I have to agree with Robert. The handycam thing did a diservice to Public Enemies. The same goes for the close-ups. In fact, it seems that every scene is filmed in close-ups. It made the whole thing looks presumptuous The actors were excellent. I really enjoyed certain parts of the movie, while hating others parts.

Marion Cotillard's accent really, really bothered me. Being from the midwest I found it completely distracting and it really took me out of the movie. I always watch all of the credits at the end of a movie and when it came to "Ms. Cotillard's dialect coach" there was audible laughter in the theater (and not just from me).

Overall, it was an okay movie but I have seen much better this year including Up, Moon, and Away We Go to name a few...

I guess I'm in the minority here but I really liked Public Enemies. It was beautifully shot in the original locations. The clothes, cars, and guns were all spot-on, and I thought the performances were, by and large, very good. The hand-held camera shots didn't bother me. Maybe I need to be more critical but I go to the movies to be entertained, period, and PE entertained me. I've already recommended it to friends and family and I'll buy the DVD when it comes out.

It was one of the best looking films I've seen in a while, and easily the best looking film shot on handheld DV ever. Apart from the eye candy, though, the film lacked in almost every other department. No one can argue that Michael Mann doesn't know how to stage a bank robbery, but the argument can certainly be made that he's not always a capable director of romantic heat and chemistry (especially recently with this film and Miami Vice). That ultimately is the fatal flaw that spoils the whole thing. I understand that the story of John and Billie has to be told or at least thrown in there, but we could have gotten a much more compelling argument for why these two people are interested in each other aside from an initial sexual attraction. Their relationship merely sits there, for seemingly no reason at all.

Honestly, that's a problem all across the board. Where is the motivation behind all this running around, looting, fucking, and shooting? Only Depp and Bale hint at something beyond your everyday Hallmark biopic acting. Most other characters in this movie couldn't be called anything but types. It sure looked good though.

It was a good movie. The only thing I would say negatively is that it reminded me of another Depp movie that was good, but went in a direction I don't agree with. He plays and the movie portrays Dillinger as if he's a good guy, just like his character in "Blow". They are criminals. Dillinger may have had Robin Hood qualities, but he was still a criminal. In my opinion, a great movie wouldn't glorify it or even vilify it.It woudl go the Scorcese route, and have you watch the movie objectively, instead of choosing a side for you from the beginning.

Very good but not great.

I did not like the "romantic" score during the love story. Cheesy. I felt this was really the only "bad" choice...

Some of the characters kind of just came into the story and then left... which is realistic, but sort of unsatisfying in terms of tying everything up story-wise. Some of the artistic decisions to move the sequence of events around was a little off-putting, but understandable. We could probably use a 10 or 12 hours mini-series to really tell all the stories.

I really liked everything else. The sound, the picture, the settings, it was all great. It is a movie that shows a lot, but does not tell you much, so if you are not paying attention, you will miss out. I love being a little more engaged by the film. I an interested to watch this with the director's commentary to learn more about what he was trying to say/show...

Travers mentions how this film critiques "how Hollywood romanticizes gangster life in contrast to the bruising reality", which is right on. It was really interesting to keep this in mind while watching the film.

Handheld was fine. If this is distracting to you, you should probably just stop seeing movies. It has become such a part of modern films and does not seem to be going anywhere. I am sick of reading critiques where someone write off a movie because of the handheld camera... get over it already!

Also, if you can't enjoy a movie because of a certain actor, just keep your opinion to yourself... If you think Depp stinks, saying that the movie stinks because of Depp is not insightful, nor is it a helpful critique. And why even watch a movie featuring an actor you can't enjoy?

Anyway, I would tell folks to see it. It is not great, but it is very good, one of the best I have seen lately for sure.

First off why would you even go to a movie by Mann unless you wanted to see a couple different things going on. Look at the insider it gave a couple great stories about each character and it was completely engrossing. Then you have Heat which is just a fantastic movie where each lead character has flaws and things you love. Public Enemies is no different. It is a moving force of a movie that will allow nothing to stop it until it is ready to say its finished. If anything Mr. Travers i feel you didn't rate it high enough. Other than Star Trek it is the only movie i could say i want to see more than once. By the way Pete your a genius!

I enjoyed Public Enemies very much, and recommended it to all friends, who did not share the same amount of enjoyment. Johnny Depp's acting was excellent, and I thought the love story definitely had a place within the movie, it helped show more of Dillenger's humanistic side. The action was awesome, I liked everything about this film.

