jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jul 6, 2009 23:44:01 GMT
Mixed reviews had me kind of nervous for this one, because a Dillenger movie by Mann is right up my alley and there hasnt been a movie for a long time that I was really afraid of being disappointed in.
Well, I wasn't disappointed.
Mann shoots the thing beautifully and manages to create some interesting suspense throughout. I havent really liked any of the Depp movies this decade and was kind of growing bored of him as an actor. This movie brought me back to the Donnie Brasco/Ed Wood/Dead Man time and reminded me why he is such a great leading man. Christian Bale is somewhat wooden but it didnt distract too much. Marion Collitard is good and I wouldnt mind seeing her in much much more. The real gem for me though was in a supporting role. I wont say which person it is because it would diminish the scene, but he is playing the Joe Pesci in a Scorsese movie type role. Its an easy role to turn cartoonish, but like Pesci used to, this actor pulls it off well. You get a scene in the movie that brings memories of the bank robbery in Heat. I love it. When a shotgun goes off in a Mann movie, its a fucking shotgun. the crowd gets a little jump. the cackle of the tommy guns is very cool too.
the flaws... -The first action scene is very weak by Mann standards. I thought I was in for a long ride. -The love story angle wasnt terrific. I bet Dillenger had "dames" all over, and to be so into one seems very "Hollywood" of the film (that is a criticsm that I am uneducated to though, it may have really been that way) -this isnt usually the case in a 2.5 hour movie, but I wanted more. That second half hour of Goodfellas is all about showing the viewer how cool it is to be a mobster. I wanted to see how cool it was to be the modern day Robin Hood, and the film never explores much. It occured to me that the FBI seemed to be "closing the net" wayyyy too early into the film.
anyways, its a 4/5 to me.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 7, 2009 1:51:33 GMT
Wow I'm actually surprised someone at FCM actually reviewed this. I saw this last tuesday at the midnight screening, and my urge was to pen up my usual rambling reviews...but then I thought, would anyone at FCM bother to join in the discussion, as what non-happened with STAR TREK...or what?
But this aint about me, its about jrod and of course PUBLIC ENEMIES.
jrod - In score, I totally agree with you...but I think I'm slightly more positive about the film, at least in my recollection. So here is my unofficial rambling ego-review:
What struck me was how Mann sought to go against the Hollywood tradition regarding 1930s crime films, where instead of the fun glamorizing lifestyle or myth...even at the racetrack or night clubs, its a rather lonely, alienating lifestyle depicted from the get-go. Consider after the dramatic opening break out of jail, that adrenaline has passed and thrill of escape has become....now what?
Of course I could also argue that Mann, purposely or not, still portrayed Depp's Dillinger as a myth...a larger-than-life figure that took an army of cops and Federal agents to finally be taken down. And not in a gunfight or by arrest, but basically by assassination. A sort of guy that isn't afraid of death, but more in the casual attitude of: "well, if its my day to go, then why can I do?" I loved how Mann paints Dillinger as a guy concious of his bullshit Robin Hood image, tries to maintain it until "the people" turn against him, if at least because of his association with the goddamn violent psychopath Babyface Nelson. Of course those words can be used to describe Dillinger as well, such people willing to kill over dollars and getting in the way without caution or moral concern...but Nelson was certainly something else.
Compare that to Bale, who's afraid to die and isn't as self-assured of himself or his fellow agents' compentcy as Dillinger is. Consider how well-orchestrated and planned Dillinger's death is in the build-up and execution, but Purvis just walks off and given only a text-epilogue. Remember ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD, or the Jesse James story at least? Quite a parallel there, eh?
Someone at AwardsDaily made a snide comment that Bale needs to quit these broad springboard parts for more complex, colorful performances, and maybe he was right. Look at THE DARK KNIGHT, that mediocre TERMINATOR: SALVATION, and now PUBLIC ENEMIES. Bale is the more boring character compared to his "rivals" (Ledger, Depp, Worthington) and thus I fear people will get the impression that Bale can't act.
