publicenemiesrev.jpg
He Just Wanted to Go to the Movies


Public Enemies / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | July 2, 2009 | Comments (61)


Public Enemies can best be understood as a mostly successful fusion of the two disparate sides of writer-director Michael Mann. He’s always functioned as a hybrid of pop and art, sliding back and forth between technical prowess and something less easily defined but that puts a greater emphasis on energy or charisma. This was never clearer than in the 1980s, when he was simultaneously executive producing “Miami Vice” and “Crime Story” for NBC. No one needs convincing of the cheeseball nature of the former, but the latter was just as important for allowing Mann to set the course for where he would go as far as crafting a gritty, complicated cops-and-robbers narrative. It’s the sizzle and the steak, the style and the substance, and Mann is able to skillfully bring them together for much of Public Enemies. The film isn’t perfect — the protagonist’s inability to look beyond his next 24 hours bleeds over into the film, letting it drift a bit too far afield — but it still finds moments of redemption in being a tightly drawn, solidly made, gorgeous rendering of a bygone time and the end of era.

The film opens and spends most of its time in 1933, when John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), George “Baby Face” Nelson (Stephen Graham) and others are making the most of the Depression and ripping off every bank they come across. The story begins with Dillinger and John “Red” Hamilton (Jason Clarke) busting some of their contemporaries out of prison, and it’s clear from the start that Mann’s film won’t be quite like other period pieces. Mann is once again shooting digitally, working with longtime collaborator and cinematographer Dante Spinotti to capture the images on a Sony HD video camera. He used to it strong effect in Collateral, capturing the bruised orange of the Los Angeles sky at night, and Public Enemies returns to that almost runny veneer, creating a look that feels almost too liquid to be controlled. Opting for noise over grain, Mann’s film feels immediately real, grounding a historical drama by giving it a modern execution that makes it more bracing and less removed than film might have done to the story. By swapping the classic look of film for the sheen of digital, Mann pumps an almost queasy amount of life into the picture, and it’s a strong emotional complement to a story about men living too hard and too fast, just barely contained by the world.

Unfortunately, after the prison break, Dillinger doesn’t have many goals other than to rob a bank, stay alive, get a good steak, and spend time with his fellow criminals. His lack of an external motive isn’t necessarily bad, but by refusing to give him a proper emotional arc until too late in the film, Mann and co-writers Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman take what could have been a riveting look at the final months of a larger-than-life criminal and reduce it to a meandering melodrama in search of an anchor for its characters. Dillinger pursues and wins the company and eventually the heart of Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), but the film takes too long to transition him from her owner to her protector, and though there are a few moments toward the end that sadly cement the doomed nature of their love, too much of their time is given to Dillinger’s superficial need to have her just because.

The film occasionally slips off track, but Mann mostly manages to regain control when dealing with Dillinger’s ever-present conflict with the law as embodied by FBI agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), who took down Pretty Boy Floyd and has been appointed by J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) to run the Chicago office and task force charged with apprehending Dillinger. The narrative is ultimately propelled by the interstate game of cat and mouse, hinging upon several key battles and chase sequences, including an epic shootout in a wooded cabin at night between a team of federal agents and a crew that includes Dillinger. These are the most explosive and tautly directed and edited sequences in the film, and Mann’s skill with action movies combined with the compelling grace of the digital photography makes them heartstopping.

The re-creation of the early days of the Bureau of Investigation is fascinating; the screenplay is based on Bryan Burrough’s Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34, and the author told Vanity Fair last year that the script was “by far the closest thing to fact Hollywood has attempted.” Mann’s love of police work shines through in his devotion to telling a story about men trying to catch a killer without radios, databases, or anything modern crime dramas take for granted. Tapped phone calls are saved on actual records; officers use pay phones to contact each other; the Bureau is still so new that its field agents don’t know the basics of doing a stakeout; etc., etc. Mann’s fastidious attention to detail makes for a beautiful movie and an interesting idea of the early days of law enforcement, but too often it feels like just that: a series of ideas that never quite gelled into a story.

However, Depp and Bale are trademark names for a reason, and their performances are usually enough to tip the scales in their favor. Bale is getting good at playing men icily devoted to the pursuit of a single object, regardless of cost: Purvis’ slow acceptance of the greater lengths he’s willing to go to just to find Dillinger are an easy mirror of Bale’s work as Bruce Wayne in Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, which is a good thing. Depp has a slightly tougher time finding the roots of Dillinger, especially since Mann seems more focused on creating a good movie and not on filling it with interesting people, but he’s still effortlessly charming and manages to convey Dillinger’s rightful paranoia as his career evading the law grows longer and more dangerous each day.

