July 3, 2009, 2:45 p.m. CST
July 3, 2009, 3:34 p.m. CST
The review is bang on. The parts are better than the sum in regards to that flick.
July 3, 2009, 5:29 p.m. CST
I'm not sure if it was our theatre...but the sound seemed a bit off, with voices sometimes too quiet in contrast to music. My wife and I both missed some dialogue. <P>Visually, yes, it was flat. Some night video looked as if the lighting wasn't strong enough, as if seeing the slight "snow" on a tube television. Maybe that was also due to our theatre, I'm not sure. Maybe we weren't seeing "digital" projection. --Not a clue, here. <P>If this exact same movie was captured on film in the classic Mann style, it would have been more enjoyable, I feel. If Depp had given his character more vigor, especially in line delivery, I wonder what might have been. <P>As is, it was.....okay.
July 3, 2009, 5:31 p.m. CST
Now,...being that I have not yet seen TRANSFORMERS 2,...should I resist temptation?
July 3, 2009, 5:35 p.m. CST
Personally I thought visually it looked fine, but I felt that if someone had just turned it off at any point I really wouldn't have cared. I knew very little about Dillinger going into it and I wanted it to make me want to get home and fire up wikipedia and find out more about him, the era, the other characters, but after watching the film I just don't care.
July 3, 2009, 6:01 p.m. CST
3rd place. Ouch.
July 3, 2009, 7:01 p.m. CST
I know the big drawing point for this article is the Public Enemies review... but I lost confidence from the trailer... (Think I was the only one from my group of mates to think the cinematography was noticably terrible even then.)<p> However, Latauro, I need to thank you for apologising for the walking train wreck that Wilkens is. How he can continue to be Australia's spokesperson in L.A. is beyond me.
July 3, 2009, 7:42 p.m. CST
said the movie looked really cold, and everyone here shot me down. Now who's laughing fuckers!!
July 3, 2009, 9:21 p.m. CST
He's from New Zealand. Don't claim him as Australian when you don't have to!
July 3, 2009, 9:28 p.m. CST
That's the best news I've heard in a long time. THANK YOU.
July 3, 2009, 9:33 p.m. CST
by The Wrong Guy
July 3, 2009, 9:50 p.m. CST
The digital aspect is so crisp, so clear, you feel like you are there. I frigging love this movie. So much. Seeing it again this weekend.
July 3, 2009, 10:11 p.m. CST
I hate to say it, but it is true. A second rate film from a first rate director. I didn't hate it, but I won't recommend it to anybody.
July 3, 2009, 11:13 p.m. CST
The movie was very forgettable. <p> <p> - At 143 minutes, I'd say that it ran 1/2 hour too long. Better editing could have increased both the pace and the tension.<p> - Actors like Ribisi & Sobieski were wasted in do nothing 3rd tier roles.<p> - The casting for the other gangsters, as well as their characterization, was uninspired.<p> - The dramatic mood could have been improved with some more/better scoring. The score was minimal at best. What little there was felt like a letdown.<p> - J Edgar Hoover's character felt tacked on, as if most of his good scenes were left on the cutting room floor.<p> - Small changes, like having the "lady in red" wear a white top & orange skirt, seemed off putting.<p> - The dialog seemed tired & just as forgettable as the movie itself.<p> - Both the performances of Depp & Bale felt phoned in. Both men's careers have seen better days and far, FAR better roles. At times, even, Bale's accent kept popping in and out, as if he didn't care too much to remain consistent. The rest of the actors just seemed bored.<p> - A couple of the action scenes, especially near the end, hit the right notes, but most of them didn't. They simply felt glossed over and rushed in creative/directorial execution. <p> <p><p> - If you're a Depp/Bale fan, I might give this a B.<p> - If a gangster movie fan, a C+/B-, as there have been MANY better gangster movies.<p> - If you're a Dillinger fan, straight up C. Drop that to a D if you're a hardcore Dillinger fan, as this is the worst of the numerous Dillinger pics. - If you're not a gangster fan OR a Depp/Bale fan, C- at best since the movie plods along. It hits some notes in a satisfying manner, but most of the movie feels like forgettable summer filler. Best suited for a less competitive season. It doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, deserve to be with either the other summer blockbusters OR the top tier Bale/Depp movies.<p> <p> <p> Personally, I'm a Depp/Bale fan, but NOT a 30s gangster movie fan. I was bored to tears, as was most of the audience here in NY. I've seen better movies this summer and better gangster/crook movies before. <p> <p> For me, Public Enemies was a C- effort. I'll forget about it come Sunday.
July 3, 2009, 11:21 p.m. CST
they killed Baby Face Nelson BEFORE Dillinger? I mean, Nelson died months after. This is a movie, but really... c'mon. This is playing with history and historical figures. Changing something as critical as their deaths has got to be a major oversight.
