Not me. Warren Oates is Dillinger.

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.

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.

I honestly preferred this over Public Enemies. The latter film felt a little too polished. This film has the right amount of grittiness.

"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.

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.

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'

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.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

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."

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"

I haven't seen Dillinger yet, but watched Public Enemies two times. It has a great cast (Bale, Lang, Crudup, Graham) except Johnny Depp, he is just awful in it. It's not all his fault, imo he is just not the right type for Dillinger. I expected a masterpiece like Heat, but eventually Public Enemies is more similar to Miami Vice, too much style - not so much substance.
they mostly come at night mostly.

There were few films in the past decade that I looked forward to with greater anticipation than Public Enemies. I think Michael Mann's work is terrific, usually, and the subject of Dillinger seemed a match made in movie heaven. I was bored to death. The digital look was awful. Depp was tedious and lacking personality. It was a C+ movie from which I was expecting an A.
Dillinger is much better. At the very least Oates came off as a believable gangster, unlike Depp.

Don't agree, bianafiore.
I saw Public Enemies once, and didn't care to see it again. I've seen Dillinger about ten or eleven times now. There's a natural feeling in the acting, the narration and pacing work well, the action was good, and the 1930's atmosphere is well captured.
I also like this better than Bonnie and Clyde, which took a few liberties with the facts and injected "weirdness for the sake of weirdness."

I am quite of the opposite opinion. Grew up with Dillinger and it is one of my favorite Gangster films of all time. On the other hand, I tried to get into Public Enemies but really didn't like it anywhere near as much as I enjoyed Dillinger. I enjoy Michael Mann's films but I really didn't care for his Public Enemies.

"All style and very little substance." You nailed it - that's apparently what the generation raised on MTV reality TV and hyper edited video games cares about.

Geezus H. Dillinger is far far far superior to Public enemies and the recent release Lawless. If you think otherwise you really have no understanding of storytelling or indeed cinema. This is a monumental piece of work with the imperious Oates superb as always. Watching him perform makes you actually believe he is Dillinger's reincarnation. Depp's a fine actor but there really is no comparison. Oates you believe could REALLY have ridden with Dillinger's gang. He comes across as a supremely tough son of a bitch. I also love the newsreel stylised aspect. Public enemies is all style yet very little substance.

This is excellent storytelling about the Myth of Dillinger

This message has been deleted.

The cinematography and editing are indeed excellent in Milius' "Dillinger," I'll give it that. The screenplay, on the other hand, is the very definition of "mess," juvenile-minded and hackneyed to the max.
"I don't deduce, I observe."

This message has been deleted.

Yes.
I've already written so much about it, I've gotten sick and tired of the whole topic.
See also:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10069976/board/nest/93777245?d=191275444#19 1275444
I used to like Milius' "Dillinger," and would have been glad enough to continue liking it even after "Public Enemies" came out, but then Puttle-Butt-Gum started invading the "Public Enemies" boards on IMDb with one brainless post after another about how Milius' second-rate effort is supposedly so much "better" than Michael Mann's movie, and that offends me more than I can ever say.
"I don't deduce, I observe."