Movie: Public Enemies
Director: Michael Mann (Heat, Collateral)
Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale

Story

Public Enemies is a window into two worlds during the “golden age” of bank robbery. On one side we see how John Dillinger, played by Johnny Depp, has a softer side to himself – such as a man who is in love. The second point of view is how desperate the Federal Government is to stop and catch Dillinger and the bank robbers of the time. The focus falls on Melvin Purvis, portrayed by Christian Bale, as the man who is willing to do anything in order to stop Dillinger and his fellow robbers.

While an interesting view into the two worlds, the story seemed to draw out and, at times, have a loss of focus. It didn’t seem as “tight” at it could have been. A few times, it felt as if the movie was dragging on. The story telling that haunted Mann with the Miami Vice movie seemed to semi-bleed into Public Enemies.

Points: 1/2

Sound

Well, my initial thoughts were “Come on, it’s Michael Mann!” but there is one problem with the sound design. It seemed that, at times, it was difficult to hear the actors. Maybe the problem was with the theater but the volume appeared to fluctuate. T

The gun scenes were AMAZING. Mann’s movie “Heat” set the bar for what gun battles in modern cinema should be like. The magic carried forward into Public Enemies. A number of times I was sitting there saying “Wow”

Points: 1.5/2

Acting

Depp captivates the audience. You believe you are actually watching Dillinger, and feeling his emotions – both positive and negative – as the movie unfolds. Bale does not have a chance to shine as he does not have an overwhelming amount of screen time. When he does, however; one gets the feeling that he is a conflicted law officer who begins to compromise his values in order to gain the ultimate goal of catching a criminal.

Another worthwhile performance is Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover. Outstanding!

Points: 2/2

Cinematography

Again, my initial action was “It’s Mann!” but I do have two complaints. It seemed as if the free floating camera – the “in the scene” view – lead to a rather jerky viewing experience at times. And it also got old. The second complain, and I never thought I would say this, but the digital cameras and filming has lead to a viewing experience that is almost too real. Not to sound old fashion here but I like my movies to… well.. feel like movies and not as if I’m watching a play except on the big screen. I don’t need to see every detail, every pore, on the actors face. Nor do I need to see every bit of dust on the bank counter.

To take the other side of the argument, there were to small but cool shots that did stand out to me. The first is during a night scene when agents are chasing Dillinger through a forest. The fog coming off of the hillside looked so.. vivid, so “alive” it was amazing. The second was watching the last breath come out of a man who just died. Very unique, very visual and helped bring home the point that he died.

Points: 1.25/2

Personal Enjoyment

The movie felt long and wondering at points but when it was on it amazing. While I wouldn’t say that it is a movie masterpiece, it did push the limits in terms of visual recreation of the period and trying new techniques in story telling. I enjoyed but wasn’t blown over.

Points: 1.5/2

Total Points: 7.25/10

Movie: 3:10 to Yuma
Director: James Mangold
Starring: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale

I’m going to do this version of movie thoughts a bit differently.  I am going to attempt to remove a majority of subjective feel of reviews by using a point system looking at 5 areas (Story, Sound, Acting, Cinematography, Personal Enjoyment) all of which carry a full 2 points weight.  The Personal Enjoyment category is in the group to allow the personal experience to have some value in the review – just not overwhelming the review.

So, here we go…

Story

A poor rancher, Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is slowly watching his ranch slowly die away and after a series of events he has the opportunity to take a criminal, Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), to a train that would ship Ben off to Yuma prison.

What Dan faces is the classic moral situation – Does one do the “right” thing when no one is looking or take the easy way out?  Ben Wade, however, is on a journey of self-discovery of sorts – Does he have a set of guiding principles, and what are they?

It’s interesting to watch as both questions are interwoven throughout the movie, one playing off of the other.  Ultimately, both characters learn about their true sense of self but it seems as if they both ignore their true emotions during the movie until the last 10 minutes.

Points: 1.5/2

Sound

The music, sound design and mixing levels were above average. It seems that westerns, for whatever reason, have a problem creating realistic gun battles. I am unsure if this is due to the spaghetti western history of the genre. A 2004 western, Open Range, changed that.  The end shoot out had amazing quality, and 3:10 to Yuma picked up where Open Range left off. The shots in 3:10 sounded REAL, the bullets hitting the wood sounded, well… like something really hitting wood. This simply added to the overall high production quality of the movie.

Points: 2/2

Acting

Crowe and Bale play very well together and provided believable performances.  Both are leading men which lead to a situation where it’s not clear who exactly is supposed to be the “Lead” in the movie.  While Crowe had top billing, the focus was on Bale and his internal conflict most of the time.  Ben Foster, who plays Charlie Prince, a member of Ben’s gang is FANTASTIC as a creepy, no morals, killer.  And it was a pleasure to see Peter Fonda on screen in a Western.

I have to cut down the points on this simply because Crowe/Bale leading man situation – while giving top notch performances –  took away from the movie ever so slightly for me.

Points: 1.5/2

Cinematography

For some reason, I’ve become spoiled by the Epic westerns.  The huge sky, the wide shots of the open range… you know. While this movie was shot with a masterful eye for detail, it felt more like a polished movie for the masses than the westerns I’ve grown to love.

I’m not complaining, I’m not saying this was poorly shot – there were a number of camera placements and edits that where cool AND that added to the story – but there was just something visually missing for me.

Points: 1/2

Personal Enjoyment

Lead acting confusion and certain visuals aside, I really enjoy this movie.  I simply love the conflict, the acting – especially of the 2nd players – is great, and the sound design adds to the entire experience.  I’d watch this over and over…

Points: 2/2

And the bottom line

Enjoyable movie that is paced quite well.  I look at this movie as Christian Bale’s hidden gem, as well as transition to a true leading man (in some ways taking the torch from Crowe).  If you enjoy internal conflict and westerns, I suspect you’ll enjoy this as well.

Total: 8/10

Oh, btw…

If you would like another take on the movie, check out Wandering Coyote. She agree with me on Ben Foster’s performance but has other thoughts on the movie.

The Terminator series got some good news yesterday.  Terminator 5 was “greenlit” even thought Terminator Salvation (aka #4) hasn’t even hit theaters yet.  

I was very… cautious… about Terminator Rise of the Machines.  I thought it was a ploy to make more money (well, what isn’t, really) but I actually enjoyed the movie.  How can you go wrong with Nick Stahl and Claire Danes?

Well, with Terminator 4, McG (Charlie’s Angels, We are Marshall) and Christian Bale (as in “Batman” Christian Bale) signed on for both episodes, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.  

Here is my one question – what happens if Terminator 4 isn’t a box office success?  That is an expensive bet for the studios, no?