★ 9 / 10
**Dillinger, an iconic bandit in a respectful and
Filipe Manuel Neto
**Dillinger, an iconic bandit in a respectful and well-made film.** There is no shortage of quality films about Prohibition and the many notable criminals of…
**Dillinger, an iconic bandit in a respectful and well-made film.**
There is no shortage of quality films about Prohibition and the many notable criminals of this era in American history: Al Capone, Bugsy Siegel and others form a kind of “golden age” of organized crime. John Dillinger is among them, occupying a top place on the list of great criminals of this era.
After a rebellious and delinquent youth, Dillinger deserted the Navy and ended up being sentenced to almost twenty years in prison after a grocery store robbery. The sentence was considered excessively heavy and left Dillinger resentful. From then on, he made the Indiana State Penitentiary his school of crime until he was released in 1933. With his freedom, he formed his first gang and began the bank robberies that made him famous. In 1934, he was arrested in Arizona and sent to Crown Point, Indiana, from where he made a spectacular escape, using a fake pistol made from a bar of soap or wood. His escape, the notoriety he had already acquired and the interstate nature of his crimes led to the involvement of the recently founded FBI. Meanwhile, Dillinger formed a second group of criminals which included the equally famous “Baby-Face” Nelson, and resumed his robberies, while trying to elude the authorities. Months later, and after almost being arrested on several occasions, he was betrayed and denounced, and murdered outside a cinema.
The film is quite good. It is faithful enough to the events and to Dillinger's life, but mixes things up a bit, changing the order of events in order to increase dramatic tension (for example, the death of “Pretty Boy” Floyd is shown well before Dillinger's death , but it happened months later, in a corn field). Furthermore, the film exaggerates things. However, these are concessions that I accept because the film, in addition to being a fictional piece, is reasonably respectful of historical facts. I don't accept the poorly explanatory narrative so easily: anyone who doesn't know Dillinger and his life well will have some difficulty following the film. This may help to understand why this film was a failure outside the US, where John Dillinger is little known.
Michael Mann is a very competent director, thorough and respectful of the past. We saw these characteristics in “Last of the Mohicans” and “Collateral”, among other quality films. The director does a very good job in this film, which follows well the adventures of the criminal's life and his tricks to elude the police. The cinematography is magnificent and makes wonderful use of light and color, especially in scenes filmed at night, and the filming locations, props, vehicles, costumes and sets are convincing and quite realistic. The film's biggest flaw, for me, is the dispassionate way it approaches everything. Considering that the protagonist is an outlaw and that nothing he did was acceptable, having managed to like him would have been a bonus. In fact, what stood out to me the most was the extremely thin line that separated the agents of the law and the criminals they pursued: think about it, Dillinger was not detained to be present at a trial, he was executed in a public square and surrounded by hundreds of people who could have been injured if things had gone out of control. Who is hero or villain? The waters are murky, in the film as in life itself.
All I can do is talk about the cast, which is confidently led by Johnny Depp, an actor who has a special talent for complicated and unusual characters, and who gives us a very competent interpretation. Christian Bale, another talented actor for impactful characters, played the federal agent in charge of arresting Dillinger, and he is extraordinary in his effort. Marion Cotillard does what she can in the role of Dillinger's girlfriend, but the truth is that the film did not need any attempt at romance, even though the character was necessary to understand the life of the heartthrob criminal, and that's why she doesn't add much to the product. Final. There are also notable additions to the cast, including Stephen Graham, David Wenham and James Russo.
Read full review
★ 8 / 10
The devil is in the details
Chris Knipp
It's as hard to get a grip on Mann's impressive but vaguely off-putting new movie about John Dillinger's last thirteen months as it is to project yourself into…
It's as hard to get a grip on Mann's impressive but vaguely off-putting new movie about John Dillinger's last thirteen months as it is to project yourself into the coldly beautiful digital images. The title itself provides a clue to the problem: it doesn't focus on the star criminal embodied by the charismatic and -- here -- coolly dashing Johnny Depp, whose quips and provocations in the trailer draw us into the theater to see him, only him, and his bold exploits. It points instead to the wider focus of Mann's book source -- 'Vanity Fair' writer Bryan Burroughs' 600 pages of meticulous research, 'Public Enemies: America's Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34.' Relentless G-man Purvis (a convincing but bloodless Christian Bale) and his rising boss FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup, both droll and period) are part of another story as important as the bank robber's final wide ride, the story of the growing cruelty and relentlessness of the forces of American law.
