Technically poor. Creatively worse.

Rating: 4/10 (11 July 2009)

I carried knowledge of the real story into the theater. Therefore, I feel that because I was well versed in the story of Dillinger I really felt what was missing.
What was missing? The mood of the country: It was the Great Depression and people were poor and out of work - they looked at the banks (wall street) and the govt as the real 'public enemies'. Thus the elevation of fame: John Dillinger came along and stole from the banks, but refused to steal from ordinary hard working people. He did this while constantly humiliating the burgeoning FBI, thus the Govt. He was seen as a modern Robin Hood. A hero. He was media savvy and knew what to do to bolster his image. He became more famous than any movie star or other public figure of his day. None of this was really in the film. It was only alluded to. Character development/motivation: Who was Dillinger and why was he a bank robber? We don't know. What drove him? Never even hinted at. How did he change/grow/fall from the beginning of the film to the end? He didn't. Who was Purvis and what drives his sense of justice and the law? Don't know. Why is Dillinger so important to him, in particular? Never addressed. How did he change/grow/fall from the beginning to the end of the film? He didn't. It ended exactly as it began for him. What is the counterpoint between these two characters? Not played upon. Melvin Purvis much later eventually killed himself, as is stated in the end tag... but nothing we've seen in the film has shown us even the slightest bit of what character flaw or events might lead to this.
In addition, the technical flaws in this film were far too many to overlook.
Sound: The sound flaws were UNFORGIVABLE. Many times throughout the film, the three of us watching the movie turned to each other to ask what the actor on screen just said. We thought the theatre was shitty or something, until it became obvious that it was the design or lack-there-of. Director Michael Mann made one of the biggest mistakes I ALWAYS see amateur filmmakers get reamed for at film festivals, which is underestimating the power and IMPORTANCE of SOUND. It is 50% of the film experience and he treated it like it didn't matter in the slightest.
Lighting: There is no consistency between shots even WITHIN THE SAME SCENE. The color palette of the film is all over the place (and changes from scene to scene and even within the same scene). And there never seems to be a reason for it - no storytelling reason at least. I would understand warm tones to tell a certain tale or cool for the same - but it would be warm to cool for no reason whatsoever. Night shots looked like giant spot lights through the trees. In fact, there are at least three shots where you actually SEE the giant spot lights, dead on. They didn't try to diffuse the lights at all or hide the fact that they were there. It was just giant harsh flood lights raining unnatural super-bright light on the scene. I am aware this is how most films shoot at night - but most of the time they are disguised and diffused enough to at least PASS for FULL MOON light. But these were coming in at the wrong (90 degree) angle to-boot! And the exterior night shots right in front of the cabin, where you might it expect it to be slightly brighter, were appropriately dark (well lit), and only seconds later when deep in the woods, it is bright as daylight - from a source you can actually see just behind a tree. Ridiculous.
In summary, I learned what I know of the Dillinger/Purvis story by watching a 2 hr History channel documentary reenactment of this story, which was far more engaging & technically competent than this film.