Pretty good summer film, but disappointing

Rating: 7/10 (8 July 2009)

When I first saw on IMDb Johnny Depp cast as John Dillinger in this film, I was thrilled. Dillinger, after all, was a charming, swaggering, cunning, womanizing thief. Remind you of anyone - say Captain Jack Sparrow? I read articles with Depp saying he had studied Dillinger, even wore a pair of Dillinger's dress pants. I was excited at the thought of an actor of his caliber dedicating himself to such a robust, interesting character.
When I left the theater, however, I had mixed emotions. I was glad someone took the time to show what the world of cops and robbers was like in the 1930s. There was some good action, and there were some tense moments in the movie. Billy Crudup was near perfect as J. Edgar Hoover - the man who thought himself God. The acting was very good overall. The major problem I had was that I had no sense that Melvin Purvis and John Dillinger had been brought to life on the screen.
Melvin Purvis was a pencil-neck attorney who had no law enforcement experience previous to the FBI. Christian Bale's character is a polar opposite - a manhunter who can shoot a running man down from 200 yards, a great planner and interrogator. It would be hard to get farther from the truth. Read up on him and take a look at a picture and you'll know what I mean. The worst part was that there was an actor in this film who was a spitting image of Purvis - I believe it was Richard Short.
The most egregious, however, was Dillinger himself. Instead of the larger than life bank robber whose charm could buy him a drink or a date anytime, he is a troubled loner with a violent streak. The real Dillinger was known to rob banks with a smile on his face and sometimes to not even display a weapon. The movie Dillinger busts in with a gang wielding Tommy guns and tries to terrify everyone into submission. Again, as far as bank robbers go, it would be difficult to get further from the truth. I think Johnny Depp acted the part as it was written, and did that well. It's just a shame the part was written so poorly.
There are also some pretty severe historical inaccuracies. Minor ones I don't mind, but killing someone off at the beginning who was actually part of Dillinger's gang for years after is a bit much. If you know the history behind Dillinger, you'll find yourself thinking "wait, that never happened" or similar things.
The filming has been mentioned in other comments, and I will echo that. There are far too many close ups, and a lot of the filming is very fast-panning and unsteady. The '30s were a time of sharp contrasts - abject poverty in some places and some of the most elegant and beautiful architecture and apparel ever seen in other places. This film chose not to show that - whether that be due to budget or just poor film-making, I don't know.
This was overall a pretty good movie, and will keep your attention. It had a chance to be really special, and it didn't make it there. It's a shame to see all that talent and material go to waste.