Which to anyone who has seen AMERICAN PSYCHO or RESCUE DAWN or HARSH TIMES and so forth would know is complete bullshit. But the general moviegoers saw those blockbusters, not those little indie movies.
The biggest charm of ENEMIES for me is probably Mann's visualization take on the 1930s crime film, which has been looked in the same look and cinematogprahy/set-up regarding action and characterization...like Brian DePalma's THE UNTOUCHABLES. Remember those great moments at the French Oscar Winner Lady's apartment, combined with the digital camera? Fucking brilliant.
jrod, you should check out John Milius' DILLINGER sometime. That batshit insane-if-talented-crazy filmmaker's directorial debut, it was produced as effectively a Roger Corman-B ripoff to BONNIE & CLYDE of that time, yet Milius with his nerdism of guns (like Mann) and a great cast (Warren Oates as Dillinger, Ben Johnson as Purvis)...its a pretty good movie. Which is why if ENEMIES is better crafted in every way, I kinda somewhat prefer DILLINGER as being more intimate, or the John Dillinger legend more appropriate with Milius' deadly-warriors-who-respect-each-other-in-combat macho mythos.
Check it out sometime.
*=Spelled Wrong
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 7, 2009 15:14:41 GMT
It's a bit rubbish.
Very flat. No characterisation, another overnight love interest, no less than three bank heists, Tommy Gun Central. Mann the auteur in tech-fetish mode. The music was terrible at points. It's overlong. And that Milk-like attempt at making what happens to be a bit of a whimper into a dramatic death had my eyes rolling all over the place.
Bale's gone stale and I've gone right off him. Depp looks lost when he's anything but a pirate.
It's nice to see somebody embracing digital as keenly as Mann is, but am I the only one who thinks it's a bit flat at present, a bit gimmicky? There's only a few instances when it looks visually rich in Public Enemies; otherwise, meh.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 7, 2009 15:27:48 GMT
Capo, what it does it say when my earlier posted gut instinct of your reaction was correct?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 7, 2009 15:27:50 GMT
The real gem for me though was in a supporting role. I wont say which person it is because it would diminish the scene, but he is playing the Joe Pesci in a Scorsese movie type role. Its an easy role to turn cartoonish, but like Pesci used to, this actor pulls it off well. Watch This is England. Seriously. He's vicious. Judge Phelan stole the show for me! LMFAO at Herc, too.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 7, 2009 15:36:17 GMT
Capo, what it does it say when my earlier posted gut instinct of your reaction was correct? Very, very little, unless you're on another parade of self-congratulation. The reason why Heat is such an engaging film is its subplots are necessary to the overall narrative and the two leads are well characterised. In this film you don't get any insight into Purvis's career or life (that the text coda tells us he took his own life in 1960 tells us very little in terms of relevant implication from the film's narrative); the romance is instant and happens to be the note on which it ends; it's a romantic but ultimately flat attempt at an epic, short on character, narrative drive and actual pace. I've come to dislike gratuitous camera work such as that employed from the start here; the zooms and the shakes. The film has one or two effective scenes; the jailbreak midway through is one of the few moments in the film where you actually know who is where and what is going on, spatially.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 7, 2009 15:42:59 GMT
Very, very little, unless you're on another parade of self-congratulation. And for once, one can't argue that it wasn't a deserving parade. Because I was right you know. Hell I even afforded elephants this time. That was awesome. The biker gang though started a fight or two, but hey it was alright. At least they didn't stab someone like at that Rolling Stones concert. The reason why Heat is such an engaging film is its subplots are necessary to the overall narrative and the two leads are well characterised. In this film you don't get any insight into Purvis's career or life (that the text coda tells us he took his own life in 1960 tells us very little in terms of relevant implication from the film's narrative); the romance is instant and happens to be the note on which it ends; it's a romantic but ultimately flat attempt at an epic, short on character, narrative drive and actual pace. I've come to dislike gratuitous camera work such as that employed from the start here; the zooms and the shakes. The film has one or two effective scenes; the jailbreak midway through is one of the few moments in