• What’s Good: The film may be hollow and characters may be as blank as a movie gangster’s prop gun but, damn, the period movie action is nice.
  • What’s Not: Michael Mann, I am sorry to say, has lost his touch. I mean, HD video? Again?! That was cool… in 2000 but, errrr, not so much in the 1930s.
  • Faux Peter Traverse Review: Depp will shake your bones!

Michael Mann, what happened?

Michael Mann, or as I use to call him, the Mann, enjoyed the lofty position of being one of the best and most vital directors of the 90s. But it seems as if the day the perfect “The Insider” wrapped he… lost it. The films that followed in the 00s, “Ali,” “Collateral,” “Miami Vice” and last week’s “Public Enemies” have all seen the director slip further and further into a formalized coma. His approach in all except “Ali” is crime drama with a documentary edge (“Ali” is biopic with doc edge–no big diff). What worries me is that the clearly talented filmmaker sticks to this style as if he has nothing else to fall back on which he clearly does! Shaky cam mise-en-scèn “freedoms” can be compelling in the right context but I simply don’t feel that any film made or story told by new-Mann has needed it, especially those set in the 19-goddamnmotherfucking-30s! Ironically enough, his best film, the on-the-street cop and robbers “L.A. crime saga” “Heat,” could have thematically carried this new fondness for abstract close-ups and the grainy digitally shot vibe but Mann chose instead to make that one good. You could say that “Public Enemies” is also a cop and robbers film but, unlike the modern-set “Heat,” this one offers nothing new to the genre except for the way it’s shot. While I feel the director’s digital improv approach is tired, predictable and unnecessary (again: handheld and digital is anachronistic given the subject matter and therefore a total indulgence), it actually ended up helping the film. This may be because the arbitrary look and feel of “Enemies” is tolerable because it’s so noticeable that it distracts the viewer from how boring everything and everyone else is.

That’s right, boring. One would think that depression era action subject matter + classic cinema romance + Johnny Depp would be more than enough to hold one’s attention but that’s not the case. Far from it, Depp as the infamous, law evading bank robber John Dillinger is a virtual blank slate. He’s a man of action but not motivation. By the end of the film I didn’t feel like I knew him any better and by the end I didn’t feel like I wanted to know him any better.  Unless the historical Dillinger was supposed to be a listless sap with zero personality, the film is not successful at exploring, with any conviction or insight, Dillinger’s psychology, only his deeds (i.e. crimes) and passions which are not even used to build upon the myth of Dillinger or provide some sort of social contextual commentary. The “I’m here for the bank’s money, not yours” Robin Hood theme is hard to find involving when it’s as thinly drawn as Dillinger’s moustache. Oh, and I almost forgot, Dillinger is fiercely loyal to his men but, again, there’s no fire in that bond just robotic duty that is carried out. As a character study, then, “Enemies” is either misguided or not guided at all. Dillinger shoots men and Dillinger loves women but the film fails to give any clues as to what he gets out of either beyond the obvious build-up and release thrills that are attached to both passions. “Finding Neverland” aside, by looking at Depp’s overrated post “Pirates” performances I’m reminded of how consistently overwrought he has been. Every role demands that we notice how affected he can be and people tend to interpret that as good acting when it’s really only just loud acting. Then there’s this film, the opposite of loud as Depp can barley be heard. Depp is so deliberately lethargic that I wondered at times if there was some sort of meta-component to this non-performance.

The action fares a lot better. The shoot-outs are brilliant in fact. The old school pow-pow-pow gunplay comes loaded with a visceral kick that is made all the more interesting because Mann choreographs his sequences to fit the era in terms of the guns used, the way the guns are used and the way characters (cops, robbers, bystanders) look and act while shooting. From shootouts in down town Chicago city streets to a dark forest ambush even the geographical settings are captured effectively. This is also a rare instance where Mann’s digital doc style heightens the action if not makes it feel organic. While the technical aspect is used well in this one respect I still found myself not caring. Since “Public Enemies” didn’t convince me to like or dislike Depp’s Dillinger I had very little interest in the outcome of the many action scenes. Sure, Dillinger’s rise to fame and eventual gutter bound undoing is apparent to anyone who watches History Channel or, you know, reads but I’m really holding the film accountable for the detachment I felt.

Well-shot/zero-investment action is just one aspect. The film falls short in more ways than that! Its heavy reliance on a romance might tops the list because there’s no danger, no lust and no heat (or “Heat” the movie) evident on screen. Depp and Oscar winning Marion Cotillard are supposed lovers who, against all odds and stray bullets, are drawn to each other and strive to be together (and all that crap) but her character is underwritten and stifled by the English language while Dillinger, who takes every chance to proclaiming his mad love in his libido crushing monotone, does not really act in love. Is the character’s self sabotaging, “one more score then I’m done” compulsions the point of the character and narrative? I don’t even care to find out! The film’s underuse of Christian Bale as a troubled lawman caught between catching the crazy Dillinger and coddling the crazier J. Edger Hoover also stings. When the ends credits roll and we find out what happened to the real life Melvin Purvis after the events depicted in this film I thought to my self that there’s a interesting film in his story (aided by Bale’s fantastic intensity and sadness) that this one glosses over. The problem is that, as it stands, there probably a more interesting film in anyone’s story as long as Michael Mann doesn’t tell it.

Grade: C