I hated Dillinger and wanted him to die. What did I miss?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Public Enemies
iamdoingthat — 15 years ago(September 22, 2010 06:18 AM)
I'm a big fan of Michael Mann and Johnny Depp, so I was expecting to like this movie, but after it was over I felt like I must have missed the point, or am otherwise too dense to understand what the film was trying to do.
I saw a film about a cop-killing, hostage-taking/kidnapping, human-shield-using criminal. Call me hypersensitive, but any of those three acts alone show total disregard for the value of human life. And for what, to rob banks because you "like nice clothes and fast cars?" What a scumbag.
The public decides to celebrity-worship this man merely because he's charming and handsome? Is that all? I think there was a quote about him not stealing the public's money. Were people so dense to think that, because Dillinger robbed from the bank vault, it wasn't the public's money? Or was society so depraved during the Depression that, as long as it's not coming out of my wallet, it's glamorous and permissible? "I wish I could be like Dillinger and rob banks instead of working in a factory. What a dream!"
I was lukewarm to Purvis, who just seemed like a flat "determined cop" character. But the epilogue line of him taking his own life over 20 years after killing Dillinger . . . am I supposed to believe that the trauma of killing Dillinger led to a suicide 20+ years later? Or is that just a throw-in line to make the viewers who were upset about Dillinger's death say "Ha! Serves you right copper!"
I can't imagine this is how Mann wanted me to feel during the movie, so what did I miss? -
pdcmoreira — 15 years ago(September 28, 2010 06:36 PM)
This movie tells the story of a person you don't like.
What did you expect?
That line saying Purvis took his own life is there just to tell what happened to him. This movie tells a story that actually happened, you know?
Because at least in prison and at least in death, you know, I wouldn't be in beep Bruges. -
Petronius Arbiter II — 15 years ago(October 05, 2010 09:46 AM)
"I can't imagine this is how Mann wanted me to feel during the movie, so what did I miss?"
You missed that Michael Mann, from all available indications,
doesn't really care whether you like John Dillinger or not.
That's not at all the point of the movie's portrayal of Dillinger. It's more like, showing how other people
in his own time
often romanticized him, for reasons of their own, and that had little or nothing to do with who he really was.
Reporters liked him because he was good copy, for starters just as the movie shows. Cops often liked him because he was polite and well-mannered, and sometimes because they were on the take just as the movie shows.
What makes you think Michael Mann wants
you
to like Dillinger? Just because it doesn't make him into a cardboard villain, as John Milius' movie did?
In real life, John Dillinger was a surprisingly complex character, a lot of good traits and a lot of bad traits bundled up into one little guy who got caught up in a long series of vast social and political changes, and ended up playing a very peculiar role in that drama. And who came to seem larger than life because of all that.
Just as the movie shows.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
Petronius Arbiter II — 15 years ago(October 10, 2010 05:32 PM)
http://www.imdb.com/board/11152836/board/nest/167218655?d=167282477#1 67282477
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
Cimmerian_Dragon — 15 years ago(November 28, 2010 08:16 AM)
"this is beep this movie is so historically inaccurate its ridiculous. thats why it has a 7.1 rating."
Okay, everybody laugh your ass off. In what world is a 7.1 a poor rating? If I enjoy a genre film, and probably wouldn't watch it again, but am glad I spent the time to view it and would recommend it to other fans of the genreI give it a 5/10. It's an average film, not too bad, not too good. If I gave a movie a 7/10, that would have to be a film worth recommending to a more general audience. 8-10, you're getting into classic territory. Why is it that people think a 1-10 scale means "I like this move, give it a ten" or "I hate this movie, don't give it a ten!"If there were reason for these miseries,
Then into limits could I bind my woes. -
negrinpeace — 12 years ago(January 11, 2014 10:29 AM)
Hello.
While your argument it's true and valid, I belive that in fact a director makes a film expecting some kind of reaction of the audience. This is his work of art and he shows it to the world so he definitelly cares about the viewer. You mentioned a guy who was a surprisingly complex character but we don't see this in the film. We see a guy we likes fast cars and whiskey. And robbing and stealing and yeskilling. I was expecting a more visceral and complex character like you say he was, but we recieve a cartooned and self important guy who doesn't really shows his true colours in case he had it like you said he did. And that my friend is because the director portraits the legend of John Dillinger (not the real person) and kinda force us to like him wich irronically makes us dislike him. Nobody watches a film in a theater like he does it. Nobody wears that clothes in a robbery. Nobody dies of a shot to the head smiling. I think we see a stylish portrait of a "super hroe" who doesn't get his hands dirty enough(like all Depps characters)and that at the end turns out leavin more doubts about him that awnsers and conclusions. -
sabar-1 — 15 years ago(October 20, 2010 10:15 AM)
One interesting thing to keep in mind is that Dillinger never actually killed anyone, from what I understand. It's up for debate apparently - some think he shot one man.
Doesn't mean his gang didn't and that he didn't engage in awful things, like taking someone hostage, but opinion then and later was that he wasn't as bad as portrayed by the media and the law. I'm not sure the real Dillinger was as engaging as Depp.
My mother recalls that time and says that many saw these criminals as colorful characters who broke the monotony of the daily grind of life at the time. Also, he was admired for his intelligence in continually outwitting entire teams attempting to catch him.
Rachel -
Petronius Arbiter II — 15 years ago(October 20, 2010 12:30 PM)
"I'm not sure the real Dillinger was as engaging as Depp."
IMAO, the real Dillinger was
more
engaging than Depp's portrayal of him in this film. Almost everybody who ever met him liked him personally, if only in the somewhat superficial way that people say "I like that guy" of somebody whom they don't know all that well.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
pfarnell — 9 years ago(July 17, 2016 06:18 PM)
One interesting thing to keep in mind is that Dillinger never actually killed anyone, from what I understand. It's up for debate apparently - some think he shot one man.
yes, that's the popular urban myth, but the Burrough's book of same name movie is (loosely very loosely) based on, Dillinger is directly responsible for at least one death.
He feels bad about it though, because he thinks it will cost him Facebook friends and likesor the equivalent of, in those days.. -
Six-Shooter — 15 years ago(November 14, 2010 06:58 PM)
If it helps with your decision on the morals of Dillinger, in reality, he killed much less than in the movie. Something like one.
I once had a signature. But, then I realized how bleak & meaningless such personalizations are. -
aniketagg87 — 15 years ago(December 02, 2010 08:54 AM)
Johnny Depp didn't even make the character charming in any way! He just let him look neurotic! That didn't work for me. This was the first Dillinger movie I saw and I couldn't understand his appeal at all. Although the movie was a good pass of time thank god for HBO for showing it.
-
trompos — 15 years ago(December 17, 2010 06:30 AM)
I know xactly how you feel, this whole movie was trash and the end piece about Purvis WAs meant to make people say HAHA died copper die. But alas, he died accidently trying to extract a jammed cartrige in the chamber of his pistol.
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!