Mix feelings resulted after my initial viewing of Public Enemies a few weeks ago. On the one hand, Johnny Depp gave a stand-out performance, and on the other hand the movie’s central feature of heavy artillery tired me endlessly. Gun-lovers with a reverence for violence will pee their pants with excitement, but the sissy pacifist within me was just a tad overwhelmed by the excessive bullets.

Of course, what was I expecting right? The film’s called “Public Enemies” and it’s a story about John Dillinger, infamous bank robber/tabloid fodder running from an FBI squad determined to take him down. Merciless machine guns were to be expected. Anything less would’ve been too civilized. Fair enough. That’s not even my main complaint, it’s just a simple observation on our culture’s obsession with violence – but that’s a whole other topic, reserved for a whole other time.

Let’s just get straight to the core of Public Enemies, starting with the highest point: Johnny Depp. The movie should’ve just been called “John Dillinger” because every memorable scene happened when he was in it – the elaborate bank robberies, the ingenious prison escapes, the awesome line recitals (”They ain’t tough enough, smart enough or fast enough. I can hit any bank I want, any time. They got to be at every bank, all the time.”) The tone and inflection in that phrase alone is a testament to his incredible talent. The man just oozes coolness with every stride and every smirk taking the charismatic attitude to a whole new altitude.

This is by far Johnny Depp’s best performance. The movie shines whenever he takes front and center – where he displays his gifts of charm and his deliciously seductive appeal, his smooth coolness and the way he effortlessly wins over supporters – including the press, the public (the irony) and of most importance, his lady love Billie Frechette played by Marion Cotillard, as seen in the captivating restaurant scene. Badboys are actually the antithesis of what I like, but even I could not deny Johnny D if he came on to me the way he did to her. Honestly, who wouldn’t want to be JD’s girl?

Others have stated that Depp and Cotillard lacked any true chemistry which I found hard to believe, considering their love-story was among the more interesting angles as well as the most magical. They had a spark that lit up my eyes whenever they appeared on screen – and this is apart from their superior good-looks. A friend of mine found Cotillard’s acting questionable, considering her Oscar-winning status, but I blame it on the awkward script – (”When my boyfriend finds out what you did to me, you’re going to be in big trouble.”) and then she says “fat boy”, and the whole thing came off sounding kind of silly. But Cotillard admirably injected both innocence and strength into the central female character, a coat-check girl who suddenly finds herself in the heart of John Dillinger’s notoriety.

I was originally excited for this movie because of Christian Bale, because he never disappoints, and he certainly did not as Melvin Purvis. But honestly, all I kept thinking was “outta the way, you!” (The way Homer Simpson said it when he pushes aside that little lamb) Bale was great as always, but his character was just too wooden, too naive, too spineless and too forthright to be admired. That is, until the end of the interrogation scene, when Melvin is guided by compassion instead of ruthless determination. Of course one can’t blame Christian for Melvin’s character, and from the viewer’s perspective, Melvin is not the man we root for, because our spirit lies with Johnny’s survival. The funny pants he wore won’t win him any points either.

Which leads me another point altogether – the period pieces were quite astounding – the costumes, the cars, the set, the aesthetics all came to life under the skilled instruction of Mr. Mann. The camera will be (has been) a source of contention among many film-goers and critics primarily for its HD-in-your-face clarity. Personally, at times I felt like I was watching one of those British television dramas. The ones that would prompt me to quickly change the channel. But I eventually got used to the technique and I appreciate the insider-like glimpse into the fast life of Mr. Dillinger.

I’m not qualified to judge the artistic merits of the movie, but I am able to subjectively assess whether it was enjoyable, and while I could endlessly praise Johnny’s presence, it wasn’t enough to catapult the movie into classic status. The truth is, I got bored. It’s as simple as that. I just lost interest. It peaked then it plateau’d, it delighted then it dragged. And somewhere between this beefed up bio of the intriguing, albeit seemingly fictional man, I got lost in a blaze of fierce firework and fire-cracker-like bullets.

Michael Mann was obviously very ambitious and confident in his ability to recreate, or retell Dillinger’s ill-fated tale. For the most part, it’s all very entertaining and fully-engaging. But something was missing. The entire project was a big under-taking with big stars, big guns and big egos. But where the film shines with star power, it dulls with drab dialogue. I can’t help but feel that it could have used a little more conversation and a little less ammunition – a little more soul and little less rock and roll.

I finally got around to watching How to Be, the indie-flick starring Robert Pattinson which I had been looking forward to for some time now.

