than gun down Channing Tatum from behind, which should be recognized – bravo). His character pretty much consists of police briefings, and Bale brings nothing new to the table here; they could’ve hired about anyone to play his part and produce the same results. He does have one redeeming scene in which intervenes during Frechette’s interrogation, but unfortunately it’s not enough to salvage his character or his performance. Which is true of most bright (yet fleeting) moments by other actors in this film as well.

    What was the deal with the completely underutilized and poorly written Chicago mafia/FBI subplot? There was hope there near the end of the film for the story to really pick up and go somewhere different, perhaps with both the gangsters and the police going after Dillinger, who the mafia had apparently decided was bad for business. We have J. Edgar Hoover, who is trying to convince the government that the Bureau needs to be expanded to the federal level to combat interstate crime, and we have Frank Nitti who, representing the Chicago Outfit, doesn’t think that’s going to be such a good idea. So why in the hell does it appear that he’s working with Purvis to bring Dillinger down in the end with the Anna deal? To bolster the image of the Bureau?

    There were nice things scattered throughout the movie, like most of the scenes involving Marion Cotillard (except for that worthless bit of dialogue between her and Depp juxtaposed with an awkward-as-hell sex scene). Ultimately, it comes down to a film that suffers from writing which is not quite up to par with ambition as well as cinematography that distracts and disorients in a way that takes me out of the story. Seems like a bit of a waste of a good cast – I’m quite the fan of both Depp’s and Cotillard’s work – and a chance to portray an intriguing part of American history. Maybe we’ll get a remake in a couple of years? Yeah, I’ll write, star, and direct.

    But that’s just my initial reaction. I’d give it two stars out of four as it stands.

  • Matt

    By the way, I obviously differ on a few points you made in your review, Sean, namely the enjoyability of the cinematography and the idea that the film doesn’t ever lose focus – I thought it dragged when I actually stepped back mentally and thought “okay, where is this going?” And I’m getting pretty tired of Bale as well; I’ve seen every one of his last seven or eight films and he’s just Bale playing Bale in a disengaging, stale sort of way in almost every one of them. The exception being maybe Rescue Dawn. But anyways… as such, I’m interested to hear what Jay and Greg have to say about the film in the podcast review. Hopefully they both get around to checking it out this weekend, while down here we’ll be busy grilling and shooting off fireworks.

  • Bill

    I agree with almost everything Matt wrote in his post. Except you’re being kind by giving it 2 stars. It was a one at best. Anytime it is an actual chore to sit through the last hour of a film like PE it ain’t good at all.

    Also, WTF with Bale’s accent? Was he imitating Kevin Costner imitating Jim Garrison in JFK or what? I would say it’s the worst American accent ever, but unfortunately it wasn’t even the worst American accent in this film. That went to Cotillard and I am a fan of hers.

  • Colin

    Billy Crudup’s accent was pretty gnarly.

  • This movie didn’t SUCK, nor was it a classic. It had weaknesses of characterization and engagement; but there’s a lot of artistry, and pleasure in the surface of the performances. See me review it with my father at Gab and Dad.

  • YO MAMA

    GO WATCH TRANSFORMERS 2 YOU MORONS. THIS FILM IS BY FAR NOT A FILM FOR THE RETARDED SUMMER MOVIE GOER. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT OUT DURING THE WINTER. THE VIDEO LOOKED GREAT. PEOPLE HAVE TO GET OVER 35MM SOON SINCE MOST FILMS WILL BE DIGITAL WITHIN THE NEXT 5 YEARS. IT IS ALSO A STYLISTIC CHOICE.

    THIS IS A MOVIE FOR ADULTS. A THOUGHTFUL FILM WITH A DIFFERENT TAKE ON A GANGSTER STORY.

    EASILY 3.5 STARS OUT OF 4.

  • I just got back from this and I’ve got to say it was really disappointing. Now granted, I saw a film projection of Mann’s digitally shot crime thriller, but that doesn’t count as the filmmaker’s knew a majority of the theaters would project the piece this way. It looked like shit. I literally was watching the same quality as so many Chicago independent features, just this one happened to have multi-million dollar actors!

    Someone please answer me this; WHY DID ZODIAC LOOK SO AMAZING AND PUBLIC ENEMIES LOOK LIKE CRAP!? I literally left the theater thinking one of three things, 1., Mann and his DP really don’t know what they are doing. 2., They don’t care, or 3., Mann has a lot of stock in digital companies.

    This film needed to be dripping with light, shadow, deep reds and rich set decoration – like Aviator. Instead, it is a blown out mess with many scenes like at the nightclub neither taking advantage of the camera’s ability to shoot dark spaces or create an epic set piece with rich set decoration! Mann may say he wanted to focus on the actors but the lines they deliver are poor and scream for some help from the surrondings.

    And the way this film makes everyone look pale and pot-marked is so misguided. If Mann’s intent is to make Dillinger seem rough and raw the rendition of Depp’s sikn is o.k., but everything about this film is a romantic version of a yesterday hero – the film technique goes counter to the intent.

    Wow, what a messed opportunity to do a really cool movie.

  • Oh, and to all the people that think this film presents good heists and shootouts I totally disagree. There is no suspense, or build-up, and the use of “dumb cops” screwing up INSTEAD of the criminals devising a plan to escape or outsmart the law has been done over and over, by every filmmaker in the first year of film school!

  • Rick

    as far as performence goes this movie got an A

    as far as everything else goes it gets an F. this movie was boring, long, and just horrible. It was predictable and you just wanted to get up and walk out half way in. Besides a few action scenes and a couple of funny jokes this movie sucked.

    how can you take a story like with john dillinger, a bank robber, and turn it into a 3 hour snooze fest. Sorry Johnny but not even you could save this movie.

