Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Public Enemies

July 2nd 2010 22:20


Michael Mann's retro gangster epic has more than a few things going for it... a dream teaming of Johnny Depp and Christian Bale, an extensive cast of talented but underated actors (Marion Cotillard, Stephen Dorff, Carey Mulligan, Leelee Sobieski, David Wenham, Billy Crudup and Stephen Graham, just to name a few), a serious exploration of the exploits of John Dillinger, and an epic face-off that runs the gamut of Mann's palette of intellectually-orientated action. Somehow, despite all this, Public Enemies falls more than a little shy of being the brilliant film everyone probably hoped it to be.


We join Dillinger (Johnny Depp) on a daring prison excursion where he masterminds the escape of several incarcerated gang members. Following this, J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) hand-selects the talents of one Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) to help bring Dillinger and other bank robbers to justice as part of the fledgling efforts of the F.B.I. (currently in it's infancy and facing bureaucratic and federal opposition). Early 1930s Depression-era America begins to evolve into a landscape of organised, violence-free crime and Dillinger increasingly finds himself on the backfoot as law enforcement becomes more sophisticated in reaction to his ballsy misadventures.

Public Enemies situates itself in a self-proclaimed 'golden age' of bank robbery, a brief era of cavalier crimes and colourfully-named criminals that would soon give way to the more business-like machinations of prohibition-fed hoodlums like Al Capone and Frank Nitti. As such, Public Enemies tells a tale of Dillinger steeped in modern folklore - his escapes, his last words, his last stand, etc. Michael Mann directs through the eye of a handheld digital camera, utilising a modern sense of digital verite to evoke realism alongside the lore of the era. As such, the film has an uphill battle in getting the average viewer on board - for most of the time it doesn't feel like a modern Hollywood action film, it's certainly less accessible than something by Martin Scorcese, and the opening scenes (whilst based on a riveting premise) don't make enough concessions to the audience or traditional film structure to be as engaging as they need to be. It also doesn't help that Depp's characterisation isn't the showy piece of quirkmanship most viewers probably expect of him. I'm not criticising Depp here, just offering an explanation for this film's lacklustre reception, and I think I'd have to say that this film could have been a little better if Mann had put a little more focus on the heart of the tale.


Depp's Dillinger is very much a celebrity of his era, though Mann and his fellow scriptwriters do little to suggest his status as a folk hero for the times. There are a smattering of lines alluding to how Dillinger likes to keep the public on side so he can hide amongst them, but beyond that the film has very little to say on the matter due to it's non-sensationalist manner. Depp gives a cocky, self-assured but ultimately likeable performance that's more attached to historical accuracy than any wanton exaggeration influenced by the usual icons of gangster cinema. Dillinger represents the idea of post-Depression nouveau ambition in a world of old money, and in many ways he symbolises the Depression and the attitudes it fostered (Dillinger remarks at one point that although the elite only care about where you're from, the only thing that really matters is where you're going). Acting-wise, it's a brave decision on Depp's part but also entirely in keeping with the atmosphere of the film. I think it could've been a great performance had it not been coupled with the deliberately unintrusive camera work... as such it falls a little short due to too much of Depp's performance taking place in the peripherals of the screen.

Christian Bale on the over hand is a complete let down. His accent sounds weird, his character (though probably entirely authentic) is boring, and his performance is decidely no-nonsense. There's a short piece of text at the film's end that talks about the fate of Bale's character that managed to gobsmack me... it was a hundred times more interesting than anything we got on screen from either Bale or Mann! This film should've and could've been a 1930s counterpart to Heat (Mann's other bank robbery-based epic), with an intense and finely-observed story of two men on opposite sides of the law. The two films share more than a few similarities, but alas - this aspect isn't one of them. Also, I mentioned at the beginning of this review that Public Enemies features an extensive cast of interesting and great actors - predictably, most of them are wasted. I'll be damned if I could spot David Wenham or Carey Mulligan amongst them. Billy Crudup is great as Hoover, but Stephen Graham barely gets a line as Baby-Face Nelson, and Marion Cotillard is probably the only person besides Depp to get the screen time she deserves. One look at the castlist on IMDB.com reveals a cast of roughly 70 credited actors - most of whose characters have names or dialogue. Whilst watching the film you'd be forgiven for thinking that the film only really has six characters on screen - an unfortunate byproduct of the digital verite style.

