Public Enemies

[Bakunin]

That's going to be hard to fit into one film and develop all the characters isn't it? I also thought Depp was very good particularly because he's not so pretty in it. He's still a very handsome man but he's not got that distractingly beautiful thing going on in the film.

It certainly sounds like quite a job, seeing as the book is about as exhaustive an account as has been written on the subject, yes.

It sounds like an interesting role for Depp as well. He's good at grittier roles that don't require him to be just a pretty face, as he showed pretty well in 'Donnie Brasco.' Nice to see him exercising his (considerable) acting ability rather than just standing about looking handsome.

 

[Pickman's model]

like a lot of other people i was very much looking forward to this film. the book on which it's based was excellent, and i hoped that some of the magic from it would be transferred to the screen.

earlier in the year i saw the changeling, directed by clint eastwood. that was very much an atmospheric film in which you could believe you were in the era it was set. by comparison, public enemies left something to be desired on that front. the sets were good, the costumes were good, but there was something missing - perhaps it was that the sets were too clean.

important aspects of the plot, just as it affects dillinger, were emphasised in the book but not the film. hoover's sartorial style didn't really come across. the way dillinger was widely idolised didn't really come across. the number of other people - the likes of bonnie and clyde and so on - who were also running about at the same time - that didn't come through either.

personally, i would have preferred this to be a two- or three-part film, to allow it to be truer to the historical record. i think that that would have been much better, that it would have allowed for the intertwining of the other gangsters alive and active in the 30s, as well as allowing people unfamiliar with the book to get a handle on events which made little sense in the film.

there was no need to invent (as far as i recall) the scene where dillinger wandered about the office investigating him.

so i'm left somewhat disappointed by this. but i also think that at least this should get a number of people reading the book and hopefully that will encourage other filmmakers to have a pop at telling some of the other stories of the 1930s gangsters.

 

[Bakunin]

like a lot of other people i was very much looking forward to this film. the book on which it's based was excellent, and i hoped that some of the magic from it would be transferred to the screen.

earlier in the year i saw the changeling, directed by clint eastwood. that was very much an atmospheric film in which you could believe you were in the era it was set. by comparison, public enemies left something to be desired on that front. the sets were good, the costumes were good, but there was something missing - perhaps it was that the sets were too clean.

important aspects of the plot, just as it affects dillinger, were emphasised in the book but not the film. hoover's sartorial style didn't really come across. the way dillinger was widely idolised didn't really come across. the number of other people - the likes of bonnie and clyde and so on - who were also running about at the same time - that didn't come through either.

personally, i would have preferred this to be a two- or three-part film, to allow it to be truer to the historical record. i think that that would have been much better, that it would have allowed for the intertwining of the other gangsters alive and active in the 30s, as well as allowing people unfamiliar with the book to get a handle on events which made little sense in the film.

there was no need to invent (as far as i recall) the scene where dillinger wandered about the office investigating him.

so i'm left somewhat disappointed by this. but i also think that at least this should get a number of people reading the book and hopefully that will encourage other filmmakers to have a pop at telling some of the other stories of the 1930s gangsters.

Yep.

I certainly don't recall Dillinger ever paying a visit to the FBI, although he did like to stick his neck out by walking up to coppers, even when he was very much a wanted man, and asking if he could take their pictures.

And, if other film-makers want to tackle the 'Crime Wave' properly, then I hope they don't fall into the trap of 'Bonnie And Clyde' which, while a very watchable film overall, isn't quite an accurate reflection of the lives of Bonnie and Clyde. It's great in a cinematic sense, but I would never take it as gospel on the subject.

 

[Idris2002]

Well I thought this was a great film, so feck ye all.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

personally, i would have preferred this to be a two- or three-part film, to allow it to be truer to the historical record. i think that that would have been much better, that it would have allowed for the intertwining of the other gangsters alive and active in the 30s, as well as allowing people unfamiliar with the book to get a handle on events which made little sense in the film.

I completely agree with this. Mann's film attempted to tell too much, and failed to tell anything with any depth, whereas a series of films showing different periods of Dillingers life and the characters he came into contact with could have been absolutely epic in scale and something worth seeing.

With shows Like the Sopranos/Wire etc it's proven that viewers can keep up with stories that extend beyond the crash bang wallop of hollywood films, that they can cope with myriad characters intertwined across a number of plotlines, and that we really don't want a complicated character's life shoe horned into 2 1/2 hours.