Video: “Public Enemies” trailer
posted at 8:10 pm on March 9, 2009 by Allahpundit
Something sweet to get that “Star Trek” aftertaste out of your mouth: Michael Mann + one of America’s legendary outlaws = crazy delicious. Dillinger captured the public’s imagination because he used balls and ingenuity to get rich quick in the middle of a depression, which makes this flick fortuitously timed indeed. I’m not crazy about Depp in the lead role, having seen him in one too many Tim Burton movies at this point to completely escape the association, but he’s a good actor. Should be okay. Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis is a bigger problem. How did Mann resist the urge to cast someone nebbishy, like Steve Buscemi, as “Little Mel”? The contrast between a dashing criminal and the dorky lawman doggedly pursuing him should have been irresistible; instead he cast a guy whom everyone’s going to look at and think of Bruce Wayne. Ah well. If you liked “The Untouchables,” and pretty much everyone did, you should find something to like here.
Update: Belated exit question: Is this movie doomed to suffer due to unfavorable comparisons to “The Untouchables”?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Oh, it’s about John Dillinger?
When I saw the title I thought they were making a movie about Rush Limbaugh.
schmuck281 on March 10, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Buscemi gets plenty of work. In 2007, he starred in and directed “Interview,” a remake of a movie by Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was gunned down by a Muslim extremist in 2004 for his outspoken attacks on radical Islam.
Karl on March 10, 2009 at 1:21 AM
That looks like my kind of movie. I’ll see it in a year or so I guess.
kahall on March 10, 2009 at 1:28 AM
I hate movies that make wicked, selfish, greedy, murderous criminals into heroes.
jgapinoy on March 10, 2009 at 1:37 AM
Looks like a good movie. GOOD. Not great.
..it doesn’t look like anything better than a dozen other mediocre movies that have been released in the last few years.
Ugly on March 10, 2009 at 2:04 AM
I did have one very strong reaction to the trailer:
They killed that old car :(
I hate when Hollywood kills sweet rides.
Ugly on March 10, 2009 at 2:06 AM
There is only one ‘Miller’s Crossing’ & this ain’t it.
BHO Jonestown on March 10, 2009 at 2:16 AM
………. but they look good in those Hats!!!
Seven Percent Solution on March 10, 2009 at 3:20 AM
If you (allah) don’t like Depp and don’t like Bale… then what the hell is the point of watching movies?
the problem with Johnny Depp being in too many Tim Burton movies… is Tim Burton. I wouldn’t watch one of his films if he paid me. -never watch that crap.
at least it ain’t matthew mcconaughey. we’ve all seen what happens then
Opinionnation on March 10, 2009 at 3:32 AM
Same here.
OscarSchneegans on March 10, 2009 at 6:25 AM
The book is excellent. Best history that I’ve read this decade. The movie looks great.
fleiter on March 10, 2009 at 6:30 AM
God I love Steve Buscemi. He’s just amazingly fun to watch. He would have been perfect in this. Depp was great in The Libertine. I’ll with hold judgement on this one. Most heros are deeply flawed in many ways but I think what you mean to say jgapinoy is that it sucks when they glamorize evil. It’s the perfect kind of film for this time in our history. We have glamorous evil going on all the hell over the place right now.
BrideOfRove on March 10, 2009 at 6:42 AM
Wow! I can’t begin to wrap my head around “Last of the Mohicans” being a bad movie. It’s probably the best film ever about Colonial America. You see all of the elements that led to the Revolution: the arrogance of the Brits, the fierce independent spirit of the hardscrabble colonist, the conflict with the Natives as people move to the Frontier, the enmity of the French toward the Brits. That’s right, folks, we wouldn’t be an independent nation today if the French hadn’t held a grudge against the Brits over the French and Indian War. Daniel Day Lewis is amazing in that film. The cinematography looks like a Hudson Valley School painting. The military engineering in the fort siege is dead-on accurate. And to top it all off, it’s got a great romance. The other thing I’m trying to wrap my head around is that the Ennio Morricone score “ruins” “The Untouchables.” Wow! As for the politics of the stars of “Public Enemies.” You have to follow your own beliefs on that. But the book that this movie is based on is one of the best modern history books I’ve ever read. It’s a thrilling page turner that gives the reader real insight into the era. I can’t wait to see this flick.
