The 1930s was the eraof the Great Depression in America when one man chose to thwart the authoritiesby robbing banks consistently in the most audacious fashion. John Dillinger was an outlaw romanticized as afolk hero for his contempt for authority but that hardly seems as enough reasonfor him to achieve the celebrity status of his days. Melving Purvis(ChristianBale) is on the Dillinger hunt with a capable force that he would rather notlose to unscientific methods of crime investigation. With this, Michael Mann, who gave us ‘Miami Vice’ *and ‘Heat’*, attempts to depict the crime saga of the 1930 era in a stylish fashion but falls short of makingit a superior crime drama.
The movie starts withDillinger breaking some of his friends out of prison in one of the better sequencesof the movie. Soon, after robbing banks in an inglorious and rapid fashion(unklike Mann’s ‘The Insider’), Johnny falls in love with Billie Frechette after a bold and straight-forwardencounter at a posh restaurant but Dillinger and Billie’s relationship lacksthe connect that can engage you in the diversion from all the robberies andshootouts.
Dillingeris a rebel with a cause in a depression-hit America but the reasons for it areunknown and that makes the viewer dispassionate towards his character’simportance. The same goes with Melvin Purvis whose good man image is constantly challenged whilebeing a straight arrow cop who is simply upholding the law with a special teamand being outwitted by the Public Enemy #1.
The only character insight we reallysee is Dillinger’s refusal to abandon friends, colleagues and loved ones to theextent that it brings his own fall. John Dillinger’s character, at least inMann’s direction, lacks the cool factor of a cold blooded villain like TonyMontana in ‘Scarface’(“say hello to my little friend”)or FrankLucas in ‘American Gangster’(as heshoots a rival on the street outside the diner) or Robert De Niro in ‘The Untouchables’(murdering hisassociate during a meeting) . Well, if not the villainy, he even lacks the wittinessand suave of Frank Abagnale in ‘Catch meif you Can’. The character of Dillinger is so loosely crafted that evenafter Johnny Depp’s best attempt, he only manages to keep you in the theaterfor the 2 ½ hour duration with mixed interest. The film rides on his shouldersand he manages to carry only his role but not the entire movie.
The film’s cinematography isimpressive and renders the vintage look of the 30s. More of the look has beenfocused upon than the ‘feel’ of the movie and that perhaps is its downfall. ChristianBale’s performance of a loosely drawn character is at best – unremarkable whileJohnny Depp gets a few one-liners and charisma that make him look bigger thanthe character written for him. One will remember ‘Public Enemies’ for Johnny Depp if at all but not in the samemanner as one would remember ‘Pirates ofthe Caribbean’ for Captain Jack Sparrow.
The film fails to highlight someessential aspects of the movie that may have aroused greater engagement fromthe viewer. These include the heroic status of John Dillinger in adepression-hit economy of America, his reason to choose the path he chose, Melvin Purvis’ background or character insight and the rise of the FBI afterfailed attempts of local judiciaries to fight crime due to geographiclimitations.
However, there are some highlightsin ‘Public Enemies’ that cannot be ignored. The opening scene of theprison-break is brilliantly directed in an almost choreographed manner, thecabin shoot-out is violently breath-taking with exemplary high def camera workand the inevitable conclusion of the film’s ‘villian’ is caught in somebrilliant cinematography as well. In the end, it is these few moments and JohnnyDepp’s coolness that manage to leave an impact but they sadly are not enough tomake Public Enemies a brilliant film or a remarkable depiction of a true storyabout John Dillinger.
- 7.010 on a scale of 1-10.