I saw it as a kid, was impressed, and learned that upon release, it was a huge box office hit. Warren Oates, Ben Johnson, a young Richard Dreyfus, and excellent gun play, make it worthwhile viewing. I saw PE, and I remember very little about it, other than the fact that it was boring, and paled to Dillinger.

Yes.
Had it on the DVR from this-TV and hadn't seen it in a while. Good cast. Good movie.

This message has been deleted.

YES way better.

In "Dillinger," Warren Oates looks a lot like Warren Oates.
In "Public Enemies," Johnny Depp looks a lot like Johnny Depp.
Neither one bears a really strong physical resemblance to John Dillinger, nor much closer or further from the real Dillinger than the other actor does.
Only one of them
acts
like the real John Dillinger. That one is named Johnny Depp.
As far as I'm concerned, you are free to feel however you feel about which one is "better." As somebody who likes his historical drama to bear at least a good passing resemblance to actual history, I certainly know how
I
feel about these two movies.
"I don't deduce, I observe."

Unless I'm mistaken, the commentary is by John Milius, who's not exactly an objective source.
"
Earth
first! Make
Mars
our bitch!"

Public Enemies seems to me to have too much 21st century hype. Kudos to the Warren Oates Dillinger! The audio commentary to the 1945 version mentions that Warren Oates more resembles the real Dillinger in appearance than Lawrence Tierney.

Once again, Mr. Mxyzptlk lives down to my predictions:
'Cause Puttle-Butt-Gum says so, that's why. And if you disagree, why, you must be punished. With, almost 100% predictably, a crudely worded ad hominem attack. Now watch. If he responds to this post, that's what he's going to do. At the end of the day, that's all he's got.
(From the "Lack of Authenticity" thread)
"I don't deduce, I observe."

the person who doesn't know doodley-squat is the Bloviator ^ above.

The late, great Warren Oates was Dillinger.
If you think that, you obviously don't know doodly-squat about John Dillinger.
"I don't deduce, I observe."

The 1973 version is far and away superior to PE. I was hugely disappointed when I saw it especially since I foolishly bought the dvd before seeing the film. I would never haver spent the money on it had I seen it first.
Michael Mann's work has been great in the past but PE was a boring, badly cast mess. Christian Bale seemed to be sleepwalking throughout the film and superstar Depp was NOT Dillinger. The late, great Warren Oates was Dillinger.
Please don't bother with that terrible Lawrence Tierney version - it's awful!

This message has been deleted.

I think
Dillinger
and
Public Enemies
are both great movies but
Dillinger
slightly is beaten by
Public Enemies
for two reasons.

1. Michael Mann's film is more historically accurate.
2. Christian Bale's portrayal of Melvin Purvis is much more realistic, while Ben Johnson gave a good performance he was more like Dirty Harry than the young gentleman we know from real life.
   If you believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, put this as your signature

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Mine is that the very IDEA of this movie being in any way superior to Public Enemies is hysterical. It's a b-movie Peckinpah rip-off that's gained some notoriety over the years, but that's about it. The depiction of Melvin Purvis as an uncouth middle-aged curmudgeon is particularly hilarious, considering the polite and youthful G-man that history demonstrates.
And Warren Oates, while certainly looking the part, essentially plays Dillinger as a one-note obnoxious loudmouth. It's hard to understand why Billie would fall so hard for a man whose early encounters with her involve calling her a whore, slapping her around, possibly raping her, and later kidnapping her. After all this, the next time we see her with Dillinger, she's all puppy-love smiles, with no explanation as to why she's so enamored with this brutish thug who casually and frequently mistreats her, and seems to shout "I'm John Dillinger!" every thirty seconds or so.
Historical accuracy is scarcely to be found, and the film basically plays out as a series of Peckinpah knock-off action sequenceswhich always manage to look horrendously cheap and gaudy, be they bank robberies or the next in a seemingly endless series of scenes depicting the 50-something Purvis singlehandedly dispatching a vicious public enemy, either with a 1911 in each gloved fist or clutching awkwardly at a Tommy gun.
The movie, like most AIP flicks, looks not simply low-budget, but
cheap
. Talented filmmakers have proven time and again that a low-budget film need not look cheap. But Dillinger does. Cheap and tacky, and with little to no regard for the actual events upon which it's purportedly based. Good to watch for a laugh or two, in my opinion, but the idea that some people consider it superior to Public Enemies, in terms of acting, writing or direction, is hilarious to meand if you're looking for anything even
approaching
accuracy, prepare to be disappointed.
Just one guy's view, for whatever it's worth.

1973 Version is superior in every way.
I think Depp is brilliant in anything he does, but this was poor by his standards.
VERY disappointed with Public Enemies

This Dillinger is far superior to Public Enemies
http://www.itsmebilly.com

As stated above, this is a film well worth watching, if only for the 1973 cast - and Warren Oates is lovely.

This message has been deleted.

Thanks for the review, i think ill give dillinger a try, sounds better than PE

This message has been deleted.