It could've been "HEAT". Or at least a HIT. But it's rather SH*T.

Rating: 4/10 (25 July 2009)

My first and major charge is the form of this movie. I'm little confused about what actually Michael Mann wanted to achieve by using digital cameras. I can imagine that it was a "reality feel" what he persuaded. I can imagine that it was a wish of close emotional contact of audience with characters depicted in the movie. But the only undeniable advantage of shooting THIS particular movie in digital is economy and convenience. The other two are still director's wishes, I think.
Let's say "Public Enemies" was shot by Laars Von Trier in Dogma style. That's quite a challenge, that's quite an idea! Maybe in that way, this story would have been told better, stronger. But here we have to much of inconsistency - it's far away from Dogma drill. One scene is shot with natural light, while in another, lights are set up. You can hear dialogs recorded on the set and few minutes later - postsynchronisation and sound experiments. Here camera is held in hands, and shakes like hell, and there you can see long, steady shots from tripod, or even from air. Inconsistency! You CAN see that manner in 35mm movies and it feels good there, but here it only emphasizes cheapness of the technique used. And what's funny - the best scenes in the movie are the ones with the strongest "oldschool 35 mm" feel - where camera is held on a trolley or tripod and the lights are set up properly (those scenes lacks only... to be shot on 35 mm). The rest of the movie looks like amateur flick - when you take out the well known faces of star cast, you will have a Sundance Festival candidate.
I know that Michael Mann is very pro-digital (Miami Vice, Collateral), but I think it's far to soon for this technology to be used for making first-class Hollywood movies. It could be used by freaks like Von Trier. But, compared to him, Mann is a director with very traditional soul, and the traditional, Hollywood way he tells his stories is rather conflicted with the avant-garde form he tries to use to do this. In "Heat" the scene of bank robbery is outstanding because of dogma feel in it, BUT the rest of the movie is based on solid aesthetic grounds of classical way of shooting. Here, in "Public Enemies" nothing looks nice - everything looks like a goof, or making-of.
Second charge is rhythm - I didn't felt any suspense based on longer period than one scene. Whole movie is just a set of scenes and it has no strong general backbone. You can't even feel the final is really a final.
Third charge - acting. But here again - rather the digital neglectful form of depicting is guilty, because actually pretty good, strong Hollywood acting is exposed by "sincerity" of digital. Every line feels like rehearsal, every character feels like a dummy.
Forth charge - factual errors. It's only loosely BASED on facts, but there is much much fiction in the story. And OK, but why then, through the whole movie director tries to emphasize the reality feel?
PROS: music - it helps the suspense. Props and sets - very very nicely chosen.
So only 4 stars for wasting an opportunity for quite good gangster movie.