Public Enemies

< Previous Trailer  |   Add to My Scrapbook  |   Next Trailer >
Public Enemies

65% Liked It
liked it

Public Enemies

Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Billy Crudup, Jason Clarke, David Wenham, Christian Stolte, Stephen Dorff, Branka Katic, Stephen Graham, Giovanni Ribisi, Leelee Sobieski, Channing Tatum, James Russo

From award-winning director Michael Mann (Heat, Collateral) comes the film inspired by one of the country’s most captivating and infamous outlaws — John Dillinger. Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Cari...( read more  read more... )bbean series) stars as the charismatic and elusive bank robber marked by the FBI as America’s first “Public Enemy Number One.” Academy Award® winner Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose) plays Billie Frechette, the only woman capable of capturing his heart. Hunted relentlessly by top FBI agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale, The Dark Knight), Dillinger engages in an escalating game of outrunning and outgunning the FBI, culminating in an explosive, legendary showdown. “It’s a landmark crime saga” (Peter Travers, Rolling Stone).

Id: 10998412

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...

Public Enemies Recent Reviews

Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews

Public Enemies Recent Reviews
  • sanjurosamurai
    November 17, 2009
    sanjurosamurai
    i watched this film having seen 3 documentaries about the life of john dillinger. after much anticipation i can say that i loved this film, while at the same time feeling disappointed by it because i think i expected even more from a movie helmed by mann with such a superb cast. ...( read more) on the upside, the film was exciting and filled with memorable scenes. mann thankfully made great decisions on what to include in the film as most of the main points in dillingers career that his documentarians have focused on are the same things that ended up in the film. however, i was very disappointed in the cinematography as the camera work was shaky and the tone of the photography was an unfortunate choice. the fleshing out of characters and situations was also far too underdeveloped leaving the film with an incomplete feeling. as the film carried on, it moved too quickly from one situation and character to the next and left me wanting a lot. pervis was the most underdeveloped despite being a focal point as major points of the true story involving his character went unmentioned. overall despite the criticisms i actually did enjoy the film a lot but its not the masterpiece i was hoping for.
  • ebs90
    September 18, 2009
    ebs90

    Public Enemies is an exciting film, although a very inconsistent one. It begins with an adrenalyn rush, during a stylishly filmed prison break, and from then on it falls sloppy, gets back on track, and falls again, over the course of 2 hours and a half.


    For those of yo

    ...( read more)u who don't know, John Dillinger was made Public Enemy # 1 by J. Edgar Hoover. He escaped from jail multiple times, robbed banks multiple times, and was a public darling, more than a public enemy.

    Performance-wise I don't have many complaints. I'd say Johnny Depp is, and rightfully so, the main attractive of Public Enemies. After so many years reprising Captain Jack Sparrow, I think I had forgotten what an amazing actor he is. No cliches, no trying to imitate previous gangster characterizations. His performance feels isolated, truer to the character of John Dillinger, 'a man', than John Dillinger, 'a gangster'. Billy Crudup's short appearance as J. Edgar Hoover is also very good, as those of most of the supporting cast: Dillinger's gang, Nelson's gang, and the FBI officials. Marion Cotillard is great as Billie Frechette, Dillinger's girlfriend. I suppose the writers wanted to show her off a lot and that's why the love story is so recurrent.


    I do complain about Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis. He is probably one of my favorite actors, and I think it's popular knowledge what he can do with roles as different as Dieter Dietrich and Patrick Bateman. But his Purvis is nothing like the "Clark Gable of the FBI". He has some -few- inspired moments, but he was overall given so little to work with that he couldn't really pull through.


    I would have liked the characters to be given more development. Perhaps the conception of "action movie" got in the way of giving them much opportunity for insight. Dillinger is the one who talks the most, so it seems we know him the best. But Purvis, who plays a big role here, only shows up as an effect to a cause.


    The action sequences, though, are indeed excellently produced and look and sound amazing. Michael Mann's narrative structure really works when he's shooting that sort of thing, much better than when we're just following the characters from one town to another. Also, although some people found it obtrusive, I liked the effect of the hand-held camera he used.


    The cinematography could've been better (darn digital), and at certain moments the lighting was just lazy, which is a shame considering the perfect costumes, architecture, and props. The first sequence features a beautiful take of Dillinger's exhausted face against a washed out afternoon sky. I can't get it out my head, regretting that it was an isolated moment of visual brilliance. Without that, and a few other moments of good composition, I wouldn't have even pointed out that aspect at all. But it upsets me to think of what could have been.


    It doesn't lack style, though, and the costumes and art direction in general are impressive. It's the sort of romanticism I expected from a film about a gangster/pop star like John Dillinger apparently was . Everyone looking impossibly impeccable in suits and fedoras, the piercing sound of the machine guns, the soundtrack, etc. The problem is a general lack of substance. I think the writer tried to cover too much ground, and that's often a problem. Not everyone can pull off so many dimensions of a single story or character convincingly. Usually, there are parts that need to be left out, or merely be hinted at. The love story, I think, was almost front and center, and I don't know what was the point of that.


