PUBLIC ENEMIES (2009)

[indianasmith]

This one just barely makes it into the "Good Movies" column.  Its slow pace and hard-to-folllow plot make it a tough watch, but the visually beautiful sets and the performances of Depp and Bale in the lead roles of John Dillinger and Melvin Purvis, the FBI agent who finally got him, manage to redeem it for the most part.
   The biggest complaint is that the characters are introduced very rapidly, with no back story to explain how they got where they are, or why they act the way they do.  It's as if the producer expects all of America to be as up on the exploits of Dillinger and Company in the early 21st century as they would have been in, say, the decade after the events took place.  I mean, I am a history major and don't know enough about Dillinger's career to know what parts of the movie are accurate and which ones aren't.

But the bank jobs and prison breaks are outstanding, the shootouts are bloody and fast-paced, and Depp's acting carries nearly every scene he is in.  Definitely worth the rental.

[Neville]

Definitely a Michael Mann movie, with some of his usual Mann-isms and self references, but somehow it fails to reach the expectations. Depp does very well, his Dillinger is both beliveable as a tough, determined criminal and as a suave ladies' man, but the portrait of his FBI oponent is not even half as interesting, and Christian Bale's acting for once isn't doing the trick, as he looks quite wooden here.

Another problem I had with the movie is that it doesn't seem to know wether it wants to be a chronicle (even if it's a revisionist one, look how it tackles the issues of torture and abuse of power) of the FBI vs Dillinger days, or a more romanticised film about Dillinger. It seems to walk in this direction towards the end (Dillinger's walk inside the FBI building, his reaction to the gangster movie he watches), but by then it's way too late, because the frosty tone of the previous two hours has already settled. And note to Michael Mann: period films and digital cameras shouldn't mix. 

Still worth your time, though. A flawed film by Michael Mann (such as this one or "Miami Vice") is still better than other directors' finest.

[3mnkids]

I love Bale and think Depp is a great actor but I just couldn't get into this. I tried, really.    Its just sooooo boring and with the total lack of character development I just didn't care about them. 

[The Burgomaster]

I ruined this movie for myself by reading the (EXCELLENT) book first and setting my expectations too high.  The book centers on ALL of the top bank robbers of that era (not just Dillinger) and tries to show how the FBI, in it's early days, was disorganized, under-funded, under-trained, and often incompetent.  I highly recommend the book.  It's a real page-turner.

 

[Ash]

I love Bale and think Depp is a great actor but I just couldn't get into this. I tried, really.    Its just sooooo boring and with the total lack of character development I just didn't care about them. 

Same here.
Netflix delivered this movie to me almost 2 weeks ago.  I've started and stopped it at least 3 times because I just can't seem to get into it at all.
I'm tempted to send it back without having finished watching it.
(I'm only about 25% of the way through it)

I'm a fan of Michael Mann's other films, but Public Enemies isn't one of them.

[Flick James]

I liked it. My wife read the book, I skimmed through it. It does cover all of the major bank robber of that era, as stated before, include Bonnie and Clyde. The film could not have covered all of that, so it centered on Dillinger. I also agree with the OP that the characters were introduced without enough background. I still thought it was a well-made film, however. Not the greatest, but good.