Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We saw it last night, and as you mentioned BlueWillowPlate, still digesting the movie this morning. In fact, just finished googling Dillinger and his girlfriend Billie's bios.
Thought the acting was very good also, but halfway through the movie, found it quite disjointed and not enjoying it as much as I thought I 'should'. Very loud shoot-em-ups throughout. Seemed to come together more near the end.
I wonder if he really walked into the cop station so brazenly near the end, in real life, as portrayed in the movie? His bio did mention that he went to check out the situation of his girlfriend in jail, but realized it would be impossible to break her out.
Also just read that he had a face-lift and burned his fingertips with acid to get rid of his prints. This they didn't show in the movie.
Stone-ground, I agree with you about that middle part.
I really doubt that he did walk into the police station like that; I know it was a real scene, but to me, it almost felt like a dream sequence as he looked at all the wanted posters.
However, Dillinger did make some amazing escapes, so who knows. I read about the face-lift and fingertips, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phonelady61
we also went and saw it and yes whoever said that depp was a bad choice I agree he was too clean and polished looking . i think maybe dennis leary or some gruffer looking for sure . My brother did not like the movie at all and was dissapointed . I would definately say it was a guys movie cause I did not think of it all that much .
Hmm--well I am definitely not a guy, and I enjoyed it, but it was indeed a different role for Depp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jane72
Yeah, I saw it Friday nite.
It was okay... I think my husband enjoyed it more than I did.
I didn't think Johnny Depp was at his best or most charismatic; he did the best he could with the role he had to work with, but the writer did not make Dillinger a very deep or idiosyncratic character, of the type that Depp does best with. Dillinger has no past to speak of, and liked to rob banks and hang out with other outlaws. Beyond that, he has no particular motivations.
There was a nice sex scene with Depp & Cotillard, which is cool because he's done relatively few of them.
Cotillard as Billie was pretty good; I'd never seen her in anything before, but apparently she's starred in a lot of French movies.
Christian Bale was okay as Purvis; but again, like Depp, he just didn't seem to be all that invested in the role. There wasn't much depth to the character.
It's definitely worth seeing; the action sequences are good. If you're interested in life, culture, styles, etc of the 1930s, the movie seems very historically accurate.
I only wish they'd given Depp a broader range to work with.
But perhaps the real Dillinger wasn't a very 'deep', introspective, or sensitive guy, and they just wanted to make the movie as true-to-life as possible.
I did look up photos of the real Billie and the real Dillinger after seeing the movie, and realized that Depp and Cotillard were exceedingly well-cast.
Depp, sporting a jaunty mustache throughout most of the film, looks very much like the real Dillinger, and Cotillard looks a good bit like the real Billie.
I agree with much of what you say.
I enjoyed seeing Depp *not* be an eccentric character. But yes, we don't see much of his motivations, he is already an established public enemy; he was really almost mythical during those final months that the film follows.
I especially loved his last scene in the theater.
I wonder if some people wanted less of a love story, and more of a cat-and-mouse scenario?
I myself thought that Cotillard (a Best Actress Oscar winner) and Depp had real chemistry.
Billy Crudup was fantastic as that smarmy Hoover.
I almost always like Michael Mann movies. He has such a way of stylizing the grittiest of scenes. But I realize they are not for everyone.
I just saw "Public Enemies" and was very disappointed. No character development, little chemistry between actors, a rather sub-standard script and I found the whole thing really one dimensional.
Perhaps because Dillinger was an incredibly dull subject to begin with.
I also found it slightly repellent that the audience was in a way manipulated to somehow view this little thug as some kind of smart clever public hero. Robbing banks , beating up people and shooting them is not being heroic in a tragic sort of way....
Simply because you put a coat over a shivering woman you have just taken hostage as a human shield to save your life does not a hero make.
Below par in my opinion and doing absolutely nothing for Johnny Depp and Marion Cotillard's talents . All the acting seemed very laboured and wooden.
The sets and costumes were stunning but the hi-def cinematography was counter intuitive in my opinion as it meant a much clearer sharper focus on things like the actors foundation . powder , eyeliner and mascara...
A lot of style and little substance sadly.
As Gangster movies go I thought "The untouchables" in the 80s was far superior with more genuine character development and a lot cleverer as a film. And just as stylish.
I also found it slightly repellent that the audience was in a way manipulated to somehow view this little thug as some kind of smart clever public hero. Robbing banks , beating up people and shooting them is not being heroic in a tragic sort of way....
But maybe that was the point.
Bonnie and Clyde were 30's bankrobbers too, and were folk heroes just as Dillinger was--simply BECAUSE they robbed banks.
Think about the time and place of the movie.
Banks then were foreclosing mortgages, taking away people's homes.
There’s a scene in Public Enemies where Dillinger returns money to a bank customer because it is his, not the bank’s; it’s similar to a scene in Bonnie and Clyde where Clyde lets an old farmer keep his money because he won’t rob the common folk.
The media played it up, of course--but the idea was that Dillinger and the rest of the gangsters of that time were Sticking It To the Man, bucking the Establishment.