Mann generally doesn't really stab to the heart of the story's themes and seems to be more interested in just putting this partial biopic up on screen in a realistic fashion. Having said that, he still knows how to shoot one hell of a gunfight, and the anachronistic but suitable banjo music was brilliant. I also enjoyed the fascinating historical detail regarding Hoover's war on crime, showing firsthand the origins of the FBI - how it was built out of a reaction to state lines and corrupt counties harbouring criminals, and how it grew via early forensic methods in a pre-television, pre-surveillance age. Also, for all the film's flaws and inherent flatness, the ending was absolutely amazing. Public Enemies plays out scenes of the last film Dillinger goes to see (Manhattan Melodrama) along with shots of Dillenger himself, and sets it to a modern soundtrack to find a synergetic collusion between the two texts. Depp's knowingly stoic gaze as the themes of Manhattan Melodrama literally speak to him about Dillinger's life are probably worth alone the film's somewhat patchy 130 minute journey.
68
Vote
   


The Combination

February 9th 2010 10:24


There was a lot of controversy surrounding this film when it first came out, with some theatres in Sydney's western suburbs even erupting into violence and causing the film to be pulled from some venues. It seems strange that movies like The Combination can encourage violence amongst the very people they seek to educate, it suggests that the probelms in these subcultures are far too ingrained to be fixed by cautionary art, but I think films like this are a good start nonetheless. Part of the issue is the attitude of the average uninvolved Anglo-Australian... most people hear about crimes involving Lebanese youths and the part that seems most relevant to them is the ethnicity of the perpetrator rather than the crime itself. This film goes some way towards addressing this kind of blinkered prejudice and how it feeds the very problems that cause it... it's a vicious cycle and writer/actor George Basha is to be commended for putting it out there in all it's glory, and for suggesting how we might break this cycle.

John (George Basha) is a Lebanese-Australian man and reformed criminal who has just finished serving time in gaol. He comes home to his family in Sydney's western suburbs and begins to observe his younger brother, Charlie (Firass Dirani), heading towards a similar life of crime. Charlie and his friends are also locked in an ongoing racial feud with some Anglo-Australian kids at their school, a feud that is starting to spiral dangerously out of control. Meanwhile, John enters into a relationship with Sydney (Clare Bowen), whose Anglo-Australian parents disapprove of their interracial coupling.

The 'combination' of the title obliquely refers to the Middle Eastern invention of Algebra, a literal translation of which apparently means to 'fix something that's broken'. The 'combination' could also just as easily refer to the combination of hatred and prejudice that turns Lebanese-Australian youth into such a maligned and criminally-inclined subculture. Charlie initially doesn't want to fight Scott (the ringleader of the 'Aussie' kids) but his Lebanese friends encourage and pressure him into it by making it into a race thing. It soon becomes an escalating cycle, and the bigger it becomes the bigger it's pull is on those who seek to resist it. Even John, who tries so vehemently to prevent his brother from being sucked into this life, seems powerless to resist the wider pull of violence when the stakes become too big to ignore.

George Basha is unflinchingly honest about depicting how this works, he doesn't pull any punches about it - there are problems with young Lebanese men in Australia, their testosterone runs high and they want easy money, but Basha is also passionate about showing us the reasons behind this and how it can be fixed. It's no good for Anglo-Australians to reject the Lebanese and call them the problem, that isn't going to solve anything. A good deal of the insular Lebanese attitude comes from not feeling included by Anglo-Australians... if we don't count them as one of 'us' then they become one of 'them', it's as simple as that. All this racial antagonism is a two way street, and the more we feed into it the worse it gets. There's a point in the movie where George Basha's character, John, is asked if he considers himself Australian and he answers in frustration that he's neither truly Australian or Lebanese as both sides consider him to be the other. There's also a much-needed scene that juxtaposes the character Sydney enjoying good Lebanese culture (the larger Lebanese community enjoying a good time in a Lebanese restaurant/club) with bad Lebanese culture (the very visible minority robbing a general store), demonstrating how things could be vs. what most Australians think is the truth.