    Watching too much French noir made me sorely miss what I think should be present in gangster films. Namely, the scheming. The Dillinger gang goes into one bank after the other, but we never see them planning anything. Neither do we see what happens when they're out the revolving door with the money in their hands. The internal dynamics of the 'gang' are pretty much absent. Sure we see them interact and we know who are closest to Dillinger, etc, but I think that a sense of complicity was missing. Another thing: Dillinger was a sort of hero. But we only know that through suppositions and slight mentions.


    Other reviewers have pointed out another shortcoming with which I wholly agree. Dillinger operated during the Great Depression. Without the Great Depression, would there have been a John Dillinger? And yet, the poverty and misery of the era have such a secondary role that right now I can't remember them ever being shown. And I think that, if we are to understand why Dillinger did what he did and why the public supported him so, the background can't be so hidden.


    So... I guess I was expecting a much more intellectual film, which is not opposed to a film with the tense, masterful shoot outs and prison breaks of Public Enemies. To me, if you can't find an interest in a celebrity/gangster like John Dillinger, be it in his own psychology or that of his supporters and detractors, why make the film at all? By making only an "action" film, the characters turn out trivialized and boring. This doesn't entirely happen in Public Enemies, but close. What bothers me is the potential that went unexploited. I enjoyed the movie, but I wish the filmmakers had taken it a bit further.
  • ogerre225
    August 31, 2009
    ogerre225
    Not nearly as good as I expected, but still a decent movie.
  • allan913
    August 30, 2009
    allan913
    A spectacular masterpiece no questions asked. It's American Gangster meets The Untouchables. It's the best, most detailed and most constructerd crime film of the decade. A stylish, slick, classy and pistol packing crime drama. Director, Michael Mann's best film in years. It stand...( read more)s with his crime classics like Heat and Collateral. It's loaded with the flash, cash, class, big stars and all the bullets you could want. A hard-boiled, thrilling, exciting and pulse-pounding old-school action-packed ride. It's a real treat that dazzels and sizzels enough to melt cold steal. It's smart, stunning and wickedly well-crafted. It packs alot of punch and even more fire power. But what truly shines is the star power. Johnny Depp and Christian Bale are magnificent, these two powerhouse performers are at their absolute best. Depp gives a sharp, charming, witty and very charasmatic performance. Bale gives a swift, compelling, intelligent and very dedicated performance. These two actors deliver some amasing work in this film. A wonderful supporting cast also deliver teriffic performances that include Billy Crudup, Jason Clarke and Marion Cotillard. A riveting and very powerful film. This is an exhilerating and heart-pounding film that will keep you on the edge of your seat right to the very end.
  • sheens431
    August 20, 2009
    sheens431
    The saving grace here is Depp and Bale. Without those two this movie would have most likely sucked. Their great performances are really the main reason to watch this movie.

    Michael Mann does a decent job here, but the movie just overall lacks.

    I love these gangster movies, es...( read more)pecially the ones set in the '30s. It's an era I would love to be able to go back and live in. Where these people robbing banks, these renegades, were almost regarded with a Robin Hood-esque stature.

    The length of this movie didn't bother me at all, since I loved the story so much. I would have sat through another hour.

    My complaint is that with a cast like this I'm expecting something outstanding, and this wasn't. This was just another movie, not a movie that's going to make it's mark on history or anything.

    And most of the clever or witty one-liners in this movie had already been shown in the trailer, so they were pretty much wasted.

    The directing/timing of a lot of the shots seemed sort of awkward. Like Depp would have a clever line and instead of just cutting to another scene, or having someone reply to him, the camera would instead stay on his face for a few seconds too long. A minor detail, but one that I picked up on.

    Watch this movie if you're a Depp fan or if you like gangster flicks, but don't expect the usual Depp performance or the usual gangster flick.
  • hananperlman
    November 23, 2009
    hananperlman
    Nice idea, great actors, great direction. but it was too long with scenes that have nothing to do with the plot. the characters are under developed and you do not connect deeply to any of them (for example the rest of dillinger's crew or the agents).
  • tsingchie
    November 22, 2009
    tsingchie
    I expected a lot more from Mann
  • fairley70
    November 22, 2009
    fairley70
    Billiant Film Johnny Deep Played An Excellent Part as Dillinger Well Worth The Watch.
  • LadyG89
    November 21, 2009
    LadyG89
    sumting about diz movie i love. i normally dont watch movie lik diz. but it wuz a excellent movie 2 watch. old-fashioned n good drama, alittle bit of action n comedy. diz movie had it all. johnny u rock diz movie.
  • giacomonazzaro
    November 20, 2009
    giacomonazzaro
    Affascinante e precisa ricostruzione della vita del famosissimo criminale Dillinger che unisce sapientemente azione e sentimento con sapiente uso di inquadrature e scenografia. Da vedere
View All Reviews

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD