An absolute waste of money

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

The American Depression-era gangsters seemed larger than life, often had colourful names and through their exploits, became a huge source of fascination for both the press and the population at large. Inevitably, the movie industry was quick to cater for the public's appetite for films about these characters and over the decades since the 1930s, the appeal of such movies has remained remarkably strong.Michael Mann's "Public Enemies" distinguishes itself from most of the gangster movies of the past by putting the emphasis firmly on realism and authenticity rather than thrills and excitement and the result is a crime drama that's presented in a more serious, detached and unglamorous style than most moviegoers might expect. Its main focus is on the period during 1933-34 in which the notorious bank robber, John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) was being pursued by an extremely determined FBI Agent called Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) and the differences between the charismatic criminal and the grim lawman could hardly have been more pronounced.After having been released on parole from an Indiana prison, Dillinger promptly leads his gang in a daring prison escape before embarking on a series of profitable bank heists. One night, at a Chicago nightclub, he's instantly attracted to a hat-check girl called Billie Frenchette (Marion Cotillard) and despite a tentative start to their relationship during which she's unsure what to make of him, Billie gradually warms to Dillinger's very direct style of courtship.J Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup), the young director of the organisation which would soon become the FBI, makes Dillinger the country's first "Public Enemy No 1" and assigns Agent Melvin Purvis to the task of bringing the gangster's crime spree to a rapid end. Having recently gunned down Pretty Boy Floyd (Channing Tatum), Purvis is put in charge of the Bureau's Chicago office where he sets about his mission with some enthusiasm. He's a firm believer in the use of the newer, more scientific methods of crime fighting (e.g. phone tapping etc.) and uses these in his pursuit of Dillinger. He soon discovers however, that these measures alone won't be sufficient to enable him to catch his prey and so has to arrange for some more experienced Arizona lawmen to be brought in to augment his team.Despite this, Dillinger continues to cleverly outwit his pursuers until, through the use of some pretty unsavoury methods, Purvis is eventually able to achieve his goal."Public Enemies" has an almost documentary style with frequent use being made of the real locations where the events actually took place and the Depression era being recreated in a way that's both beautiful and convincing. The action is presented in a very well thought out order that contributes greatly to the smooth and logical progress of the story and it's also particularly successful in showing how the manhunt for Dillinger became so important to the development of the FBI as a national entity.Johnny Depp does a marvellous job of portraying Dillinger's unusual combination of charm, ruthlessness and confidence in a very well balanced performance that captures the very essence of what made Dillinger such a popular figure with the public of his day. Christian Bale shows the cold tenacity that made Purvis so strongly focused and Marion Cotillard is extraordinarily good as the beautiful woman who was made to suffer greatly for falling in love with Dillinger.

"Public Enemies" is a biopic about the robbing-life of John Dillinger told from his perspective and from that of the police.Michael Mann, the director of among others "Last of the Mohicans", was also the director of this movie. In the previous named film he did a good job, in this one however, I found that it didn't live up to my expectations. He made some bold choices, whereby the movie suffered. He sometimes made it look like they were filming a documentary, which may sound logical, because it's based on a true story, but it really wasn't integrated nicely into the film and didn't fit well with what the movie had set up as a theme. He also let the camera shake a lot, which also didn't always work. Sometimes it did, like in the beginning sequence, which I by the way very much enjoyed. In that beginning sequence he used good soundtrack and changed the camera viewpoint often, whereby he has created an interesting and tense scene. Unfortunately the rest of the film wasn't as good as that first scene. Mann also used close- ups very often in this film, which gave a claustrophobic feel to the movie. That didn't fit with the movie as well. But he interchanged them at times with long shots, and due to this you weren't always caught in a claustrophobic feel. He also overused shadow and that sometimes created a nice shot, but other times it didn't work out that well. But overall this wasn't really annoying and it worked most of the times. It helped to create a dark atmosphere, and I believe that that was what Mann was trying to reach. The cinematography wasn't the greatest too: it was not a good looking movie. Which is by the way surprising, because the cinematographer had previously worked with Mann in other movies, that did look good. Michael Mann did however capture the action scenes very good. Those were tense and exciting to watch. Those scenes were actually the one that saved the movie, unfortunately. The soundtrack, though, I found to be pretty good, just like the costume design. This really helped to create the atmosphere the movie was going for. The sets too looked realistic and helped with the previous named thing. The sound design was good as well. The gunshots and all sounded realistic to me. The editing of movies is always done in a special way with Michael Mann, and in this film that was again the case. Sometimes I was a fan of it sometimes I wasn't, because at times scenes were edited in a clever way, like with placing the head of the character in one corner and switching between two characters at different places having a telephone conversation, but their head is always at the same paces, if that was any clear. So it was a hit or miss with the editing. But I found the pacing to be good. Hence this is a two hour plus film, I was expecting dull, boring parts, but there were none, due to the good pacing.The acting was very good. I had my doubts with Johnny Depp, because there are only two ways he performs: absolutely fantastic, or absolutely horrible. An example of an absolutely horrible performance of him can be found in the terrible, atrocious film called "Mortdecai". What a bad film. But in this movie I had a bit of hope it would lean to the fantastic side – "Edward Scissorhands" for example - , because Michael Mann was behind the camera, and it did in fact lean to the fantastic side. I very much liked his performance. Christian Bale, who played the detective trying to capture John Dillinger, too had a good acting achievement. His accent was consistent and sounded good to me. Marion Cotillard played the new girlfriend of John Dillinger. She gave a very good performance. I thought that she was the best out of the cast.The writing was lesser good. The story was interesting and told in a good way, but it was emotionless. The characters didn't get any development, whereby you didn't care what happened to them or what would happen to them: it just felt flat. The only really emotion we see from John Dillinger is when he says what happened in his youth in a quick fashion to Marion Cotillard. And that's about it, which is kind of sad actually, because we see Jason Clarke's character in a lot of scenes with Johnny's, but yet I can't even recall his name. So when he died it just felt like another disposable cast-member died, even though this wasn't what they were going for. The dialogue, however, was well written and realistic. Some of the lines were very good, but I think that they focused a bit too much on that aspect of the script, and less on the charactorial part of it. In the end this wasn't Michael Mann's best films, but it wasn't his worst either. The acting was good and so was the beginning sequence. The script was lacking in character development, but it succeeded at the dialogues. Nonetheless, even though the characters weren't good, Michael Mann managed to create good action sequences that held up the movie together with the acting. That's why this film gets a 6.2/10 from me.

