I’ve had a busy week, so I’m a bit late to the table on “Public Enemies” — but in a way, it seemed fitting to wait until the 4th of July to watch such a muscular, intrinsically American piece of cinema.
Much has already been said on these pages about the film, so there’s no need for me to discuss it at great length, but I do want to say how befuddled I am by the numerous lukewarm-to-cool critical reactions out there. I went into the theater with guarded expectations — not being an ardent devotee of Michael Mann’s oeuvre in the first place — only to be greeted by something rare and rather special: a broad, red-blooded blockbuster that is nonetheless tailored specifically for adults.
Calling it Mann’s finest film since “The Insider” may sound like faint (albeit merited) praise. Perhaps more meaningful is to declare the film — with its elegant synthesis of crisp, confidently linear storytelling and rich, unfussy visual construction — the most completely realized major American studio picture of the last two or three years.
The discipline of the directorial vision here is unimpeachable, even if not everyone may warm to it; what surprised me, given prominent complaints of the film’s “coldness” and emotional remove, is that it seemed more concerned with incremental shifts in character than the mechanics of its (unabashedly slender) plot. It makes for an eccentric slow burn of a blockbuster — if viewers don’t flock in vast numbers, well, quelle surprise, but it’s odd that more highbrow critics haven’t embraced Mann’s perversity, if nothing else.
I make no claim for perfection. I’d even dare to venture that Johnny Depp, despite some crackling line readings, is slightly miscast here; he’s comfortable with the more guileful aspects of John Dillinger’s character, but the man’s ingenuous self-announcement comes less easily. Unlike Kris, I actually thought Christian Bale offered his strongest showing in some time, using his slight physical blankness to real psychological advantage this time.
But the real thesping story here is Marion Cotillard, who is actually most fascinating to watch when she’s listening to others, her still, silent-movie features electrified by tales of lives more lived than her own. In a way, it’s both the most modern and most period-involved performance in the film.
Speaking of which, I find it hard to square with the complaints of Dante Spinotti’s imperious HD lensing being somehow hostile to the notion of a period piece — when in fact it only serves to caress the film’s every minutely placed period detail. I was therefore repeatedly struck in the film by the vivid, tangible textures of Colleen Atwood’s threads — which may sound trivial, but it interestingly makes for the most costume-enabled men’s film in recent memory. (On another note, if there’s no Oscar recognition for Nathan Crowley’s astonishing production design, then something is very rotten in the state of Hollywood.)
The only notable debit for me was Mann’s ragbag collection of musical cues, which ranged from the evocative if overly predictable (Billie Holiday) to the distractingly incongruous. (Anachronism can be effectively deployed in period pieces, but I couldn’t see the point of using Diana Krall’s vocals — which, while contemporary, specifically reference the icy lounge stylings of 1950s jazz — for the film’s integral leitmotif.)
And that’s about the worst thing I can say about this subtly involving and sometimes obscenely beautiful film, which is, in every other department, thought through and followed through with equal care and intelligence. Sorry for the random assemblage of thoughts, but in the light of how many — not least my own countrymen — have belittled the film, I had to say something. On this occasion, I’m with the “Enemies.”
Comments
22 responses to “Love your ‘Enemies’”
I saw it today too, and I am just as befuddled as you are to all this criticism. I thought the HD looked wonderful, really, and the shootouts some of the best I’ve seen on screen. Loved Depp, Cotillard, liked Bale, thought Mann’s direction was just right, and by the end I was pretty much won over by the visceral immediacy and rough-edged splendor of the proceedings. Fine, fine film.
Maybe I need to see it again. Of all the critics here, I tend to agree with your film tastes the most. I just thought it was so empty and pointless.
Cotillard and Crudup seem to be getting the best notices here. I wonder if Crudup could sneak in and grab a nom with his limited screentime. He’s been under the radar for so long and most certainly deserved to be nominated for his supporting work in Almost Famous.
Woo-hoo!
Cotillard was so utterly mesmerizing in the film. I’m glad that people are noticing it. Every scene she’s in she lights up and I was just drawn right into her.