the film where you actually know who is where and what is going on, spatially. First off, if I remember right, didn't you call HEAT overrated, a movie that...to paraphrase your words..."played bettter in memory?" I even remember you talking of how everytime you watched HEAT, it wouldn't hold up? Second, no ENEMIES aint HEAT. In a way I'm reminded of how Scorsese's work in the 1990s was haunted by GOODFELLAS, as if everything else didn't compare. Shit even CASINO, which I know you liked, was disimssed as a GOODFELLAS retread. Which is how I'm seeing ENEMIES described by many. Of course ENEMIES lacks the replay charm value of CASINO, and indeed more and more I care less for ENEMIES, so not an apt comparison at all. But it's worth a thought I suppose. Third...at least it was better than MIAMI VICE, right? ;D
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jul 7, 2009 21:13:25 GMT
Depp looks lost when he's anything but a pirate. I feel the exact oppisite of this. Im obviously in the minority, but I didnt think his performances in the Pirates movies were all that great (and the movies get , 0, 0 so f them). Ive just never had as much fun with his fairy tale-ish roles as most seem too. if its a gimmick he's got me hook, line, and sinker. regardless of what Ive thought of his efforts in digital as overall movies, there's some visuals that are permanently burned in my head.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jul 7, 2009 21:30:46 GMT
i am very much wondering why Mann switched around some actual events. I dont think it helps or hurts the film really, but *********SPOILERS***********at Little Boheima the film makes it look like the battle was a draw or perhaps even shows the FBI winning a little bit. In reality, Red was killed days later and Nelson lived longer than JD (even became Public Enemy #1 after JD's death). The only people killed in reality were FBI guys and innocent bystanders. Maybe Mann thought by making the FBI look as bad as they actually did it would seem like he was a little too much on the side of the criminals? Maybe he wanted it to look like the feds were closing in on JD a little more dramatically?
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 7, 2009 22:45:11 GMT
jrod - My impression as Mann painted it, that the FBI fucked up and the bad guys got away.
I mean lets admit it: FBI had the manpower advantage, and those crooks were trapped in that building...and yet the only people rubbed out were civilians, and by the FBI. One could even discuss how we always deplore criminals/terrorists for not giving a shit when they kill innocents in the way, but if its cops or soldiers who do that, we shrug and say "shit happens."
BTW jrod, I thought it was fucking fascinating how Mann shot that Little Bohemia shootout actually at Little Bohemia...and Depp's shootout sequences were filmed in Dillinger's actual room. God knows how much time and money and attention-to-nerd-detail MAnn did on the studio tab to recreate that same theatre street and alley where Dillinger got wasted.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jul 7, 2009 22:51:41 GMT
jrod - My impression as Mann painted it, that the FBI fucked up and the bad guys got away. SPOILERS did they though? JD got away, but they also fatally wounded Red and killed Nelson. I mean, obviously they really fucked up to, but the battle was not without its victories. in real life, this was much more embarassing for the FBI, hard as that seems.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 7, 2009 23:54:04 GMT
I don't know, but I'm sure Mann will make his case in the ienvitable DVD commentary.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 12, 2009 18:09:45 GMT
Very, very little, unless you're on another parade of self-congratulation. And for once, one can't argue that it wasn't a deserving parade. Because I was right you know. Hell I even afforded elephants this time. That was awesome. The biker gang though started a fight or two, but hey it was alright. At least they didn't stab someone like at that Rolling Stones concert. The reason why Heat is such an engaging film is its subplots are necessary to the overall narrative and the two leads are well characterised. In this film you don't get any insight into Purvis's career or life (that the text coda tells us he took his own life in 1960 tells us very little in terms of relevant implication from the film's narrative); the romance is instant and happens to be the note on which it ends; it's a romantic but ultimately flat attempt at an epic, short on character, narrative drive and actual pace. I've come to dislike gratuitous camera work such as that employed from the start here; the zooms and the shakes. The film has one or two effective scenes; the jailbreak midway through is one of the few moments in the film