Public Enemies Review

When it comes to good movies, we can either like them or we can admire them.

Every once in a while a movie comes along that you both love AND admire (meaning that you’re not even a little ashamed to tell anyone you enjoyed). These tend to become the answer whenever someone asks, “What’s your favorite movie?”

However, most good movies fall into one of those two categories.

If we like a good movie (especially if we REALLY like it), we’ll tell everyone we talk to about it whenever the conversation turns to movies. We’ll watch it when it’s on TV whether it’s just started, just about to end or somewhere in the middle (because that one part you like is coming up in the next five minutes). It doesn’t even matter that you’ve seen it a few dozen times.

If you admire a good movie, you never bad mouth it. In fact, you can objectively appreciate that it was a well-made (often VERY well-made) piece of work, even if you may or may not sit through it ever again. The best way to tell if you admire (as opposed to like) a movie is this: when someone asks whether you liked it or not, the first words out of your mouth will be, “It was good.”

“Public Enemies” is a movie I admire.

You probably know the plot, but I sort of enjoy writing a plot-summary paragraph so I’ll tell you anyway. The film is set in the 1930’s when John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and a colorful group of American gangsters robbed banks and became national celebrities. The burgeoning Federal Bureau of Investigation led by J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) is assigned with tracking them down, so Hoover puts the Dillinger hunt in the clean-cut and capable hands of Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale).

“Public Enemies” is directed by the incredibly talented Michael Mann, and there’s certainly a lot to admire. I don’t think Mann’s characteristic attention to detail has ever been put to better use. You can tell the director relished the opportunity to recreate the look (terrific costumes) and sounds (the machine gun shootouts are suitably LOUD) of the era. I even liked Dante Spinotti’s handheld, in-your-face (and probably polarizing) cinematography, which brought a modern touch to the period setting.

Unfortunately, Mann appears to be more concerned with having his movie look and sound REALLY great than with crafting a cast of characters we’d actually care about.

This problem applies to the secondary characters (mostly played by familiar, competent character actors) that check in and out of the story. You may find yourself saying things like “Hey, there’s notorious criminal Pretty Boy Floyd — oh nevermind” or “Who the hell were they trying to break out of prison in the beginning?” (Only Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson makes any sort of a lasting impression among the supporting crooks.)

A bigger problem is that Mann doesn’t do much better with the story’s main characters.

The audience knows Dillinger is charismatic because he’s the cool leader of a gang, wears fantastic clothes and easily picks up French beauty Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) in a bar. However, Mann devotes a surprisingly poor amount of screen time and effort to actually showing us WHY Dillinger was so popular (and even admired) at the time. (He just WAS.) As a result, most of the weight falls on Depp’s shoulders, which isn’t a bad thing since he’s one of the best actors on the planet.

Mann doesn’t really bother with delving too deeply into Dillinger’s connection with Frechette and ends up somewhat wasting Cotillard (who has little to do until the strong scene where Billie is interrogated by the Feds). We don’t see why they were drawn to each other (other than physical attraction) they just WERE.

To the naked eye, it also looks like Mann somewhat wastes Bale in a pretty straightforward role. However, if you look closer this role is right up Bale’s alley. Sure, he can be an incredibly dynamic actor (see “American Psycho”), but lately he seems content to be the straight man to his more showy co-stars (Russell Crowe in “3:10 to Yuma”, Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”) and he does it well. However, since Depp’s Dillinger is a bit lacking in the character department, the movie could’ve used a little more out of Bale.

That being said, I actually found myself more interested in the brief scenes chronicling the FBI’s rough early days (and Crudup’s forceful, slimy performance as Hoover). There’s a good movie to be made out of that stuff.

The problem is that Mann seems to realize this (and the fact that the story of Baby Face Nelson, the emergence of the gambling racket in Chicago and a few other topics would also make good movies) and tries to shoehorn everything into his movie, seemingly sacrificing character development and a coherent plot.

In the end, “Public Enemies” turns out to be a very impressive and interesting piece of work that mostly serves as a good antidote to the usually mindless movies of summer.

(I just wish I could’ve said that I really liked it in that last paragraph.)

Public Enemies…B