Public Enemies

[Finarvyn]

Just saw Johnny Depp's portrayal of John Dillinger in Public Enemies with my son today, and I'm curious what others thought of the movie.

* I had hoped to find inspiration to finally get my Gangbusters campaign organized, but it just didn't really grab me that way. While it had the right era as its setting, it seemed more bank robbery and not so much gangster.

* Seemed like Dillinger was kind of stupid. He used the "Clark Kent" kind of disguise, wearing sunglasses not to be spotted. I wondered why he didn't shave his head or do something more drastic.

* The scene where he wandered throuch the CPD building and into the area devoted to his own capture seemed kind of fantastic. Nobody realized that this guy walking the halls of the building was kind of similar to the pictures all over the walls? Hmmm.

Any way, I found Kevin Costner / Sean Connery and The Untouchables to be a lot more gangster-inspiring than Public Enemies.

[chgowiz]

I didn't see Public Enemies, and your comments may encourage me to wait for it to show up on free OnDemand

I think some of the contemporary movies, like New Jack City, would put me in that mind.

[kenhr]

Dec 30, 2009 9:31:37 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Just saw Johnny Depp's portrayal of John Dillenger in Public Enemies with my son today, and I'm curious what others thought of the movie.

* I had hoped to find inspiration to finally get my Gangbusters campaign organized, but it just didn't really grab me that way. While it had the right era as its setting, it seemed more bank robbery and not so much gangster.

Dillinger wasn't really a mobster per se, just a notorious bank robber with a gang of like-minded folks.

Dec 30, 2009 9:31:37 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

* Seemed like Dillenger was kind of stupid. He used the "Clark Kent" kind of disguise, wearing sunglasses not to be spotted. I wondered why he didn't shave his head or do something more drastic.

Keep in mind that the movie depicts a time before mass media saturated everyone with images 24-7; Dillinger was actually one of the first criminals to become a media sensation in America.

He DID, however, attempt to have his features altered using plastic surgery, which didn't work too well.

Dec 30, 2009 9:31:37 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

* The scene where he wandered throuch the CPD building and into the area devoted to his own capture seemed kind of fantastic. Nobody realized that this guy walking the halls of the building was kind of similar to the pictures all over the walls? Hmmm.

This scene was fabricated for the movie.

Dec 30, 2009 9:31:37 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Any way, I found Kevin Costner / Sean Connery and The Untouchables to be a lot more gangster-inspiring than Public Enemies.

Agreed. Public Enemies was a big let-down for the girlfriend and I. There was a lot of potential in that story that Mann didn't exploit, and his stated goal of de-mythologizing Dillinger wasn't really achieved, either, as Mann indulged in some mythologizing of his own (the scene at the police station you mentioned above).

[malchya]

I, too, hoped the movie would motivate me in a GangBusters direction. Didn't happen. The film was, in my opinion, rather lame. Once again Hollywood ignored the Pulitzer Prize winning source material (the book) in order to fabricate a fictitious love story. Sigh. Shades of Braveheart and Pearl Harbor. When will the movie industry learn that HISTORY does not need help with story line? I somehow doubt that Johnny and Billie's love was a "love to last the ages" to begin with....

I mean, come on now! John Dillinger wasn't interesting enough to carry a movie without adding sappy fictional romance? What about the characters in the book MISSING from the movie based on it? Bonnie and Clyde? Homer van Meter? Alvin Karpis? The Barkers? Verne Miller?

Gah! My disgust is choking me!

[pineappleleader]

Try "Dillinger" (1973) with Warren Oates and Ben Johnson. You even get to see a BAR in action.

[malchya]

Not only a BAR, but Ben Johnson as a very charismatic (though historically incorrect) Melvin Purvis! Saw the film years ago and enjoyed it much more than Public Enemies.

[maxvale76]

I actually thought this movie was fantastic; as I do with most of Mann's movies; but quite a bit of it is hollywood or shuffling around/condensing events, such as:

Pretty Boy Floyd was killed well after Dillinger

None of the bankrobbers were hurt at Little Bohemia; only thier girlfriends were caught

Baby Faced Nelson, Red Hamilton and Homer Van Meter all went out much like they did in the movie, but in vastly different places; Hamilton was buried by a crew including Alvin Karpis; Van Meter was shot in a dead-end alley; and Nelson caught a ton of lead by FBI agents, jumped in a car....and eventually passed away on the side of a road.

Purvis never visited Dillinger in that prison....great scene though

Anyway, the movie is based off of a book by the same name and the book is FANTASTIC...it covers the great 'crime wave' of 1933-1934 and the bank-robbers and kidnappers that the young and very incompetent FBI went after and transformed themselves into a major organzation thru publicity.

Also, that scene where Dillinger went into the Police Station has been corroborated by numerous people.

Some things to remember (as others have said) is that in the 1930s; there was no television or internet, so plenty of people would have no idea what Dillinger really looked like.

Also, believe it or not; some of the most effective disguises are very minor things like growing facial hair or shaving it off; wearing sunglasses, etc. People that don't see you on a regular basis are quite likely not to recognize you if you make very small changes.

Finally, this movie isn't based on anything mob-related (though they show the contacts that mobsters had with bankrobbers and crooked cops like Marty Zarkovich); and in fact; the FBI never went after the mob until after Hoover passed away...he never even acknowledged taht the mafia existed....not ever.

-Max