It had all the makings of a good film, but was average. I was very dissappointed with the film and Traver's review.

I really wanted to like this film. But I felt the "naturalism" of the cinematography was really detrimental on the big screen. It just looked clumsy, and I have a strange feeling it might work better on a television.

As for the writing -- Not terribly impressed. As others have said, it seemed to lack a point of view. As always, Depp was great. Not so much the ancillary actors-- it was hard to keep his associates straight, they were so interchangeable.

I am going to tell it rather plain and simple. I had super high expectations for Public Enemies, it was my number one movie of the summer and of the year behind Shutter Island. First off lets start off with the God awful cinematography. Yes, I am going to talk about that. I respect Michael Mann as a filmmaker but he used his HD camera crap instead of basic film. Some new style that he should let die. It played better in Collateral. A lot of movement and following people around. Almost all close-ups from the shoulder up. Back that thing out and give me a wide shot, geez. This movie had the potential to be great and cinematic but it fell short. Johnny Dillinger was a huge icon and they focused more on the romantic side of him than the ballsy gangster that he was. Dillinger was creative and clever. Johnny Depp brought in his weirdness and suaveness. It's different to see Depp not wearing eye liner and all that crap but he is a great actor but I do think Depp was the right choice for Dillinger, but the direction the story was taken in did not portray that role as it should have. Yes, he was a very romantic, idealized, outside the law, hero for common people in that era, but he was also a hardened criminal who went to any lengths to avoid capture--in other words, needs better action sequences and less romantic story line. Not a huge disappointment, but could've been better. Christian Bale didn't do his deep whisper-batman-horse like-voice. He actually had an accent but I didn't find him very believable. Bale's portrayal of Melvin Pervis was overacted and not well done in general. The bank robbery scenes are not exciting like bank robbery scenes should be. The car chases are not thrilling. The movie was paced like The Godfather and there wasn't enough to the characters to actually care about them. With a movie that's two and a half hours you would think, yeah, no problem, it has it locked down, but no. The movie started off great and almost took flight but it just kind of hovered there. Some of the best scenes where vaguely similar to The Godfather including one of the best shoot out scenes at a house in the woods. The best scene for me that really established Dillinger was when he strolled into a police station, into the Dillinger Division office, and asked the cops for the score of the baseball game. He was public enemy number one and he strolls in? That man had some balls. He escaped from prison by carving a gun out of table leg; they didn't do a good job of showing that. Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson, I found the most interesting but he wasn't in it long enough to really care. Most of the characters felt flat besides Marion Cotillard. It had a lot of problems but it's an okay movie. I think Peter Travers wanted to love it but just felt some kind of sympathy because, come on it's a Michael Mann film with Johnny Depp in a gangster movie. Even the best flounder. I would say rent it but there is a lot of crap out like Transformers 2. Seek out (500) Days of Summer, The Hurt Locker, and Away We Go.

And why is everyone bitching about the fact it was filmed in HD? It enhances the darks so the night shots (Little Bohemia shoot-out) could be more naturally lit and not "movie-lighting"... Plus, to me it added to the "fly on the wall" atmosphere and reality that Mann was trying to incorporate. It's as if we are dropped in time at the moment these events are happening... The viewer feel like he is along for the ride and witnessing the events in person.

This was the only movie I was looking forward to this year because of Depp and, while it is an extremely different-looking movie, I liked it the first time and loved it the next 2 times! Great music, wonderful performances by the entire cast, explosive shootout, stunning ending. All ages of people are seeing this, and the ones in my theater seemed to like it as well. On a shallow note: Wouldn't have minded seeing a little more skin from Depp & Cotillard, but I guess they're too classy for that!

The purpose of Public Enemies was not to make great buckets of money but to adjust Depp's image.

Video audiences subconsciously assume that the role an actor portrays is somehow an actual attribute of the actor.

Jennifer is the nice girl next door. Angelina is the crazy gun chick. Etcetera. Quite foolish really.

Depp, having played several flaky people, Sparrow, Chocolate Factory owner and now playing the Hatter needed a serious dangerous role to balance out the suggestible audience's perception of his persona.

Task accomplished.

There was never a real chance of this picture losing money since it was cheap to produce, had big names and lots of violence - to continue the fine American tradition of gathering your family around the television and watching a few good killings.