The “interrogation” scene with her? One of the best scenes this year. Electrifying.
I wanted to love this film. I read Bryan Burrough’s book and knew the source material was great.
Mann just blew this one. There were a few sub-themes that went unexplored. For example, the birth of the FBI. Did Mann forget about that because he broached the subject and then let it lay.
Depp’s characterization of Dillinger seemed too recessive or self-contained to be an accurate portrayal. Burrough’s book characterized Dillinger as more of the wise-cracking, cocky bank robber. In that way, the Dillinger persona seems more consistent with Oates’ portrayal of him in the 1973 film. Not saying Depp did a poor job, I’m just not sure the portrayal was an accurate depiction of Dillinger.
My biggest problem with the film was Mann’s decision (or lack thereof) to include the public’s reaction to Dillinger. The reason we remember this guy today is because he was the people’s champion at a time when being the people’s champion meant robbing banks, occasionally killing law enforcement officials, and consistently breaking the law. That would seem to be a pretty important layer to explore in order to better understand the character through the prism of how he was received during his time. Yet it went ignored.
I also thought the love-story was half-baked. Not very emotionally compelling.
Honestly, walking out of the theater I was giving this 3 out of 4 stars. However, the more I mthink about this film in the 48 hours since I saw it, I am inclined to say 2.5 stars at best.
the critical reaction seems almost identical to watchmen
Wonderful article, Guy. Almost exactly what I thought of the movie, but most of all your praise of Cotillard. Her performance is just phenomenal, a real piece of performance art there.
Did anyone else think the love story was dreadfully handled?
I liked this, but forgot I saw it the next day.
“the critical reaction seems almost identical to watchmen”
Not mine, buddy.
Seriously, I don’t think the “Public Enemies” detractors are nearly as vicious as the “Watchmen” ones. Few people are calling it an all-out dreadful film; a lot just seem to be disappointed.
With the exception of Cotillard, and to an extent Bale, I disagree completely. Depp is the only thing that saves this film.
The story is empty and treads water the entire time. 15 minutes could have easily have been erased.
The main culprit’s are Mann and Spinotti to a point. Obviously it is Mann’s call to use the HD lensing, but Spinotti should have talked him out of it; it is just so uninviting for a story like this. I applaud them trying to take chances and challenge the norms of doing a period piece like this, but ultimately the idea failed.
“It is just so uninviting for a story like this.”
Can you expand on this, Ryan? I’m not being critical — I’ve just heard so many people say words to this effect about the HD and I genuinely don’t understand the grievance.
Thank you for this exciting and earnest read. I’m as confused as you and others that this really remarkable film is sliding under the radar and going unappreciated in some circles. I suspect, as I told my wife after our afternoon screening, this will be a film where multiple viewings are required—not out of some incoherence on its part, but to appreciate all the finer aspects in new ways.
You’re absolutely right on Cotillard, who is wonderful here. Re Bale, I’m still trying to decide whose side I agree with more; he was good, but he seemed so *similar* to the ghosts of Bale past. I also honestly enjoyed Depp as Dillinger. It worked for me as a general performance, but moreover it worked for me as an embodiment of what Mann seems to be saying about myth-making and myth-deconstruction. For me, Depp felt like the right caliber of star to bring the right balance of chops, charm, and glamour.
But as I said, your review (and Kris’s) are so welcomed in an otherwise largely lifeless response to one of the year’s better films.
I love Mann, Depp, Cotillard and I have always liked Bale and the supporting actors in this movie so needless to say I had high expectations for this film. I did not like it.
I did not feel connected to the characters in any way. In Heat I felt like I knew De Niro and Pacino intimately, same with Cruise and Foxx in Collateral. Not the case with anyone in this movie.
Also there was little to no intensity outside of the interrogation scene. None of the bank robberies or prison breaks here even come close to touching the bank robbery in Heat or the night club shootout in Collateral. Not in terms of action but in pure intensity, the threat of something terrible happening.
Bottom line, in Heat I personally cared about what would happen to Neil McCauley, same with Vincent in Collateral. I never really cared about Dillinger in this movie.