Look at another title of a movie about a doomed but spectacular crime spree: Arthur Penn's 'Bonnie and Clyde.' That 1967 classic works so well because it's character-driven. Even in the sketchy but powerful scenes that outline John Dillinger's romance with French-Native American hatcheck girl Billie Frechette (Marion Cottillard, working wonders with limited material), character is subsidiary to function: "I rob banks," Johnny says. And then: "What else you need to know?" Well, quite a lot, actually, for a rounded character to emerge. Mann's movie is meticulous as to period look, to facade, but not to essence. Its street scenes are full of detail, its clothes immaculate and accurate. Taking place in 1933-34, however, it provides too few overt signs of the Great Depression. The film is also misleading in showing the Dillinger gang only robbing grand, marble-hall-and-column banks, when in fact they mostly robbed small and middling sized ones.
The overall result is a collection of contradictions. There is romance, but the effect isn't romantic. There's precise realism, but the overall effect isn't realistic. Perhaps the only unmitigated pleasure that remains is the images, the digital with its cold precision, its crisp edges even when many of the cameras are jiggly and hand-held, the depth of detail in darkness, the color that is neither bright nor faded, the sheer satisfying crispness of everything and everybody. And in this one aspect, a sublimely heightened vérité whose look is something quite new, 'Public Enemies' matches 'Bonnie and Clyde:' it makes us feel we're seeing period scenes with contemporary eyes. The best and most memorable images are the complex ones you won't see in stills where many actors are running back and forth in front of the camera, the gunshots are popping realistically in every direction, and there is no hint of the usual film chiaroscuro or highlighting, but the light is somehow beautiful. The cameras move too much, but they do rub your face in the action. What's gong on you may figure out later.
Maybe you can't avoid mythologizing when you shoot a movie about a famous Thirties bank robber and shouldn't try to, but Mann does. He's working, with great accomplishment, from that meticulous historical account, involving dozens of players on both the cop and the crook sides. Dillinger (and alternatively the totally unappealing Purvis) stay in the foreground. But there too is a contradiction, because the way Depp plays his part, witty, cold, and focused rather than warm and down-to-earth, his character ends up being impressive, but ultimately absent. (Contrast Warren Beatty's impotence and blinking charm as Clyde Barrow, an absence you yet want to cuddle.) Even when the characters are strong in Public Enemies, they don't get enough chance to interact. Dillinger is rarely with Frechette. His chance to confront Purivs is too brief, the moment when Purvis tells him he's to be extradited to Indiana and he quips, "There's absolutely nothing I want to do in Indiana." He's not facing off Purvis; he's playing to the audience.
This should have been one of the showpieces of the season, and it is indeed a blockbuster with class in a world of junk. Its virtuoso look and complexly orchestrated scenes will hold up with time, but despite a freshness in approaching familiar genre material, it's missing that certain 'je ne sais quoi.' Even though it's different, it lacks style, movie-making panache, playfulness, suspense, the ability to push a climax, the capacity to take a breather so the momentum builds up again. There's an impressive twittering machine functioning here on all its Ford V8 cylinders. But the light touch is missing, the capacity to make you say "Yeah!", to simultaneously stand apart and admire while utterly caught up in it all.
Read full review
68%
TOMATOMETER
· 277 reviews
59%
AUDIENCE
· 250K ratings
6.9/10
337.4K
•••
There is a 720p version of this from YIFY with no problems. I don't know why it isn't available for download. Hash: 007a9913ec737c50dd99c70110d97cb1e7f735a0