Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The Cinema
  3. Why Bother?

Why Bother?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Cinema
12 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote last edited by
    #3

    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.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote last edited by
      #4

      IMDb User

      This message has been deleted.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote last edited by
        #5

        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?"

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          fgadmin
          wrote last edited by
          #6

          daedalus1337 — 15 years ago(January 15, 2011 09:15 PM)

          Well, the main character's name was John Dillinger, so it does make sense

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • F Offline
            F Offline
            fgadmin
            wrote last edited by
            #7

            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.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • F Offline
              F Offline
              fgadmin
              wrote last edited by
              #8

              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

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • F Offline
                F Offline
                fgadmin
                wrote last edited by
                #9

                IMDb User

                This message has been deleted.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • F Offline
                  F Offline
                  fgadmin
                  wrote last edited by
                  #10

                  rtw416 — 11 years ago(June 25, 2014 06:14 PM)

                  I agree with bluesdoctorthis 1945 film was deemed too violent at the time.
                  If you sit down with a open mind and dont hold it up to the light next to the facts,its a enjoyable film.Lawrence Tierney is scary

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • F Offline
                    F Offline
                    fgadmin
                    wrote last edited by
                    #11

                    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.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • F Offline
                      F Offline
                      fgadmin
                      wrote last edited by
                      #12

                      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.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0

                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users
                      • Groups