I don’t understand why people are giving this movie 3 and a half stars . Everyone who saw this movie are saying the same thing that it was not “emotionally compelling”,’ did not feel connected to the characters ‘. The movie fail to hit the mark and all the Mann, Depp, Cotillard , and Bale love is not going to change that. So just put it to the side and consider some other movie that are more deserving.
“Everyone who saw this movie are saying the same thing that it was not “emotionally compelling.””
Well, clearly not the same people who are giving the film the high praise you complain about. So your application of the word “everyone” is generous, to say the least.
Does the concept of subjectivity really still have to be explained on a film site?
I saw it on Friday night. I came home today, fell asleep for about 5 hours, then after I woke up and had dinner went online to see some reviews. I saw that Entertainment Weekly gave it a B- (they gave Transformers 2 a better review for christ sake!), and that it only had like a 65% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I actually thought that this might be one that Leonard Maltin would enjoy, but as he wrote on his website, he did not. I was glad to see that Peter Travers, Michael Phillips, Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper all liked it, though. They are the only reviewers I actually read.
Anyways, I don’t understand the criticism it is getting. It’s probably my favorite movie of the year so far, along with Up. It’s not as great as ‘Heat’ or anything, but it is some top notch filmmaking. I’m also glad you mentioned Christian Bale’s performance – I thought it was his best one since his last couple of movies. Not to say his previous performances were bad, but I found something more intriguing about this role, and it was well done.
Anyways, I’d give Public Enemies a solid A.
I would agree that Mann definitely made the film that he wanted to make.
I just came back from watching it, and I think my biggest problem with the film is that I didn’t care for Dillinger because of his personna or magnetism, I just cared for him because I thought everyone who worked for the FBI were portrayed as demonic assholes (well, not everyone, but enough to be a problem). I thought the script was very lacking, particularly in developing the character of Melvin Purvis (a character I was bored by at times, and yet saw him determined to kill at others for no apparent reason). The film simply felt one-sided, and not personal enough to count as compelling drama (and it bothered me that the FBI people were either stupid, or complete assholes).
Also, I had a big problem with the fact that just about every frame (if not every one) was a tight frame. It gave me a headache. It bothered me that we were always so close to the characters, as if Mann was working hard to suffocate them (or maybe I was just sitting too close, but it bothered me). Also, the sets were lavish and everything, but I never felt we were anywhere near the Depression, and wasn’t the Depression what made John Dillinger a hero? In Bonnie and Clyde, the Depression worked as a backdrop, and because of that, the film worked, but in this film everything looked like it was owned by rich people, and the fact that Mann didn’t show the effects of the Deppression on Dillinger and his friends lessened the impact for me.
I will say that I was impressed by Marion Cotillard. Every time she was on screen, I was glued to her character, every glance, every word, she gave the film a life it didn’t have when she was away, and Johnny Depp managed to salvage some of the charisma that the script took away from Dillinger, but overall, the film just didn’t work for me.
Finally caught up with Public Enemies this weekend. I enjoyed the film, but didn’t fall in love with it the way I hoped I would.
Still, probably the best film Mann has directed since The Insider.
Though I was under the impression that my usually reliable local multiplex had digital projectors, given how murky and blurry much of the HD photography was during the film (particularly during the handheld action sequences), I may have to give it another look on Blu-ray in a few months to see it in its “proper” form.
As it stands, I sort of enjoyed the film, but wasn’t all that involved in the story, or the rather underdeveloped characters (though I liked the main actors well enough). Overall, save for a few sequences (the final montage, the back-and-forth heads in the theater, and Dillinger wandering through the crime unit, like a ghost — a prevalent theme), I thought the film was rather workmanlike, and not particularly memorable.
I’m rather of the same mind as Mark Kratina — Three Star rating after leaving the theater, but more of a 2 1/2 Star rating upon further reflection.
Guy Lodge,i agree with you. This movie isn’t perfect but just fascinating.
I loved Bale acting,Marion Cotillard acting(even her bad accent) ,Crudup acting and i didn’t believe in Depp’s Dillinger “bad guy”!
this movie is in my top 3 of the year!