Public Enemies
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:34 am
I saw this last night.
Being quite a Michael Mann fan, I had high expectations. Public Enemies is, on the whole, rather mediocre. Despite a few amazing shoot-out sequences, the film lacks any real drama and runs much too long. Indeed, the only really noteworthy sequences in the film are the bank heists and the shoot-outs.
The film takes a rather romanticised view of Dillinger, which is not so much of a problem, except that it comes off as yet another story about a "good-guy" crook reluctantly working with some bad seeds (Bale's character is in exactly the same situation). The story is mired in this too-familiar cliche. The romantic sub-plot is almost completely irrelevant, except that it provides a plot reason for Dillinger to be at certain places at certain times.
The film has the look of being shot on digital camera, and this lends the action scenes a documentary feel.
Finally, Bale is a fantastic actor but he really needs to stop playing straight-guy roles. He's at his best when he's manic (American Psycho and Rescue Dawn), while in Public Enemies he has little of interest to say or do (much could be said of his roles in Termintaor Salvation and The Dark Knight).
America in the 1930s is sometimes referred to as the Public Enemy Era, as a result of high profile criminals like Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde etc. J.E. Hoover's role in this period is of particular note in influencing law-enforcement policy and popular opinion. Given the title, I would have expected Mann's film to pass more of a comment on this social/historical phenomenon. Instead, the era is represented with little more flair than any other period gangster movie.
Being quite a Michael Mann fan, I had high expectations. Public Enemies is, on the whole, rather mediocre. Despite a few amazing shoot-out sequences, the film lacks any real drama and runs much too long. Indeed, the only really noteworthy sequences in the film are the bank heists and the shoot-outs.
The film takes a rather romanticised view of Dillinger, which is not so much of a problem, except that it comes off as yet another story about a "good-guy" crook reluctantly working with some bad seeds (Bale's character is in exactly the same situation). The story is mired in this too-familiar cliche. The romantic sub-plot is almost completely irrelevant, except that it provides a plot reason for Dillinger to be at certain places at certain times.
The film has the look of being shot on digital camera, and this lends the action scenes a documentary feel.
Finally, Bale is a fantastic actor but he really needs to stop playing straight-guy roles. He's at his best when he's manic (American Psycho and Rescue Dawn), while in Public Enemies he has little of interest to say or do (much could be said of his roles in Termintaor Salvation and The Dark Knight).
America in the 1930s is sometimes referred to as the Public Enemy Era, as a result of high profile criminals like Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde etc. J.E. Hoover's role in this period is of particular note in influencing law-enforcement policy and popular opinion. Given the title, I would have expected Mann's film to pass more of a comment on this social/historical phenomenon. Instead, the era is represented with little more flair than any other period gangster movie.
) I went to the theater thinking "Yay! Another Michael Mann film!" I walked out thinking "That was a Michael Mann film?" I guess I expected Heat, which is IMO the best Mann film ever, but there's no comparison.