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.

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.

As is, it was.....okay.

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.

- 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.

- Actors like Ribisi & Sobieski were wasted in do nothing 3rd tier roles.

- The casting for the other gangsters, as well as their characterization, was uninspired.

- 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.

- J Edgar Hoover's character felt tacked on, as if most of his good scenes were left on the cutting room floor.

- Small changes, like having the "lady in red" wear a white top & orange skirt, seemed off putting.

- The dialog seemed tired & just as forgettable as the movie itself.

- 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.

- 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.

- If you're a Depp/Bale fan, I might give this a B.

- If a gangster movie fan, a C+/B-, as there have been MANY better gangster movies.

- 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.

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.

For me, Public Enemies was a C- effort. I'll forget about it come Sunday.

Shit.... Amping up the body count with no reason other than shock value. Bad writer. No cookie for you.

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.

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.

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.

I still love Last of the Mohicans, though. and talk about night and day in terms of the cinematography. jeebus.

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.

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...)

Pathetic.

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.