Public
Enemies (2009)
Our rating: 3 out of 5
Rated: R
reviewed by
Charity Bishop

for MAGNIFICENT PERFORMANCE [ Johnny Depp ]
One of the most notorious criminals in recent
American history is John Dillinger. Known for
pulling off multiple bank robberies in the late
1930's, he rapidly became "Public Enemy #1"
according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Portions of the last year of his life have been
brought to life in this semi-biographical film.
After serving ten years for a botched robbery
attempt against a local store, John Dillinger
(Johnny Depp) has not been out of prison long when
he returns to it -- this time to participate in a
jailbreak and free his criminal "associates" from
state custody. Exchanging gunfire with the
authorities and losing several good men in the
process, he and his gang return to their hideout and
consider their options. It seems that the most
profitable means of making money is through robbing
banks, and soon they become proficient at it.
Hostages are frequently taken and then released,
with no one being seriously hurt (minus a knock on
the head here and there). Their immense success soon
turns federal investigators into a laughingstock and
forces J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) to restore
public confidence. He turns the investigation over
to the experienced and ambitious Melvin Purvis
(Christian Bale), who uses advanced techniques to
draw ever-closer to their elusive adversary.
Dillinger in the meantime continues to play a game
of cat and mouse with the authorities when not
romancing a beautiful "coat checker" (Marion
Cotillard). It's only a matter of time before these
equally driven men cross paths and come to a violent
showdown. Not knowing much about the real story, it
was an interesting introduction to the career of one
of the most infamous bank robbers in history, but in
reading further about the real story, I discovered
much of the events portrayed herein are fictional.
Events are rearranged or altered and that prevents
it from being entirely accurate; in some instances
various characters are made out to be less "evil"
than they were in real life, and in others, tactics
and torture methods are used that seem villainous
given the circumstances (I might add, however, that
while this particular woman was not "interrogated"
in such a manner, another woman in a similar
situation was). One thing that surprised me
was how fond we become of Dillinger in spite of his
status as a criminal. I actually got up off the
couch and pulled an Encyclopedia off my shelf midway
through, because I couldn't stand not knowing what
was going to happen.
Although certain events shown are falsified, there
is a great deal of poetic symbolism present. A
fictitious meeting between Dillinger and Purvis
really showcases the actors' talents and their grasp
of their individual characters. Depp and Bale both
turn in strong performances and have a great
supporting cast (including David Wenham, Carey
Mulligan, Emilie de Ravin, and Leelee Sobieski). The
movie has a very unique feel to it and beautiful
costuming and set design. It's very atmospheric.
There are long periods of lesser action and a few
truly terrific shoot-outs. In terms of storytelling
it begins a little weak and confusing (it assumes
the audience is familiar with history, and so if
you're not, it will take time to "catch up") but
significantly improves in the second half. Some have
complained that it's "slow" but even they are forced
to admit the pivotal two scenes are impressive: one
is the FBI attempting to take out Dillinger and his
associates in a remote woodland cabin, and the other
is near the end. One of the greater ideas is the
introduction of a black and white Clark Gable film
about a gangster, which foreshadows the significance
in what is to happen in the last few minutes. I
think that goes a long way in preparing the audience
for the inevitable end.
Public Enemies was shot with an R-rating in
mind and makes good use of it in terms of violence
and one brief and clothed sex scene but is not as
brutal as I expected. I anticipated more foul
language than there actually was -- the f-word makes
only one appearance, but there are six uses of GD,
one abuse of "Christ," and some mild profanities.
There's partial nudity of a woman in a bathtub; she
invites a man to join her, and he intends to but is
interrupted. He presents her with a fur coat and she
thanks him for it by sleeping with him (in an...
unusual position, I might add). There is an enormous
amount of violence but only some of it is bloody;
bullets take out many people in a half dozen scenes
that feature gunfire; people are frequently killed.
Blood sometimes spurts from the wounds, or is shown
pooling on the ground around the bodies. Someone is
shot in the back of the head. A woman is slapped
several times across the face, hard enough to leave
bruises and split her lip. Elsewhere are punches and
scuffling. A car is shot off the road and turns
over. An injured man is tortured for information.
There is a decent amount of drinking and some
smoking.
The frequent use of God's name in vain and the sex
scene prevent me from recommending this too readily,
but I enjoyed it as a rare throwback to the films of
the 1930's. It takes an interesting approach and is
likely to fascinate audiences enough to research the
real men involved. It's entertaining to watch and
also provides us with a glimpse into the mind of the
man that managed to elude federal custody and escape
prison multiple times (sometimes with extreme
cleverness). It's the sort of movie that implies a
natural following and while most people agree it is
"missing something," the fact that Depp hasn't
been nominated for an Oscar for his role is an
absolute crime.
|