July 3, 2009, 11:25 p.m. CST
Homer too. He died the month AFTER Dillinger. Jeez!?! Didn't anybody proof this script? This movie, as it contains very real figures, is just a joke... even by Hollywood standards. <p> <p> Shit.... Amping up the body count with no reason other than shock value. Bad writer. No cookie for you.
July 4, 2009, 12:15 a.m. CST
I shouldn't have been so happy about the news that he's from NZ and not Australia. On AICN, I'm the representative of both countries, and so I need to be disgusted on BOTH our behalfs (behalves?). Sadly, my embarrassment must return to its original state.
July 4, 2009, 12:52 a.m. CST
It can't have been all his doing, someone else would have been behind the scenes. That being said, he's a twat and I'm glad his attempt to gain an 'exclusive' or whatever blew up spectacularly in his face.
July 4, 2009, 12:56 a.m. CST
Public Enemies was dull. Plain and simple. They failed to make the pursuit of John Dillinger entertaining. How does one manage that? Especially with star power like Depp and Bale? Nearly two and one half hours most boring hours I was glad to see end. Quite disappointing.
July 4, 2009, 1:06 a.m. CST
honest to fuck he's just a plebby entertainment reporter, it not like his mistake caused something majorly terrible to happen. He embaressed himself and now a lot of smug tools can make fun of him and feel better about themselves. Wow!
July 4, 2009, 1:25 a.m. CST
Here's a good example of a mistake that doesn't really matter: Richard Wilkins falling for an April Fool's Gag on Triple J breakfast radio in 2000 announced that Sydney had lost the Olympic Games. That one we can laugh about because all it did was make him look like a twat. Announcing somebody's death on live television without first verifying it is a lot more serious, and a lot more dangerous. If you don't get why Wilkins is being chastised for this mistake, then you don't fully understand what happened.
July 4, 2009, 1:33 a.m. CST
July 4, 2009, 1:48 a.m. CST
what is this word, "eagre", you speak of?
July 4, 2009, 3:07 a.m. CST
I just saw it tonight, and boy did it look like shit. the day scenes weren't too bad, but everything at night looked like a camcorder. where are my black and whites?!?! and the few little slow-motion shots looked HORRIBLE. with film, you could speed up the film, and slow it down so that it would still be at 24fps and look good. here, it looks like a poorly edited home video on youtube. terrible.<p>and the hand camera work, I don't mind usually, when it's used in a fast paced sequence. but there were some shots that were so terribly done in this. just pathetic. if 2 people are in a shot, and one exits, and the camera adjusts to a new frame, it looks fine as a nice little glide/zoom on a tripod. but when it's handheld, it's so jarring. it sucks me RIGHT out of the film to imagine some guy crouching and maneuvering trying to reframe. I immediately picture the cameraman, the focus puller, the whole nine yards. it's a terrible choice. fine for car chases and shooting scenes, but in a courtroom? in a hallway? just put it on a goddamn tripod. jesus christ.<p>I think the reason the movie felt kinda soulless was that it seemed like it was a full movie made with just half a story. it seemed to want to be about Dillinger's role as sort of the first rock star, and the cult of his celebrity. but you can't really tell that story with long close ups and people's eyes darting around. if you want to do that, you just make it a tragic love story, and stop giving overwrought hints as to Dillinger's place in the public eye. <p>I just think it was a misfire. and it wouldn't be too bad if it wasn't so awkwardly shot. and I would care about that too much if the story were engaging. but when you tell half a story, and bad camerawork takes the place of the other half, it just feels like a big letdown.<p>I still love Last of the Mohicans, though. and talk about night and day in terms of the cinematography. jeebus.
July 4, 2009, 3:56 a.m. CST
I thought the guy died like ten years ago. If he's on Law & Order now he might as well be dead.
July 4, 2009, 4:30 a.m. CST
I refuse to acknowledge his presence on my tv screen.
July 4, 2009, 5:49 a.m. CST
That's what she said.
July 4, 2009, 8:42 a.m. CST
And being supposedly an entertainment reporter yourself, you should know that. <P> Frankly, we all agree that Richard isn't the best entertainment personality on free-to-air TV, but the fact is that the guy does an enormous amount of free unpublicised charity work... and still cops the "unworthy human being" tag from people who's idea of being kind is to chuck a spare $2 in coins to the Salvos on collection day.<P> You're a second rate asshole having a go a second rate journalist who happens to be a first rate human being. How do I know? Well, I guess not everyone is as on the outer as you. AICN Downunder? Get back to us when you have a scoop - and I mean a real one (like, for example, the Baz story, or the FFC real story etc.This industry is FULL of amazing stories and corruption that would be front page if someone actually dared publish it - or even look into it...) <P> Pathetic.
July 4, 2009, 9:23 a.m. CST
I'm not bagging him as a human being, just as a crap reporter.