Now, do I think that it is such a great thing to go around shooting people? And does crime really pay?
Of course not, but there are plenty of movies I enjoy that do portray thuggish behavior. Like it or not, it is American history.
I just saw the movie this past weekend and whilst I thought it was quite good, I didn't think it was great nor particularly memorable. Frankly, the whole thing felt very superficial to me. There wasn't a single character I really cared about except possibly Billie Frechette and only because they made her into a little bit of an innocent victim (the old "She knew he was a criminal but loved him so much it didn't matter" ploy). Christian Bale is one of my favourite actors and Melvin Purvis might be a relative of mine, but even him I didn't really care about. Die-hard Depp fans will probably like it.
(Also, the story that Purvis killed himself is somewhat iffy. Truth is, nobody knows for sure if it was deliberate or a genuine accident.)
I just saw the movie this past weekend and whilst I thought it was quite good, I didn't think it was great nor particularly memorable. Frankly, the whole thing felt very superficial to me. There wasn't a single character I really cared about except possibly Billie Frechette and only because they made her into a little bit of an innocent victim (the old "She knew he was a criminal but loved him so much it didn't matter" ploy). Christian Bale is one of my favourite actors and Melvin Purvis might be a relative of mine, but even him I didn't really care about. Die-hard Depp fans will probably like it.
(Also, the story that Purvis killed himself is somewhat iffy. Truth is, nobody knows for sure if it was deliberate or a genuine accident.)
Wow, it did not feel superficial at all to me, but as I said before, I like Mann movies, though I know they are not for everyone.
I never felt manipulated or that I was watching some sort of ploy.
1930's Depression era America, in all its have and have-not glory, was up on the screen, and I was enveloped from that first prison break-out.
Perhaps a protagonist, however dashing, who ruthlessly steals and kills is not the most sympathetic character--how can we viewers, in the present, identify with this anti-hero?
But I took all of Mann's vividly painted ambiguities and ran with them--I will probably buy the movie when it comes out on DVD.
It was "meh". I think Johnny Depp's natural charisma carried a lot of this movie. Christian Bale was phoning it in, but I didn't feel like he had much to work with anyway. I didn't really like the actress that played Billie. I know this is shallow and superficial, but the crooked teeth were killing me. Of course, since her character could only afford $3 dresses, I guess it fits. I loved the actor playing Hoover. He was the standout. I didn't see any chemistry between Depp and the Billie character and couldn't understand how that relationship turned into love. The shootout toward the end was long and quite drawn out. It really started getting boring. Lastly, I didn't understand the point of adding that Purvis later committed suicide. I felt like the director/producer was trying to tie in that Purvis was so affected by the whole thing that her later (30 years later, hmmm) killed himself. It felt like a cheap shot. The cinemetography and costumes were fabulous.
But maybe that was the point.
Bonnie and Clyde were 30's bankrobbers too, and were folk heroes just as Dillinger was--simply BECAUSE they robbed banks.
Think about the time and place of the movie.
Banks then were foreclosing mortgages, taking away people's homes.
There’s a scene in Public Enemies where Dillinger returns money to a bank customer because it is his, not the bank’s; it’s similar to a scene in Bonnie and Clyde where Clyde lets an old farmer keep his money because he won’t rob the common folk.
The media played it up, of course--but the idea was that Dillinger and the rest of the gangsters of that time were Sticking It To the Man, bucking the Establishment.
Now, do I think that it is such a great thing to go around shooting people? And does crime really pay?
Of course not, but there are plenty of movies I enjoy that do portray thuggish behavior. Like it or not, it is American history.
I agree with you that of course Dillinger would have been media hyped into a sort of public hero at the time but must we still have him portrayed that way nowadays ? ( If Johnny Depp's portrayal of Dillinger was even remotely acurate he must have been one of the dullest man on the planet. never mind the thuggery I don't think I could even be stranded with someone like that in a lift.... To me he had as much appeal as a wet mop)
To me anyway it wasn't really my main problem with the film. I simply found it incredibly dull , shallow and superficial and completely lacking in any kind of "oomph". The acting felt incredibly stilted to me and laboured, I found the script really quite lack-lustre. Stephen and I kept looking at our watch which is never a good thing. I felt none of the characters were developed and relationships between them never quite fully explored.
It was a very good looking movie but as the Brits say "all fur coat and no knickers"
Style over substance which is a shame as I feel Mann is capable of far better.
If we are going to glorify criminals can we at least have clever, witty ones who are slightly more interesting to watch . I am a big Johnny Depp fan but to me this was just a very damp squib. It went off with a whimper rather than a bang.
Why chose a man with so little to offer as a character is what truly puzzles me. I am sure there are far more interesting criminals to eulogise on the screen.
I realise it is modern American History but it does not necessarily make good viewing IMO anyway. America has in its short history managed to rack up quite an astonishing numbers of fascinating characters , good and bad. Dillinger to me was certainly not one worth remembering.
To me "The Untouchables" and "Bonnie and Clyde" were far superior films with a lot more life and vibrancy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