The Combination is a very intelligent movie, combining the entertainment factor of a straight-up gangster flick with a very real contemporary issue that currently only seems to be getting worse. As such, it feels a lot like Australia's answer to American History X and Boyz n the Hood - except The Combination's relevance to our own problems makes it a lot more important.
52
Vote
   


The Godfather (of cruddy movies)

May 23rd 2008 05:19


The godfather is said to be the all time best gangster film of all time but I gotta tell ya that its not. Its all lies told by the Man in charge because they don’t want to admit that there are better films out there. Like scarface. Or street kings. Here is a list of things wrong with the godfather

1. it’s old. I mean, like really old. It was made in the late 50s so for a start theres no decent action in it. Sure some dudes get killed but you hardly see any blood and the whole things so old its virtually black and white.
2. marlon brando. You cant even understand what hes saying! Sometimes they don’t even speak in English. I wasn’t surprised when I heard they gave him the oscar for this only to take it back off him afterwards – hey I guess we all make mistakes sometimes, at least the academy admitted it in this case and confiscated the award back.
3. its so long! I mean like 4 hours long. They dance for a bit, some dude finds a horse head in his bed, then they eat some pasta and then they go to church. And that’s pretty much it!

Now compare this to scarface
1. scarface has a chainsaw in it.
No need for any other points. That automatically means scarface is better.

Now compare it to street kings
1. street kings is the greatest film ever made.
And the godfather isn’t, so once again, this automatically means street kings is better.

I tried to watch godfather 2 but I got too bored because they didn’t speak English in it AT ALL. Godfather 3 on the other hand was surprisingly good, mainly due to the appearance of a young tom hanks, who completely steals the movie, but still that dont save the whole trilogy.

if you want to see a decent crime movie check out street kings or rush hour.
151
Vote
   


Scarface - wat a classic!!!!11

April 28th 2008 09:46
say hello to my leetel fren!


well since this is called oldmovies.com i thought i would actually reviw an old movie so all you know nothings could get off my back about it ok? today i am talking about the classic 60s movie Scarface. here is my trademark summary of the plot just in case you are a genuine hater of movies and are unaware of what this movie is about: Al Pacino is Scarface, a mexican gangster of epic porpotions who comes to America and is faced by the racism of American and he decides to fight back. It's an uplifting story and it teaches valuable lessons about standing up for youself and being a man


[ Click here to read more ]
105
Vote
   


Angels with Dirty Faces

March 8th 2007 09:46
angels with dirty faces
Angels With Dirty Faces (1938)


A deadset certified gangster classic today... lately I've been catching up on all these films I havent seen, and I discovered that 'Angels with Dirty Faces' definitely deserves it's 'classic' status. Of all the pre-70s gangster films I've seen, this is the best one so far. Starring James Cagney (who had become a superstar by the time this film was made) and Pat O'Brien, this film also featured an early supporting turn by Humphrey Bogart and was directed by Michael Curtiz (who would go on to make 'Casablanca'
[ Click here to read more ]
70
Vote
   


Little Caesar

March 2nd 2007 05:54
Little Caesar
Little Caesar (1931)


One of the earliest non-silent examples of the gangster-film, ‘Little Caesar’ is a simplistic from-the-bottom-to-the-top-an d-then-back-again take on the genre, albeit a little less censored than some of the later golden-era gangster films (‘Little Caesar’ was made before the restrictive Hayes-Code was introduced in 1933). It’s probably best remembered for introducing audiences to the diminutive frog-faced Edward G. Robinson, who would have a long line in memorable crooks and dodgy kingpins


[ Click here to read more ]
82
Vote
   


A Bronx Tale

October 10th 2006 07:29
A Bronx Tale (1993)


