Why Bother?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Dillinger
joejakubik — 16 years ago(August 19, 2009 08:25 PM)
Why bother calling this movie Dillinger? To sell some extra tickets? It was so loosely based (and I mean that in the loosest way possible) on fact that it was practically unwatchable to anyone who knows the most basic story about John Dillinger's life. Public Enemies is a much more factual film but still has many fictional scenes. I was much happier with the PBS American Experience documentary. The real story is very interesting and needs no embellishment.
-
gaiderdraco — 16 years ago(December 16, 2009 07:54 PM)
Dillinger (1973) with Warren Oates is the real deal. It basks in French New Wave essence, much like Bonnie and Clyde does and contains some ridiculously awesome, bloody, and violent shoot outs. And this version is good, too.
"Public Enemies" is a terrible film because it was shot in HD, haldheld, and in 30 frames per second. It doesn't contain a story of any kind and it's long a boring. Some people claim that the '73 version is the same as "Public Enemies" an to that I say that it's also superior to PE because a) it came first (3 decades before), b) it's well shot, and is shot with film and the performances are terrific, and c) Warren Oates looks scarily like Dillinger did. Depp, as great an actor as he is simply looks like Depp.
D. -
s-napolitano8 — 13 years ago(May 24, 2012 12:36 PM)
I actually couldn't believe what I just readBoth films are fictitious in their own respect, but what film overall was more accurate, and true to the man John Dillinger was, was Public Enemies That 1973 beep was simply a ploy to make money off his name and in no way shape or form had any resemblance toward reality.
One point I do agree with is that Oates does look pretty much dead on to Dillinger But just cause a film "came first" in no way makes it a better movie.
Public Enemies fell victim to Michael Mann caring more of the technical aspects of how the film looked and was made rather than the content it was dealing withBoth films had their flaws, but I respectfully disagree and found Public Enemies the better film. -
DrGlitterhouse — 15 years ago(January 02, 2011 06:47 AM)
If the facts mean so much to you, why do bother to watch movies? Oh, perish the thought that someone would try to sell tickets on the name of a celebrity gangster who'd been dead for a decade.
"How's that for Japanese efficiency?" -
leroykevin — 14 years ago(April 27, 2011 05:06 PM)
This Psycho Was not Dillinger! Granted the real Dillinger was no saint but I can't imagine him gunning down two old folks who were calling the cops on him.
I guess the real Dillinger would have had his men taking turns watching them. -
gayspiritwarrior — 14 years ago(May 01, 2011 07:56 AM)
If you want documentary truth, watch a documentary. This is a crime thriller obviously trading on his name, so what?
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."Oscar Wilde -
-
tbssic — 10 years ago(February 18, 2016 04:43 AM)
Last time I checked, movies are entertainment and should be viewed as such. The impetus is making money, not edification. Some folks even go so far as to categorize movie making,,,, art. Art is imagination, not an imitation of life or a biography,,,, you either like or you dont.
-
bnwfilmbuff — 10 years ago(February 18, 2016 05:06 PM)
Agree. This is an average crime drama with a fabulous cast that is largely underutilized. The script was bare bones with too many plot holes and missing scenes to transition from one scene to the next. But the cast makes it watchable.