    The worst movie i’ve seen all summer.

  • This was a particular troubled affair when considering the cast and crew on board. I didn’t think it lived up to the expectations at all, and I am surprised that anyone else could see it differently (that last part is kind of a joke).
    You can see my full Career Retrospective on Mann including my Public Enemies review, if desired, here.

    http://thefilmnest.com/2009/07/michael-mann-career-retrospective/

    The Rake

  • Deekay

    For all those morons who
    a) gave this film 3.5 out of 4
    B) (a more flagrant offense) ACTUALLY THOUGHT THIS FILM WAS ON PAR WITH LA CONFIDENTIAL:

    You need to get your heads tested. PE is a snoozefest if I ever saw/slept through one. Michael Mann thought he was making some edgy, true-to-life gangster flick but halfway through he probably got high and decided to make it a love story. And we end up with a Laaaaaame-ass film where you see johnny depp for about 2 hours with 50 other characters sharing about 20 minutes of screentime. Pointless pointless pointless movie.

    And having just done a mental recap of the last half hour (during which there about a million loose ends left untied coupled with some stupid, needless scenes) I have come to the conclusion that Public Enemies is a shit movie.

    I felt cheated after watching this film. The best part of my evening was when I played time crisis 4 for an hour afterwards. Seriously that game is awesome.

  • Will Armstrong

    What an incredible piece of shit! A perfect example of why I don’t go to the movies anymore. Like this review, “Public Enemies” is a structureless mess. What was the point of this film? Sorry, there is none. “Crime doesn’t pay”? Nah. I think the real theme was “Don’t go to the movies because you will die” and they pretty much proved that by the end of two and half long long hours.

    The digital handheld photography was just plain ugly. It was like watching the worst ever episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” The sound mix was really bad, too. I thought it was maybe just my theatre but I see others have also noticed it. The fact that they remixed Blind Willie Johnson’s song “Dark Was The Night” near the end of the film felt like a personal slap in my face.

    But even if this film, err video, were a technical masterpiece it would still be a big stinking piece of crap because of the poor, poor writing. The character of Dillinger remains static throughout and none of his chums are developed either, so you don’t care at all when they got shot and killed, if you can even tell who’s getting shot and killed. I feel so cheated by this movie…

    The 1945 film “Dillinger” is infinitely better than “Public Enemies” and it’s not especially good. Or how about James Cagney in “The Public Enemy” or any of those 1930’s Warner Bros. gangster movies, or “Bonnie And Clyde” or staring out the window watching the grass grow.

    Booooo.

  • Brandon

    This movie was utter trash. The only reason I stayed was because I had a friend with me who paid for his ticket. The sound was awful, the shaky cam looked cheap and made me nauseous, and the quality was like a terrible TV movie

    0 stars out of 4. Giant waste of time. Go read a book, walk the dog, take a shit – anything is better than this fucking movie

  • Johnny Depp was great in this role. His heart and depth for the role of Dillinger made a colorful portrayel of someone this generation knows very little if anything about.

  • Alex Mason

    I’m really very surprised at many of the comments this movie has received; I for one enjoyed this film far more than most I’ve seen this year. The image and sound mix at my local theatre were very good, and while not normally a fan of excessive handheld shots I felt that Mann did some wonderful cinematography.

    The thing I also like about this film was the amount of action. I’m not an action-junkie, but at the end of the day these men’s lives centred around violence and it was being represented. Yes, I agree that sometimes it was very short and there was little in the way of ‘genius escape plots or epic shootouts’, but it all felt very genuine and right, since robberies did last mere minutes.

    I was disappointed in the characterisation, it must be said. I felt the performances were generally very compelling, but you did feel that characters were under-developed. While I would have liked to see more screen-time given to Dillinger’s associates (it was very difficult to put names to faces) I felt that Depp and even Bale carried the film very well anyway. In fact, I wasn’t quite ready for the level of subtlety and complexity in the characters of Purvis and Dillinger; some might say that’s just an overused excuse used by filmmakers who haven’t coaxed good performances out of their characters, but my peers and I marvelled at the staggering depth of these actors.

    Each to his own opinion I suppose. However, I do feel that some comments have been overly harsh. I for one thought this deserved more than 1 star, and can’t help but feel that some people have either missed the point or were expecting a different film. I wasn’t expecting this, but I was pleasantly surprised.

    On a side note, my local paper said that this was “a poor relation to the Cagney classic, ‘The Public Enemy'”. Now, while I loved The Public Enemy, any reviewer that’s tried to link these two films is idiotic, I hope we can all agree on this at least. Honestly, these two films deal with none of the same subjects and have no relation to each other at all except in title.

  • Alex Mason

    Oh, and one quick addendum; I hate films which show one scene in which the status quo is normal, and the rest of the movie is full of exceptional circumstances. I mean, I don’t begrudge the movie-makers, they need to cover some adventure and plot progression and create suspense.

    I just loved how in this film we actually get to see lots of bank robberies carried out as normal

  • DMH

    Public Enemies was a sorry excuse for a film. What’s worse is that it takes hard work to ruin a movie with Johnny Depp in it. So congrats to Mann and Spinotti for accomplishing the nearly impossible. The film looked like it was shot on a handicam, printed to 35mm, then dragged on asphalt. I’m all for digital technology, but this film set it back in terms of being up to par with film. Check out http://www.filmordigital.wordpress.com or reduser.net for more digital vs. film stuff. Oh, and if you haven’t seen Public Enemies, don’t bother.