fleiter on March 10, 2009 at 6:49 AM
The Last of The Mohicans was a novel, largely a fabrication, the so called massacre outside Fort William Henry was nothing like as depicted in the movie, greatly blown up by the British as a propaganda ploy. The real massacre was the complete destruction of the St. Francisville Indians the previous October by Rogers Rangers, women, children, village burned to the ground. But the Michael Mann bodice ripper is touted as “History”, hate to break it to ya but in a fair reading of history heart eatin’ Magwa is the “Good Guy”.
JohnBissell on March 10, 2009 at 7:03 AM
I’d recommend the two Melvin Purvis flicks made by Dale Robertson back in the 70s: “Melvin Purvis, G-man” and “Kansas City Massacre.” His performance is a bit stiff in the first, but he has more depth and character and is more comfortable in the role in the second.
bob53186 on March 10, 2009 at 7:57 AM
For starters, The Last of the Mohicans is a visually stunning film with an actor so insanely good as to make heads explode in the lead, and it’s not good because James Fenimore Cooper’s novel is so rife with cliche and inadequate plotting as to make it borderline incomprehensible. For reference as to why Cooper is borderline indefensible as an author, I direct you to one Samuel Clemens who proceeded to tear Cooper a new one:
http://www.pbs.org/marktwain/learnmore/writings_fenimore.html
Next up, Mann I think selected Bale to play Purvis because he wanted to structure to likeable leads in opposition. It’s more like Heat set in the 1930s.
Finally, Dillinger’s criminal antics are not the heroic aspect of the film. To characterize the picture as making a hero out of a “wicked, selfish, greedy, murderous criminal” without having freaking seen it is gob smackingly obtuse. Mann’s pictures often highlight criminals in primary roles as a source of propulsion for the story, think of Vincent from Collateral or Neal from Heat. The goal is to not make them heroes, nor is it to idolize their behavior. Good films are sometiems just the depiction of an interesting story. Does it help to humanize Dillinger, of course it does. But it is also historically accurate to portray him as a Depression era Robin Hood. He still met the same sticky end, and via the depiction the audience can judge if his end is just or tragic.
Ennuipundit on March 10, 2009 at 8:24 AM
And yes, I’m one of them Michael Mann obsessives. Far more than Watchmen, this has been the picture I have been waiting for this year.
Ennuipundit on March 10, 2009 at 8:26 AM
For those of us who thought that The Untouchables vastly overrated, with a reputation (like De Palma himself) vastly overblown, this film looks promising. We’ll know the Depression is looming if the Tommy gun makes a comeback.
The only difference between now and then is that the one robbing the banks is Obama.
EMD on March 10, 2009 at 8:57 AM
“I was in the neighborhood, feelin a bit daffy, thought I’d stop in for an aperitif.”
Akzed on March 10, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Really.
“I don’t consider myself subject to much,” -N. B.
Gives me duck bumps to type it.
Akzed on March 10, 2009 at 9:36 AM
I thought the same thing.
But… Dillinger was just being true to himself. He was a free spirit. /sarcasm
The heart is wicked and it leads to self worship.
shick on March 10, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Something odd about that video quality though. Like it was filmed only on B-roll digital video cameras or something..
Reaps on March 10, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Does Dennis Farina kick his TV out of his car? If not, I’m not interested… Okay, maybe I’ll see it on BlueRay.
tommylotto on March 10, 2009 at 2:07 PM
A Johnny Depp movie without Tim Burton! Now that’s what I like to see!
ynot4tony2 on March 10, 2009 at 7:53 PM
‘Untouchables’ had a few historical inaccuracies- Frank Nitti shot himself, for instance, and wasn’t pushed off a roof by Elliot Ness.
‘Public Enemies’ will be a good movie if it plays close to historical fact and doesn’t try to remake Dillinger. The guy was a hardcore criminal and definitely enjoyed his work.
onehorsephoto on March 10, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2