=

Everyone I know who has seen the movie really enjoyed it.

I loved this film and found the different "stories" just added to my enjoyment. It was a tragic love story of 2 outsiders, it was an insight into the fledgling development of the FBI(thanks to Hoover's distaste of Dillinger becoming a folk hero to the public) and it was just amazing the "true" bits that many people I spoke with were surprised were not "made up". Even though there was some "dramatic license" in parts, this wasn't meant to be a documentary, so it didn't bother me. As for the hand held camera, even though it was jarring, it seemed to pull me into the action. I felt like I was in the scene in the shootouts and just loved the camera angles. Depp & the whole cast were excellent---so glad to have something this summer that's not the standard summer drivel.

You people are morons. If you knew even the slightest thing about filmaking, you should be impressed with the visual quality of this film. I am a professinal video producer working in television, and I must say Micheal Manns choice for shooting movies in HD is gutsy, but pure fuckin' genius. Loved Public Enemies just as much as any thing he has directed, and it was by far the best film I have seen all year. Loved it.

I was expecting big things from the combo of Mann/Depp/Bale and some promising subject matter but I was pretty disappointed. the film had a superficial quality that made it hard to engage with the characters or the story. Depp was disappointing but I think that was the character's shortcoming, not Depp's.
the shootouts were the highlights, so there wasnt too much else going on.

Public Enemies is a definite rental I'm sorry to say. It's fine, it's not horrible, but it didn't get me excited. And it doesn't even deserve a mention next to Badlands or Bonnie & Clyde.

This is the best film of nobody involved. And Johnny Depp continues to be the greatest living actor who hasn't made a truly great movie. He's made some fine films to be sure. But you know the level of quality I'm talking about. What's his Streetcar Named Desire? Edward Scissorhands? What's his Godfather? Donnie Brasco? Come on.

The directing was lackluster. Think of the sparks that great directors bring to their films: Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, The Insider... where was the spark here? It was all used up in the popping of the machine guns. Many scenes were lifeless--even the heists & prison breaks & fucking felt detached somehow. At the end when Dillinger's killed, did anyone in the audience really feel something there?

The dialogue was poor. What was up with all the corny lines between Depp and Cotillard? This love story needed a rewrite badly. And why all the melodramatic orchestrations under their scenes together? I thought No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood made cheesey scores obsolete. Guess not, but they should have.

I just saw "Public Enemies" yeterday and did not find myself disapointed by it, in fact I found it to be the best movie so far this year. And yes I loved it! I thought Marion Cotillard and Johnny Depp had good chemistry but I was disapointed that the movie didn't spend more time on their relationship. That said, I think that it made the time they had together all the more special. I didn't find the camera work very distracting and yes, I WOULD RECOMMEND "Public Enemies" TO MY FRIENDS.

It was a good movie. The handheld camera became frustrating at times but wasn't terrible. Christian Bale's role was in a strange state in that it was built up to be a major role when it didn't have to be so I think they should have focused more on Dillinger and let Purvis play a smaller role. It was a slight let down but it was still one of the best of this year so far (and a nice change of pace from the awful mess that was Transformers 2).

It would've been more interesting if it was more personal between Bale's Melvin Purvis and Depp's Dillinger. However, that would be Hollywoodizing it, so I respect Mann for staying true to history. I thought it was a really good movie.Exciting, compelling and well-acted. I can admit it wasn't Mann's finest hour, but an improvement over his last film (Miami Vice). His most popular films (Heat, Collateral) usually follow more than one plot thread, so it wasn't really that off-putting.

actually, history books say that dillinger did stroll through the offices of the Chicago police dept's dillinger task force.

I loved the movie, and granted, I am a huge fan of Michael Mann, but it is refreshing to see a big budget movie with some actual brains. For me, it was one of those movies that will have to take multiple viewings to fully appreciate. Depp was terrific and deserves an oscar nom. Even though the role wasnt a showy type of performance, Bale was great as well. Cotillard and Crudup also gave really good supporting performances.

I agree with the guy who wrote the letter. It was just an OK movie. I can see why a film critic who has to see every movie out there would love it, because its very stylistic and challenging.

I thought the scene where Dillinger walks into the Police Station's Dillinger section was ridiculous. It took me out of the movie because it was so obvious that it never happened.