July 4, 2009, 9:44 a.m. CST
July 4, 2009, 9:56 a.m. CST
Nothing Richard Wilcons says matters. He can't by definition make a serious mistake. Hes an entertainment reporter. Its not like hes poor reporting is going to start a war or something!... While I'm I'm at it nothing you write in your column and nothing I write in these Talkbacks matters either. Relax. ...
July 4, 2009, 10:07 a.m. CST
its not that I don't get it I dont care ..
July 4, 2009, 1:56 p.m. CST
God alone knows how he's scored so much to-shelf ass over the years.
July 4, 2009, 2:38 p.m. CST
I mean I can, because it really wasn't a summer blockbuster at all, and was marketed as a completely different type of movie, but it was a great film! It kinda reminded me of the Assassination of Jesse James, but with a totally different shooting style (which absolutely worked for this film btw) and no spoon-feeding narration. But it had that same dreamlike, "snapshot in time" quality to it. I loved it, and I'll be seeing it again tomorrow.
July 4, 2009, 3:42 p.m. CST
wtf is JENNIFER's BRODY? and DEFINANCE?
July 4, 2009, 6:10 p.m. CST
Would love to hear some of those amazing stories for a project i'm working on.. email me.. i'm easy to find if you google nothing but the struth
July 4, 2009, 7:08 p.m. CST
How did you get to see Public Enemies? In the States?
July 4, 2009, 8:12 p.m. CST
Here's the link to his confirmed death: http://www.aintitcool.com/talkback_display/41606#comment_2758488
July 4, 2009, 8:15 p.m. CST
July 4, 2009, 9:32 p.m. CST
by frank cotton
July 4, 2009, 10:26 p.m. CST
And I think it's my favourite Mann movie (notice I didn't use the word "best" just now). It's all about the details and the scenes which aren't expedient to the plot but essential the characters and mood of the piece- things like Jimmy Cann meeting up with the old black guy and looking out over the river, and the scene in the diner between him and Tuesday Weld. The trouble with movies these days is that they're all about the business. Don't be afraid to let the plot float around a bit before you get straight to the action.<p> Anyway, I got the impression from the outset that this might be a little flawed. I'll still see it, though. We're kinda starved for good movies this year, so this'll probably seem like one of the best Hollywood films released in 2009 by default. Plus, I love that era of Pretty Boy Floyd & Co, when it seemed like the world was up for grabs for anyone with the chutzpah to take it.
July 4, 2009, 11:43 p.m. CST
Lat, I love your work, really, but compare your PE review with Capones on this very site, and you'll know why people ignore reviews. Your views are so diammetrically opposed that its like you guys got together beforehand to make sure of it.
July 5, 2009, 4:55 a.m. CST
Sorry to hear you broke the humerous bone in your arm.
July 5, 2009, 8 a.m. CST
by barnaby jones
Its a fucking joke !
July 5, 2009, 8:07 a.m. CST
Potatino: Fair enough! I take your point. <BR><BR> Shadowfax: I saw Public Enemies at a media screening. It's how I see all the films I review on this site. <BR> <BR> hamo455: Honestly, I haven't read Capone's review yet (although I am a big fan of his writing). I don't read anyone else's review until I've written my own thoughts down, for fear of repetition or influence or similar. But it's great that he and I feel differently about these films! That's what film criticism is all about! If you read both of our reviews and feel that the points that Capone makes are more in tune with your opinions than the points I made, then you've got a good idea about whether you should see the film or not. It's why I never read reviews from random people who got into a test screening. I like to know the person who's doing the reviewing. (Btw, if anyone finds they disagree with me on practically every film I review, then I heartily recommend they do the opposite of what I suggest in my critiques.) <BR> <BR> animas: Dammit, you're right. I gotta spellcheck these things more often! Boy, is my face red! <BR> <BR> Paulsetta: Very good point. Richard Wilkins gives to charity, and therefore is not beholden to any journalistic standard. Tell me, how much do I need to give to Amnesty before I can proclaim the deaths of random movie stars? Just gimme a round figure.
July 5, 2009, 4:54 p.m. CST
It made less than Terminator.
July 6, 2009, 1:19 a.m. CST
I saw it yesterday and agree with most of those points - only thing I would disagree on would be Marion Cotillard who I thought was great.<P>(SPOILERS) The sound thing was annoying but seemed to improve after the opening prison break.<Br>I liked watching Crudup's Hoover and would have enjoyed seeing more of Giovanni Ribisi's Alvin Karpis who was one of the more interesting figures from the book.<P>My biggest problem with the film was one of expectation - I believed all the crap about historical accuracy. It was authentic sure but what's the point of shooting in the actual Little Bohemia if you are going to change the events completely?<P>Enjoyed watching it though - this film may well be considered a classic in years to come.