You know, there are some great benefits working for a cable company, especially one focused on the movies. Today, I went into work at 9, then at 1130, I was off with my coworkers to lunch at Mellow Mushroom and then screen Public Enemies at Midtown Arts. This ended at 330, and my boss, Tom, decided that we should all just go home. In essence, I get my day of pay for 2.5 hours of actual "work" plus lunch and a movie - which I wanted to see! Fantastic! Now with my free time I figured I'd watch another film on my list - Days of Wine and Roses - whilst blogging about the film I saw this afternoon.
As aforementioned, I was uber excited to see Public Enemies. From the trailer it looks gritty and violent and is about an extremely fascinating bank robber from the 1930s - pretty much the ingredients for any good gangster film. My first thought as soon as the end credits started to roll: This is definitely a second half film. I felt the first act and a half dragged. A lot. Johnny Depp is fantastic as John Dillinger, and the movie is hands-down all Johnny's. From his first close-up and the couple loose strands of hair dangling in his face, I couldn't help but reflect back to Cry Baby, 19 years earlier. But even Johnny couldn't keep me from getting a tad antsy during the first hour or so. Nor could Christian Bale's Melvin Purvis, the FBI agent who apprehended the notorious criminal. I feel that both Depp and Bale are two of the best actors today, but Bale's character, especially, was rather flat. I suppose that could be because the film's main preoccupation is on the Dillinger character, but still, I would have liked to have learned more about Purvis and his background.
Aside from the rather lackluster character development, the film looked really nice. Michael Mann opted to shoot all HD, and you can tell. As with most of his work, the hand-held camera makes many appearances, provoking an uneasiness and suggesting the unsteady ground Dillinger and his cohorts were traversing. What really bothered me, however, was the liberty the writers took with the timeline of events. I suppose since no title card appeared saying "this film is truth or based on truth," the writers have some leeway, but still, after watching the movie and having my interest peaked about Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Pretty Boy Floyd, I learned (thank you wikipedia) that the deaths of each criminal occurred in a very different order. I just didn't understand the reasoning for playing with these facts. All in all, the movie was fairly entertaining but nothing so great I would rush out to see again: in the theater, on DVD or on TV. And that's very rare for me and Johnny. Well, I guess Secret Window and Nick of Time fall into that category. But that's alright. I'll always have Don Juan DeMarco to go back to, time and time again.
And P.S. The movie I'm watching right now - deeeepressing. Eeesh.
As aforementioned, I was uber excited to see Public Enemies. From the trailer it looks gritty and violent and is about an extremely fascinating bank robber from the 1930s - pretty much the ingredients for any good gangster film. My first thought as soon as the end credits started to roll: This is definitely a second half film. I felt the first act and a half dragged. A lot. Johnny Depp is fantastic as John Dillinger, and the movie is hands-down all Johnny's. From his first close-up and the couple loose strands of hair dangling in his face, I couldn't help but reflect back to Cry Baby, 19 years earlier. But even Johnny couldn't keep me from getting a tad antsy during the first hour or so. Nor could Christian Bale's Melvin Purvis, the FBI agent who apprehended the notorious criminal. I feel that both Depp and Bale are two of the best actors today, but Bale's character, especially, was rather flat. I suppose that could be because the film's main preoccupation is on the Dillinger character, but still, I would have liked to have learned more about Purvis and his background.
Aside from the rather lackluster character development, the film looked really nice. Michael Mann opted to shoot all HD, and you can tell. As with most of his work, the hand-held camera makes many appearances, provoking an uneasiness and suggesting the unsteady ground Dillinger and his cohorts were traversing. What really bothered me, however, was the liberty the writers took with the timeline of events. I suppose since no title card appeared saying "this film is truth or based on truth," the writers have some leeway, but still, after watching the movie and having my interest peaked about Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Pretty Boy Floyd, I learned (thank you wikipedia) that the deaths of each criminal occurred in a very different order. I just didn't understand the reasoning for playing with these facts. All in all, the movie was fairly entertaining but nothing so great I would rush out to see again: in the theater, on DVD or on TV. And that's very rare for me and Johnny. Well, I guess Secret Window and Nick of Time fall into that category. But that's alright. I'll always have Don Juan DeMarco to go back to, time and time again.
And P.S. The movie I'm watching right now - deeeepressing. Eeesh.
