Public Enemies

I would go with "Heat".

" . . . because she's got a GREAT ASS!"

I though it was just me, but guess the movie, was slow, and unusual. I though it started pretty good. but it went down hill from there.

Quote:
In a word, disappointing.

Pacing was dreadfully slow, the movie's 140 minute runtime made it feel like an eternity.

It seemed as if a lot of stuff was happening but there was no buildup. For having the names Depp, Bale, and Mann thrown into a period piece about gangsters the movie is surprisingly flat.

michael mann = over-rated

Saw it yesterday, and yes it was rather slow and uninteresting. I loved the documentary on the History Channel I saw a few months ago, and it gave me high hopes for the movie. The problem I had is I didn't think Depp played the role in the manor I would have pictured Dillinger. The Documentary at least described Dillinger to have a sense of wit and charm about him, which Depp's performance was completely void of. Plus, the love interest seemed tired, mechanical and lacked any good dialog. Note, what few bank robberies we got to see were far too routine and mechanical, as well.

Good points are the gunfights were kind of exciting . . . and that's about it. I mean, it did seem to be filmed well and Mann did a good job in capturing the essence of the time period, but what hurts the film is lack of character connection. Depp decided to portray Dillinger's more arrogant and confident side, leaving the audience with little to connect with in terms of liking him. Forget charm and wit, instead we get someone closer to Scarface. The documentary explains that Dillinger was considered a hero by many common folks but very little emphasis on that is delivered, and instead we get a character we feel so distant from that we could care less about what happens to him. This was also a self evident problem in Manns' last film "Miami Vice".

I think it was Rodger Ebert who said "If you're looking at your watch through movie, then you know something is wrong". I have to admit, my eyes drifted to look at the pretty red exit sign and I was close to nodding off a couple times. Score this as another miss for Michael Mann.

5/10

For the love of Christ, do you people talk around here!? Seriously, this is the most dead-pan site on the internet! I just slammed this movie and not one G-damn response in over 12hrs!

Screw you guys! Enjoy your freaking, G-damn arguments over Blu-ray, Sony, and 3-D G-damn glasses! You idiots are pathetic and don't have the balls to discuss anything! I'm done with this F-ing site! Booooooooooooring . . . . . . .

Well, it's possible, Tim, that not everybody who visited the Message Board in the last twelve hours had seen the movie. I already told you how I felt, as did Chris and a number of others, most whom agreed with you. They thought it was a disappointing film in a lot of ways.

I rather enjoyed it, however, and found Mann's non-romanticizing of the subject refreshing. A few critics hated the simplistic style and what they thought was the movie's ugly cinematography and drab settings. I thought the photography caught the ugliness of the times. This was the Midwest during the Depression, after all, not the Austrian court of "Amadeus."

John

tim,

you'll have to forgive us. me, personally, i've only seen "star trek", "moon", and "harry potter 5" in theatres this year. i've been busy with getting ready for school.

School . . . that's cool! Now, what will you be mastering in?

http://hddvdreviews.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-plans-for-fall-2009.html

sorry Tim. I don't watch movies in theaters anymore. The only movie I watched in a theater in the last 18 months is "The Dark Knight".