Without question, the movie I was most looking forward to in the summer of ’09 was Public Enemies. So many great parts coming together. A lot of people were excited to see heavyweights Johnny Depp and Christian Bale on screen together, and so was I. In a film about John Dillinger and Melvin Purvis no less! Sounded almost too good to be true. Billy Crudup and Marion Cotillard in supporting roles were also big draws for me. Most importantly, though, Michael Mann was at the helm of a gangster film. There was no way it wouldn’t be awesome.
Well, I think it was the first real disappointment of the year for me. I think.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have lofted such high expectations on the film, but, come on. Look at this sample of Mann’s resume:
Last of the Mohicans (Awesome.)
The Insider (Awesome.)
Collateral (Awesome.)
Miami Vice (Awesome. Yes. I said “Awesome.” And yes, I do mean the Colin Farrell/Jamie Foxx movie.)
Heat (Best crime film since The Godfather II.)
I love this guy!
The only potential worry I had was whether Mann’s infatuation with digital cinematography would mesh well with the film’s period setting. I knew the approach would be jarring. The question was whether it would be “draw you in and give you an interesting new spin” jarring, or simply distracting. Unfortunately, too often it was the latter.
I say “too often”, which brings me back to saying that I think the film was disappointing. I can’t make up my mind. Perhaps I should wait a week or so to write this review, but I want to give my most honest reaction, which is this: For two hours, Public Enemies is so wildly inconsistent that I couldn’t fully settle into it, but the film’s final fifteen minutes are so damn good that I found myself wondering if I loved it.
The film opens at the Indiana State Penitentiary, with Dillinger (Depp) apparently being brought in for a forced stay. Actually, though, he’s breaking in to get some of his buddies out. It’s a solid scene that gives a lot of insight into a number of things that will come later. What comes later? Dillinger and his gang rob banks. J. Edgar Hoover (Crudup) is trying to get his fledgling FBI up and running with a healthy portion of notoriety by taking down Dillinger and other criminals like Babyface Nelson. His top G-Man is Melvin Purvis (Bale), who becomes the public face for FBI agents and leads the hunt for Dillinger.
Dillinger robs banks. Purvis tries to catch him. Dillinger falls for the beuatiful Billie Frechette (Cotillard). Purvis tries to catch him. Both crime and crime-stopping in America are changing.
The acting across the board is high quality. Depp and Bale are their extremely reliable (as long as Bale isn’t in a McG movie) selves, though I didn’t feel like either created something really fresh. Billy Crudup, on the other hand, is outstanding as Hoover and, though he’s underutilized, should garner some awards consideration come year’s end. Cotillard provides a very believable foil for Dillinger in her first scenes, and really hits the mark in her bigger scenes near the film’s end. The second act of the romance seemed a little undercooked, though.
Overall, the script falls into the historical drama trap of moving from one event to another without creating the sort of flow that great films either have or purposefully toy with. I was never able to settle into it, but never felt that I was being intentionally unsettled. That said, the film’s finale and epilogue tie so many things together so well and pack such a punch that I want to see the film again to give the rest of it another chance.
Now, to Mann’s direction and vision for the film. I think I can honestly say that I would have loved the movie if Mann had just picked a coherent, cohesive visual approach to it. I’m not anti-digital. Some great films have been made that way, including some of Mann’s own. The problem is he employs a number of different cameras here, achieving a variety of looks, and there rarely seems to be a rhyme or reson as to why. In addition, there are some scenes that honestly look no better than student projects I saw in film school classes. I’m not saying every film of this stature has to look Hollywood clean and pretty, but plopping down really amateurish shots right next to some absolutely gorgeous ones is just distracting. Whatever Mann hoped to achieve with them, he didn’t. At least, not in my viewing experience. this was my biggest problem with the movie and it was very difficult to get over. Mann was drawing a lot of attention to his camera, and I just found that often to be an unwise decision.
Also, the sound editing in a number of scenes is just bad. Again, first film school effort bad. And again, there doesn’t seem to be any reason for it.
That’s what’s so frustrating about Public Enemies. When it’s good, it’s really good. Clearly, there’s a great film lurking inside it. I think I’ve even pieced it together in my head in retrospect, and I’m no one to begrudge someone wanting the audience to have to work for it. But, as far as actually viewing it goes, there are too many technical distractions to really enjoy it and rank it with Mann’s best work.
One last note: Yes, the gunfire does kick serious ass. It’s still Michael Mann, after all.
Ask a Dropout 