Public Enemies – Review ⁰

by Sinoun • Reviews • Tags: Billie Frechette, Christian Bale, John Dillinger, Johnny Depp, Marion Cotillard, Melvin Purvis, Public Enemies

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.