Compared to PUBLIC ENEMIES . . .
-
LeonardPine — 11 years ago(August 22, 2014 08:59 AM)
Much as i am a massive fan of Michael Mann, i still prefer Dillinger. I've loved it since i saw it quite a few years ago. Warren Oates just owns the role! Great action and a typically macho script and direction from John Milius.
I like Mann's film, but it's not up there with his best work.
"Perhaps he's wondering why someone would SHOOT a man before throwing him out of a plane" -
CarlCarlson — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 02:16 PM)
I prefer Dillinger to Public Enemies. Dillinger has more of a vintage essence, a 70s movie about the 30s, where Enemies, though a better movie (eg action scenes, production, etc ), is an obvious neo noir movie.
"If Mad Max Fury Road is an 8, then I'll use 8 for OK, 9 is better, 10 is best." -
TheHestinator — 11 years ago(December 14, 2014 09:18 PM)
Dillinger is one of my favorite movies of all time (10/10 from me), but I still liked Public Enemies (7/10). The latter looks more polished than the former, but, when it comes to entertainment value, it's hard to beat the 1973 film. Dillinger may be less historically accurate (as far as I know), but it's great, pulpy storytelling. It may not be how the actual events went down, but it's how they, from a storytelling point-of-view, should've went down.
-
funkyfry — 11 years ago(January 06, 2015 10:45 AM)
I didn't see "Public Enemies", but I will say this: If dude had a face like Johnny Depp, or Christian Bale, he would be a gigolo not a bank robber. Say what you will about this movie, but at least Ben Johnson and Warren Oates look like grown men who've had a hard life, not pretty-boy actors.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' -
CarlCarlson — 10 years ago(April 27, 2015 10:18 AM)
Compared to PUBLIC ENEMIES . . .. . . this film is terrible, in my opinion. Does anyone agree?
Not me. I just saw both and I prefer Dillinger. It short, Dillinger, the sets, props, cinematography, age of the film, dialogue, mannerisms, even Warren Oats' resemblance to John Dillinger, all made it seem much more authentic.
Though good, Public Enemies seemed to be too "vanilla" (no accents, dialect, quirks) and short.
Heaven forbid I have an opinion.
-
fdellostritto — 10 years ago(October 17, 2015 09:09 AM)
"Dillinger" (which I rate "9") has its flaws, but I liked it much better than "Public Enemies" (which I rate 6). The period feel of the 1930s depression in the heartland is very effective in "Dillinger."
I believed Warren Oates as Dillinger, but never saw Johnny Depp as anyone but Johnny Depp.
I have no idea what the historical Melvin Purvis was like, but Ben Johnson's character is a lot more interesting than Christian Bale's.
The coup-de-grace for "Public Enemies" is that in his brief clip in "Manhattan Melodrama," Clark Gable steals the movie, and shows what great screen acting is. The stars seem to be coasting in "Public Enemies," while those in "Dillinger" are going full bore.
I really liked Steve Kanaly's Pretty Boy Floyd and Richard Dreyfus's Baby Face Nelson. I wish "Dillinger" had not so flagrantly dis-regarded their relationship (or lack thereof) with Dillinger. -
enicholson — 9 years ago(July 03, 2016 11:38 PM)
Public Enemies sucked. Sure it had a bigger budget, but Johnny Depp playing John Dillinger is like Lenny Kravitz playing Muhammad Ali. Warren Oates was not only a great actor, but he was a special brand of badasss too maybe the most underrated screen actor if them all. Go watch Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, Two Lane Blacktop and The Shooting for more Oates. Depp is ok in the right role, but he is not right in the role of Dillinger.
-
Braddx — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 09:56 PM)
I agree - terrible film. A failed plagiarism of
Bonnie and Clyde
completely missing that film's superb production qualities. Much gunplay for the special effects crowd but lacking in artistry in that gunplay as
B&C
did so well.
A major problem with this film is its absence of A-list actors with genuine star quality. Fine as many of them were as character actors, they couldn't carry a major motion picture.