You'll probably find 'A Bronx Tale' tucked away in the weekly section of your local video store - a fairly nondescript cover with only one 'big name' actor attached to it. Don't let this fool you - this is a quality film


[ Click here to read more ]
78
Vote
   


True Romance

September 9th 2006 11:11
True Romance (1993)


A lot of people mistakenly label this as a 'Quentin Tarantino' film. True, it's penned by the man himself, but it aint directed by him... and after seeing this, that's what counts! It just isn’t in the same league as Tarantino’s films


[ Click here to read more ]
90
Vote
   


The Public Enemy

September 7th 2006 07:27
The Public Enemy (1931)


From the posed profile shots of each character at the beginning, through to the jaunty soundtrack and Cagney's boyish charm, this is a vibrant and electric look at a boozing, brawling, roiling and roaring golden age of gangsters in the age of prohibition. Forget the cautionary text at the beginning and end of the film, the filmmaker's are no more interested in educating the viewer as the censors at the time were in appreciating film as a piece of art


[ Click here to read more ]
73
Vote
   


Scarface: The Shame of a Nation

August 29th 2006 11:38
Scarface (1932)


Despite the 50 years between them, 'Scarface: The Shame of a Nation' and Brian De Palma's gaudy 80s re-imagining actually have a lot in common. Their characters might have different names, they might inhabit different cities and trade in different commodities, and they might be of differing ethnic backgrounds, but the arc they both follow are strikingly similar - even down to the oedipal subplot. And both films were incredibly controverisial in their heyday - coming under fire by the censors for their violence and alleged glorification of criminal excess


[ Click here to read more ]
81
Vote
   


Miller's Crossing

August 22nd 2006 04:15
Miller's Crossing
Miller's Crossing (1990)


As a fan of gangster flicks (the mob kind, not the rapper sort) and the Coen brothers (‘Fargo’, ‘The Big Lebowski’, etc) I was glad to happen upon this weekly video a few days ago. The cover made it look kind of cheesy, but I was glad to find the film was nothing of the sort


[ Click here to read more ]
95
Vote
   


Get Carter

July 24th 2006 07:18
Get Carter
Get Carter (1971)


'Get Carter' is what many would call a classic. This is vintage Michael Caine, and this is vintage gangster filmfare. This film broke the mould on it's release, and ran miles in a direction a lot of other films wouldn't have dared to in their time


[ Click here to read more ]
74
Vote
   


Scarface

June 28th 2006 08:43
Scarface
Scarface (1983)


There's a certain level of notoriety that accompanies the 80s version of 'Scarface'. Whether it's remembered for Al Pacino's performance, the excessive use of the word 'fuck', oft-quoted dialogue about the ‘badguy’ and getting ‘the power’, or unprecedented levels of violence in a mainstream film, 'Scarface' (1983) is definitely a one-of-a-kind


[ Click here to read more ]
89
Vote
   


Once Upon a Time in America

May 23rd 2006 14:01
Once Upon a Time in America
Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
'Once Upon a Time in America' is an interesting and unique film. Clocking in at nearly 4 hours, it's hardly mainstream material. It also happens to be the last completed film by Sergio Leone, a celebrated Italian director who made some of the most famous 'spaghetti' westerns (IE. 'The Good, The Bad and the Ugly'). 'Once Upon a Time in America' is a New York-set gangster film, but it has a style of it's own that truly sets it apart from the rest of the genre...

The story isn't anything particularly new - some Jewish-American hoods form a gang and promise to stick together and work for nobody. From here we follow their 'career' as gangsters-for-hire throughout the prohibition era. Whatever the plot may lack is made up by the film's engaging structure. It starts with the collapse of the gang, flashing forward to it's sole surviving member thirty years later, and then flashing back to their beginnings. At first it misleads the audience and risks serious dangers of losing them, but as the film continues the audience is shown various gaps in the narrative - spots open to interpretation that surprisingly enhance the quality of the film. It's hard to explain without giving anything away, but it isn't as complex as it may sound, and it's a triumph of filmmaking that it works as well as it does


[ Click here to read more ]
69
Vote
   


Moderated by Luke
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]