Johnny Depp as John Dillinger, the notorious gangster from the 1930s, is a ball to watch. He's a tough, dirty, smart criminal who knows how to entertain the audience. Johnny is at his best when he stops playing dress-up and takes off all the makeup and is just himself. He plays the bad guy as good as anyone, which is what he does beautifully here. Christian Bale is solid as the detective trying to take him down, but it's Michael Mann who returns to the crime genre to execute a thrilling, true story about mafia and the life of a brutal gangster in great fashion that brings us back to a critical decade in American history.

Michael Mann has made some really great movies. Heat and Collateral are amazing. But he has made some weaker ones as well. Unfortunately Public Enemies belongs to his weaker. I had high hopes for this when it was upcoming. The poster of Johnny Depp clad in a trench coat and fedora hat and holding a Tommy Gun looked so cool. I imagined this as being like Heat but set in the 1930s. In several ways the setup is kind of similar. Johnny Depp and Christian Bale two actors at top of their game felt perfect as the leads. The criminal vs. detective thriller with both being the main character. Unfortunately it fails in all the things that Heat did so brilliantly. I've seen Public Enemies again after my first disappointed reaction but even when I tried to ignore my expectations on the director being Michael Mann and not to compare it to Heat Public Enemies is still a dull movie. The movie looks stunning I feel they have totally succeeded in recreating the 1930s Depression-era USA. But while the outside looks great it is on the inside that it is lacking. The story that is based on reality is actually a good one but the movie somehow still makes it feel uninteresting and completely devoid of any real substance . A major problem for the story is that we never feel anything for the characters. The actors do well overall but the writing is the problem also here. Johnny Depp fits well as John Dillinger. He looks the part and I can't say anything bad about his acting. It's just that his character lacks any real personality. I feel it's not really clear how the viewer should relate to Dillinger should we root for or against him. And this can be said about all characters in the movie there is no substance or development for any of them. I could not care less relation between Dillinger and Marion Cotillard's character. Christian Bale does well with what he's got but his character is less the focus of the story than Depp's. However I do feel that his attempts at an accent is very inconsistent. Unfortunate is that the action is just as bland as the rest of the movie. Michael Mann can or could direct tense edge of your seat action scenes. But the gun fights here are short and stale. It's just men shooting at each other but there is nothing creative about the action scenes. I'm not expecting these massive action set pieces and I know it's based on true events which seldom are as exciting as we like to see on screen. That doesn't matter. I think of Mann's Collateral which no is not based on reality but my point is that a skilled director can create thrill and suspense without that much spectacular action happening. Public Enemies is a well made movie only technically but lacking creatively. What should have been thrilling is boring. Actors struggling due to lack of characterisation. In the end this is not really a bad movie but it's not good either. Disappointing and forgettable I am sad to conclude.