Depp serves up chivalrous romantic in place of wise-cracking psychopath

Rating: 3/10 (8 November 2010)

Here we go again with another John Dillinger movie. There have been a fair number of them over the years and the question arises, do we really need another one? The answer is, not really! But if one is insistent on making another movie about the legendary Depression-era bank robber, as Michael Mann has done here, one should at least provide us with a convincing protagonist as well as a realistic atmosphere.
One of Director Mann's big mistakes was to film 'Public Enemies" in high definition. It's ironic that the original concept was to shoot the film as a TV mini-series based on Bryan Burrough's non-fiction book about early 30s gangsters and the origins of the FBI. The HD cinematography gives the film too modern a look as though we're watching an HBO special. What's more, some of the action is hard to make out during the scenes shot during the night. I also found the soundtrack to be irritating as the music was also much too modern at times. The fault lies with composer Elliot Goldenthal who admitted that his job was "chiefly composing dramatic music that didn't necessarily have to sound like it came from 1931 or 1933. It could be timeless."
But Mann's biggest mistake was to cast Johnny Depp as Dillinger. Depp might be good playing offbeat characters such as Captain Jack Sparrow or Ichabod Crane but he's no gangster. Just look at his smooth, almost feminine face—it's a face of an artistic type not of a criminal or someone who has experience dealing with the underworld. Before he became successful as an actor, Depp was involved in the rock music world as a musician and songwriter.
No doubt Depp was drawn to the films' scenarists conception of Dillinger as a misunderstood romantic. Their Dillinger makes it a point to cover a female hostage with a coat following a bank robbery. He's also adamant about not committing any kidnappings as bank robberies are his modus operandi. The only time we see the Depp Dillinger get really violent is when he slugs a man who's acting impolite toward his love interest, coat-check girl Billie Frechette. Depp Dillinger's chivalry reaches its apotheosis when he makes tender love to Billie in an early drawn-out sex scene. Now the real Dillinger was known to be quite personable and perhaps at times could be chivalrous—but what's missing here from Mr. Depp is the notion that Dillinger was a dangerous psychopath and capable of many fits of violence.
There is a complete disconnect in this film with Dillinger's character (who we're supposed to sympathize with) and his true-life actions. Somehow Dillinger is excused for his behavior because deep down he's simply misunderstood—he's not really violent. In his place is a surrogate--Baby Face Nelson (very convincingly played by Stephen Graham) who we can blame for the violence while the Depp Dillinger gets his free pass. Even lawman Purvis' associates end up being worse than Dillinger—they torture one of the gang members to extract information and rough up Billie before Purvis intercedes on her behalf.
Another big mistake in this script is that it totally lacks humor. Compare the humorless Depp Dillinger with the wise-cracking psychopath conceived by Warren Oates in John Millius' 1973 take on the notorious outlaw. In the 1973 "Dillinger", Oates is far more believable because he can be both funny (likeable) and scary. Sometimes the violence is too over the top when he slugs Billie (played by Michelle Phillips) in the face but there are enough moments of black humor that give the 1973 film its charm. Despite being too old for the part, Ben Johnson was a far superior Melvin Purvis in the '73 version to Christian Bale's virtual automaton. Johnson's phone conversation with Oates is hilarious as he makes it clear that their relationship is 'nothing personal' and everything is kept on a 'friendly' level. On the other hand, Bale, with no coolness whatsoever, simply informs Depp while he's in the jail cell that the only time he'll get out is once he's executed!
Just as in the 1973 version, all the main bases are touched in the Dillinger story: Dillinger's arrest and escape from the Crown Point, Indiana jail; the shootout at the Little Bohemia Lodge and Dillinger's death in front of the Biograph theater. What the new film has over its predecessor is some nice on-location cinematography. However, the opening scene gives more credit to Dillinger than is his due: he never directly participated in the escape of his associates at the Indiana State Prison.
My main problem with 'Public Enemies' was that it deliberately attempted to distort and perhaps glorify a criminal who terrorized innocent people. Even if Dillinger never killed anyone (although he supposedly was responsible for the death of at least one bank guard), good citizens feared for their lives whenever he robbed a bank or took people hostage. What's more, 'Public Enemies' only presents the basic outline of the Dillinger story. We never get a sense of a fleshed-out human being, replete with all the behind-the scene tidbits that could have made this film something truly special. It's hard to believe that Michael Mann is the same director who gave us the excellent 'Last of the Mohicans'. But the aging process will take its toll on even some of the most creative among us.