Here’s the thing with almost every single movie I anticipate - it never meets my expectations (with the exception of The Dark Knight).  Granted, I have a tendency to create unrealistically high expectations, so when movies fail for me, they usually fail big time. How To Be however, was only a moderate fail.

So the story centers around a young lad named Art (played superbly by our hero of the moment, Robert Pattinson) whose miserable existence prompts him to invite an acclaimed self-help author to make him better. “I’m going to get fixed” is how Art aptly puts it. As far as first impressions go, being the socially-maladjusted, awkward and depressed individual he is, one could agree that he does indeed need “help” with integrating himself into conventional society.

Art is well-played and skillfully made to look like the social loser he’s supposed to be. The odd pairing of too-short gray slacks with pink Converse shoes, the unruly mop and the lanky stride are all designed to subvert his intense good-looks. (And while this is indeed a far cry from the suave and mysterious Edward Cullen, it’s virtually impossible to mask his inherent handsomeness).

Robert Pattinson is extremely like-able and pitiful at the same time - which means he’s done his part well. He’s funny when he needs to be and this helps break the monotony of the movie. When Art gets fired from his job, he ruefully protests “but I’m a volunteer”, and when his girlfriend breaks up with him, he fabricates stories of a woeful childhood hoping she’ll sympathize with him. And when she doesn’t, we certainly do. Or at least I do anyway. (Come on now, it’s Robert Pattinson!)

Having an endearing central protagonist is the only way to keep the film afloat, because unfortunately Art is surrounded by characters who just aren’t that appealing – namely, his two friends whom I found to be rather annoying and his parents, who, though were just carrying out their intended roles, also left me cold.

Dr. Levi Ellington, the self-help author added a fun dimension to the film, but isn’t used to his full potential, and when the script calls for him to state the unhumorus obvious, his character becomes stale.

Now, why was I disappointed with the story?

Well, here were my expectations:

I like movies that can change my life. Since I’m kind of undergoing my own quarter-life crisis I was hoping for something that would inspire, that would offer up answers in the “what is life all about?” department. Of course, that’s just a lofty expectation, because expecting a movie to “change your life” is like hoping a song will solve your problems – these can empathize with you, but can never replace personal real-world experience… and I’m acutely aware of all this… but still. Still.

Secondly, seeing as how the film bills itself a comedy, I was looking forward to witnessing some truly comedic moments, you know, moments that would force me to slap my fellow spectator out of sheer laughing madness or something. I easily recognized all the moments where I was supposed to laugh, but frankly those moments were just too trite to be funny. Maybe it’s a British humor thing that I didn’t quite grasp, I don’t know. If I had to choose one word to describe the film, that word would be “quirky”.

Now this is hardly a bad movie, for I’ve seen much worse (New in Town for example – a new low in terrible), but it all feels too simple. Here’s a guy who’s having a lot of trouble adjusting to life, who’s got extremely weak ties with his parents, who’s jobless and loveless and who strongly believes he needs help. But most of all, he just doesn’t know how to be “normal”. He feels there’s something inherently wrong with the way he is and he just can’t figure it out.

Of course, normalcy is a social construct. I mean, how many people are truly “normal” anyways, right? We all have our little idiosyncracies, our flaws and our insecurities. We just try the best we can to adhere to the standards set out for us, whether we truly want to or not. It isn’t too long until Art realizes that the people around him are no less “maladjusted” than he. For instance, his parents’ icy detachment and lack of emotion, and his friend’s phobia of literally stepping out into the real world. Art then, is no more an anomaly than anyone else.

As these truths get discovered you can appreciate the movie’s intended message. How to be? Just be yourself. What to do in life? Just do what you like. It’s plain and simple – of course no one needs a movie to clarify this. And perhaps it’s my own fault for hoping a movie will yield the key to my happiness. Still, this over-simplification leaves me unsatisfied and uninspired.

I guess it was the idea of the movie that I really liked. When I go back and watch the trailer I think of how much potential it had, how enlightening and entertaining it could have been. I think of how it could have spoken to a generation of kids who’s lives are somewhere in limbo between late adolescence and true adulthood, who lack the direction to steer their lives towards a meaningful course. Films are gifted with the power to transform, or at least to engage its viewers in a dialogue of insightful awareness and introspection. But when they under-utilize their strengths they remain nothing more than a moving picture-book of mediocrity.

How to Be sails along quite nicely if you’re in it just for the Pattinson-ship and the random, temporary funnies as well as the cute audio tracks dispersed throughout. And yes, while it is a film that strums its own tune, it never quite blossoms into a full song – the melody’s there, but lyrically, there’s nothing memorable here.