where you actually know who is where and what is going on, spatially. First off, if I remember right, didn't you call HEAT overrated, a movie that...to paraphrase your words..."played bettter in memory?" I even remember you talking of how everytime you watched HEAT, it wouldn't hold up? Second, no ENEMIES aint HEAT. In a way I'm reminded of how Scorsese's work in the 1990s was haunted by GOODFELLAS, as if everything else didn't compare. Shit even CASINO, which I know you liked, was disimssed as a GOODFELLAS retread. Which is how I'm seeing ENEMIES described by many. Of course ENEMIES lacks the replay charm value of CASINO, and indeed more and more I care less for ENEMIES, so not an apt comparison at all. But it's worth a thought I suppose. Third...at least it was better than MIAMI VICE, right? ;D None of this tells me anything about Public Enemies. I referenced Heat to make a point about this film's fatal flaw: its lack of character. By "character" I don't mean some romanticised image of a 1930s "modern day Robin Hood" pitched against an oppressive, fascist FBI, but a more worked-through human that is a product of social and historical circumstance. The film doesn't address why Dillinger is the way he is - why he robs banks to make a living - nor is it interested in asking why Hoover and the FBI is so intolerant of him, beyond vague references to the "upkeep of the law". As a result, you get what I described above: "No characterisation (because no social context from which anything can grow), another overnight love interest (a big part of the thin cartoonish veil Mann places over reality), no less than three bank heists (repetitive narrative suggesting not only creative lacking but that Mann is only interested in formally impressive set pieces and little more), Tommy Gun Central (ditto)." Mann is quick to make us dubious towards Hoover, who comes across as a creep (though he was probably a human too), but the film's also too quick to romanticise Dillinger. He's a hero through and through, and in failing to remind the viewer that he was also a violent sociopath (and in turn without delving further into the social implications from this), the film is unable to go deeper in its portrayal. And so its a watchable genre film at most; and, as is often the case with celebrated contemporary American directors such as Mann, a frustrating waste of potential. I found the film theatre scene(s) quite interesting, in its attempt to mirror today's audience too: Dillinger in the cinema watching newsreels of himself, at a time of the Great Depression (and he's a social hero for robbing the banks, the very banks that betrayed the country) and on the brink, in turn, of an ever-increasing economic crisis in our own times. But in doing this, the film again makes siding with Dillinger as a tragic hero too simple, too easy. And so the film lacks moral depth also. Other than this, any social or historical reference seems to be quite cheap and expository; it renders all that sort of stuff as academic, peripheral, when in fact it's unavoidably central to the issues at stake when portraying a "Public Enemy #1" (who happens at one point to be a public hero). It's about as profound a period film by Michael Mann as I expected.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 13, 2009 1:56:16 GMT
Fair enough, though I still argue that while ENEMIES wasn't about characters, it was more all revolved around the idea of Dillinger, not the person. Two completely different concepts.
Someone at Outlaw Vern's website pointed out how Dillinger and that whole epoch became the basis for the modern day FBI's federal jurisdiction, covering interstate felonies....and lead decades later to the downfall of the stereotypical Italian Mafia in the states. Of course the movie doesn't cover that Hoover became Hoover of infamy because his FBI murdered Dillinger.
ENEMIES doesn't compare at all in quality surely, but in some ways I was reminded by CHE, which didn't bother with "characters" either but more the iconograhpy of Che the revolutionary, and why he was a model for success and failure in that particular field.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 15, 2009 14:57:33 GMT
Instead of broadly dismissing digital filmmaking or using some inadequete deconstructive criticla method, here is a great great review that pegs everything wrong with ENEMIES that bugged Capo...but more developed. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnny Depp as John Dillinger is not a bad idea. He’s a charismatic guy, he projects intelligence and mischief. You believe he could pull off those robberies, charm the press and have the cops pulling out their hair. And Christian Bale makes sense as Purvis, the guy tough enough to take him out but who will spend most of the movie failing and fuming.
Michael Mann delivers a more mainstream, less brooding and macho movie than usual, so most people will like it better than MIAMI VICE (but not me). He still uses that style he’s been fond of lately, lots of handheld shots, all shot digitally, kind of a strange choice for a period piece like this, but not too distracting (or revolutionary, either).
It has some real good gunfights. Not the choreographed sort of way that I usually like but more like MIAMI VICE, chaotic in-the-thick-of it kind of scenes, like you’re an embedded reporter, hearing different gun sounds in all directions. Sometimes one whisks past you or hits a wall near you but luckily you survive. It has some tense scenes, a couple chuckles, the actors are all pretty good. There are lots of little surprise appearances to keep you on your toes (Lili Taylor, Stephen Dorff, Giovanni Ribisi, random Leelee Sobieski cameo). I didn’t even realize that was Bill Crudup playing J. Edgar Hoover. Good job Billy. The movie is fine.
So why didn’t I like it more? I’m trying to figure it out. It took me a while to get involved in it. It definitely got more exciting as it went along, but never got me in the gut the way some of these Michael Mann movies do. I think the main problem is that I’m not sure what it is about this version of the story that’s supposed to make it worth telling again. Yeah, maybe the period detail is more accurate, I think they dressed up the actual theater where he was shot, etc. (SPOILER). And they hit on some different themes. There’s a couple nods to him being a folk hero (people cheering him on the road when the cops take him in, refusing to take a bank teller’s money because he only wants money from the bank itself). And I like that they don’t hit you over the head with it, but on the other hand they don’t really do anything with it either. They just bring it up and then move on to something else.
I didn’t notice any important new discoveries or interpretations of Dillinger’s motives. It doesn’t explore the mundane details of the robberies any more than a normal bank robbery movie does. It doesn’t de-mystify or humanize the legend, or if it’s trying to it doesn’t do enough to be all that interesting. When it gets into the backgrounds of the characters it tends to be through clunky dialogue, like when his girlfriend (Marion Cotillard) basically does a monologue about her background during a sex scene. At least she didn’t talk about what kind of music her dad listened to (see my MIAMI VICE review for more on Michael Mann’s belief that your dad’s record collection is the window to your soul).
It’s very possible that I just don’t get it, that there is something special about this and it went over my head. I tried to cheat by reading an interview with Mann, but that didn’t help either. He says that the main thing he started with was the idea that Dillinger was great at planning bank robberies but had no concept of planning for the future. Which is nice and all but I got no clue why that seems like such a fascinating idea to Mann. To me that seems like a pretty obvious attitude for a daring bank robber to have and not enough to hang a movie on.
Also I gotta say I’m concerned about Christian Bale. I mean, I like the guy as Batman. I even like his controversial “Batman voice,” known to non comic book readers as his “Clint Eastwood voice.” And he’s real good at playing dicks. Maybe that’s a talent, maybe it’s a personality quirk, maybe it’s a result of his life long fear of lights being adjusted, whatever it is he’s good at it. For example in the 2000 version of SHAFT he plays a racist rich boy asshole, and despite an accent that shifts here and there he’s very believable in that role and you love to hate him. And of course he joined the pantheon with his all time classic performance in AMERICAN PSYCHO.
But after his John Connor and now this I think I’m starting to sympathize with the naysayers who’re sick of his constant gloominess. He needs the humor back. In this one he’s a dick, but not the kind that’s fun to watch. He’s just not likable, so you root for Dillinger, but only by default (or because you are so fascinated by Dillinger’s contradictory nature in regards to planning). I’m sure Purvis isn’t supposed to be charismatic, but I don’t know man, maybe that would be a more interesting movie to watch. I think about AMERICAN GANGSTER, where I went in excited to see Denzel’s badass gangster character, but ended up rooting for Russell Crowe as the cop trying to bust him. You see how his operation works in detail, much more than in this movie, and you root for him to succeed. That’s a more interesting dynamic in my opinion. Also, wasn’t that cool when I used the word dynamic. The noun version too, not the adjective.
