I hated Dillinger and wanted him to die. What did I miss?
-
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! -
-
spielberto — 9 years ago(September 19, 2016 01:33 PM)
Back then, suicide was REALLY a stigma.
The guy dies alone with a gun.at home.
He wasn't at the gun range.
They just didn't want an FBI hero, the guy that got Dillenger, to be stigmatized as a 'loser' who is burning in Hell for the sin of suicide. So it becomes, 'he was cleaning his gun' and it 'accidentally went off' sorta thing. -
davin_fealth — 14 years ago(June 27, 2011 05:52 PM)
you must have missed a few things. yes he took hostages. and use htem as sheilds but he never shot at innocent people unless he was fired apoon first. he took hostages and tied them to a tree one of the hostgates says "we will freeze out here" and Dillianger said "you will wiggle your way out of that in 10 minutes" he didn't needless kill people like babyface nealson.
The American outlaw was a symbol of true freedom in the 20's
it seems you may be too naive and short sighted to understand the movie. -
retnug — 14 years ago(July 17, 2011 02:18 PM)
What I took away from this movie is people who like baseball, movies, fast cars, good clothes, whiskey, women, and robbing banks will die in the end. I think he deserved it and I don't see why he was so popular with the people. Maybe if the movie would have explained that instead of focusing on the dumb relatiomship between Dillinger and Billie it would make more sense. But worse than Dilinger was Billie.
Was she too stupid to realize Dillinger was a criminal and if you were part of his gang the law wouldn't hesitate to arrest or kill you?
Was she also too stupid to realize Dillinger was basically responsible for the guy (did they ever give his name?)beating her?
For some strange reason she still loves Dillinger even though all of the things that happened to her were his fault. I felt no sympathy for either of them.
I didn't hate this movie, I just didn't like it. There were other parts I actually enjoyed but overall I didn't like it. -
jones7418 — 14 years ago(July 18, 2011 11:44 PM)
LOL. Maybe you guys would have to watch "Young Dillinger", a 1960's potboiler, replete with bad acting and writing and starring Nick Adams, to appreciate "Public Enemies". Watch it for a good laugh, if nothing else. It's a hoot and a half!
-
Petronius Arbiter II — 14 years ago(November 18, 2011 07:18 PM)
http://www.imdb.com/board/10069976/board/nest/93777245?d=191275444#19 1275444
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
pfarnell — 9 years ago(July 17, 2016 06:23 PM)
the only general thing I will agree with in any of that, is to summarize it by generally saying that Billie knew she was hooking up with a high-profile criminal, and supposedly would have known that the likely eventual outcomes are one or both locked up, or one or both DOA.
She did it anyway, he was a charmer, but was also smitten by her, and you know, they were not worried about their taxes, their children, or their HMO bills, they were worried about being in love and being together and willing to pay the price to be so.
But I can see that you are quite the romantic fool..I'm sure that you will get that. -
franzkabuki — 14 years ago(August 23, 2011 07:56 AM)
Yeah, Manns too keen on trying to humanize the scumbag and portray him as some kinda romantic anti-hero - starting with casting Depp with his apparently everfresh pretty-boy charms.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
Jelvit — 14 years ago(November 12, 2011 08:37 AM)
Yeah, Manns too keen on trying to humanize the scumbag and portray him as some kinda romantic anti-hero - starting with casting Depp with his apparently everfresh pretty-boy charms.
There are enough gangster movies that romanticize criminals. This isn't one of them in my opinion.
If they had wanted Dillinger to be charming he would have been charming and not some kind of cold blooded money hungry murderous most of the time kind of ruthless and bland criminal. I mean he's played by Depp who has tons of charms if he wants to! But the way Dillinger was portrayed had next to no charms. So apparently they didn't want him to be charming - at least I think so. Everytime I started to sympathize with the criminals they robbed a bank / took hostages / shot at and killed people.
I didn't see much humanizing of either the cops side or the gangsters in that movie - not in the 90 minutes of it that I watched. They were both ruthless and kind of insane in their obsession (crime / catching criminals).
I don't really get what this movie wants to tell me either. I think it's just kind of depressing and bland. But crime thrillers are not really my genre. -
Petronius Arbiter II — 14 years ago(December 28, 2011 01:54 PM)
Not correct. In real life, one of two things happened:
(a) Some people, including some in Dillinger's family, think Dillinger wasn't there at all, at the East Chicago bank job. According to them, some other gang member Harry Copeland? actually shot officer (William) Patrick O'Malley. Or else it was John Hamilton, who witnesses definitely said was present, but whom they may have gotten mixed up with Dillinger or whomever. (I have my own opinions on the matter, and I'm keeping them to myself.)
(b) Let's say it was Dillinger. If so or if not so, for that matter whoever it was, there was nothing accidental about it. Dillinger ordinarily shot to frighten, not to kill or even maim, and was exceptionally good at firing in someone's general direction without actually hitting them.
But O'Malley didn't know the gang members were wearing bulletproof vests. He fired directly at Dillinger or whomever, hitting the chest but the vest deflected the bullet as it was designed to do. So Dillinger, or whomever, considered it a clear case of self-defense. If O'Malley got another shot in, the bulletproof vest might not work so well a second time.
"I don't deduce, I observe."