Don’t get me wrong, this is a pretty good movie. I think I like it best when it’s getting into the operations of the police and their need to build new strategies of crimefighting, or when Dillinger does something really bold like escape prison in a stolen police car or walk through the task force headquarters and ask the cops for the score in the ball game. I was also impressed by the casting of some of the roughneck cops, especially the guy that leans down to hear Dillinger’s (fictional) last words. He seems more like my idea of what a real G-man would look like than what these guys in modern movies usually look like, and that last scene with him is real nice. It’s a Michael Mann movie, gotta get a little bit of macho man code of the honorarble warrior shit in there. I like it.
It’s a watchable movie, and most people seem to like it better than I did. I just hope for more out of Michael Mann I guess. He may think I’m being unfair, that it’s a double standard, that other directors would be rewarded for making an okay movie while he is being criticized for it. Well, tough shit Michael Mann. Remember in THIEF when you showed James Caan breaking into a safe for real, and we thought damn, I’ve seen a million thief movies before but I’ve never seen one like this? Well, there you go. You made your bed when you made THIEF. Now you gotta sleep in it.outlawvern.com/2009/07/09/public-enemies/#more-5417
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 16, 2009 18:37:44 GMT
Instead of broadly dismissing digital filmmaking... More baiting, but since it's quiet, I'll rise. Since you're not stroking anyone else's shaft these days but mine, I'll take this as some vague dig. Where have I broadly dismissed digital filmmaking? And if that wasn't a shot at me, then at whom was it a shot? I haven't read any broad dismissals of digital, on FCM or anywhere else, so the comment is completely impertinent, unwarranted... and yes, irrevelant. Did you type that in a rush? LMFAO. Sorry, but I had to stop reading at this point: "It’s very possible that I just don’t get it, that there is something special about this and it went over my head. I tried to cheat by reading an interview with Mann..." Some real deep developed shit there.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 16, 2009 18:54:49 GMT
"That’s a more interesting dynamic in my opinion. Also, wasn’t that cool when I used the word dynamic. The noun version too, not the adjective."
LMFAO!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 17, 2009 0:42:05 GMT
More baiting, but since it's quiet, I'll rise. Since you're not stroking anyone else's shaft these days I also do RNL on the side. Besides, that stroking includes TIICUT FOLLIES, which I thought you did a good lengthy review where you invested yourself. There is no mid-stream for handjobs. but mine, I'll take this as some vague dig. Where have I broadly dismissed digital filmmaking? And if that wasn't a shot at me, then at whom was it a shot? I haven't read any broad dismissals of digital, on FCM or anywhere else, so the comment is completely impertinent, unwarranted... and yes, irrevelant. The tone I got from some of your postings was that with Mann heavily pushing digital, that you weren't impressed. Of course I guess I was wrong. I'm sorry. Did you type that in a rush? A job tends to do that. LMFAO. Sorry, but I had to stop reading at this point: "It’s very possible that I just don’t get it, that there is something special about this and it went over my head. I tried to cheat by reading an interview with Mann..." Some real deep developed shit there. Yeah that "real deep developed shit" is a better critic than you, and especially better than me. For better or for worse (I might guess your choice), he's the ex-con/WTO protesting Pauline Kael for the 2000s. Plus he got two books published. No seriously.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 17, 2009 11:17:09 GMT
The tone I got from some of your postings was that with Mann heavily pushing digital, that you weren't impressed. Even if that was the case, again: where have I broadly dismissed digital filmmaking? Cool. Kudos to him. To be fair, though (and not that any of this remotely matters; you brought up Outlaw Vern with the seeming intention of belittling my own articulated response to the film), his review says nothing more (and a little less) than what I wrote here, which I know you read. So who is "better", then, seems not to be a question of who is more critically astute, but down to mere writing style. Fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of LLC on Aug 5, 2009 7:01:07 GMT
Watch This is England. Seriously. He's vicious. Weird I should stumble upon this now. I just caught that one not two days ago.
|
|