Dillinger was the Bureau’s Public Enemy No. 1, but on several occasions in the film, the agents pursuing him wind up following or fighting with Nelson. It’s as if Mann is trying to, if not shift the blame, at least make Dillinger out to be a more populist thief than the more murderous and apparently vastly less mentally stable Baby Face. Mann wants to show him as a robber and criminal, but also to empathize with the legend that romanticizes him. (Taking a page from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Mann’s Dillinger is fascinated with his own press and the manner in which he’s been immortalized even before his death.) But while Mann’s gifted at synthesizing the opposing sides of his own personality as a director, merging a by-the-numbers crime story with something that yearns for pop opera, he never manages to come down on any particular side of Dillinger. Maybe he was reluctant to lionize a killer and thief at the expense of the lawmen he respected, or maybe he was unwilling to condemn a man who took from the rich but tried to look out for the poor. Public Enemies is a strong film, one with moments of real beauty and excitement, but in the end, the flash and substance battle to a draw.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Pajiba's Guide to Third Date Flicks -- 2009 Edition | Ice Age: Dawn Of The Dinosaurs Review



Comments

"when he was simultaneously executive producing “Miami Vice” and “Crime Story” for NBC. No one needs convincing of the cheeseball nature of the former..."

Cheeseball? Miami Vice? Maybe YOU should stop your cheeseball habit of masturbating to Ryan Reynold scenes from Two Guys a Girl and a Pizza Place.

THAT shit was cheesy as hell, NOT Miami Vice.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 1, 2009 5:59 PM

Good enough for me. Some studio just made 6:50 of my dollars.

Posted by: the_wakeful at July 1, 2009 6:02 PM

AWRIGHT! We watched the History Channel documentary on Dillinger just in preparation for this film and we're seeing it tomorrow night. We never see shit first-run, but Dillinger + Depp + Baby Face Nelson convinced us--we love this era and the larger than life stories that came out of it.

Great review!

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at July 1, 2009 6:03 PM

OOPs! wrong reviewer, apologies Mr Carlson.

Anyway, I don't agree with your characterization of probably the most iconic show of the 80's. A series that has influenced TV and Cinema to this day.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 1, 2009 6:12 PM

Where does the_wakeful live?

Only $6.50 for a movie? Around me, even the discount Depends rate is $9.00

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 1, 2009 6:14 PM

What ignorant, low down, slanderizin, son of a bitch said that?

George Nelson! Not "Babyface"! You remember, and you tell your friends! I'm George Nelson! Born to raise hell!

...OK gonna go read the review now.

Posted by: figgy at July 1, 2009 6:18 PM

It also seems as if Depp wasn't quite right for this role, as I suspected. I'm getting that vibe from this review and others I have read .

Dillinger wasn't all charm, the man was a grittier than what Depp is capable of delivering. Meaning being "dark" in a Tim Burton way ain't gonna cut it for this type of character.

Hell, Bale should have played Dillinger and Josh Brolin could have been cast as the FBI guy.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 1, 2009 6:35 PM

Oh no, George: not the livestock.

Posted by: ahamos at July 1, 2009 6:49 PM

I also felt that it had more hand-held, shaky camera work than I was comfortable with. I understand that the idea is realism, but it always makes me feel like I'm stumbling through the room drunk, in heels.

Posted by: Jenilane at July 1, 2009 7:00 PM

Slim - That actually does sound better. Love Depp but I didn't know how I felt about him in this role. I'll see this one to find out though.

Posted by: Handel at July 1, 2009 7:01 PM

I agree that Miami Vice was not that cheeseball. A cheeseball wardrobe? O.k. But that show consistently had very down, nihilistic endings. And nihilism isn't cheeseball. Unless it comes with a ferret and urinates on your rug.

On second thought, even that isn't cheeseball - just wryly funny.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at July 1, 2009 7:02 PM

Just try to keep me away from the theater, I dare you.

Posted by: Cindy at July 1, 2009 7:17 PM

OK I'm definitely watching this. I love gangster movies. Love them.

ahamos: HA! My mind went immediately to the 'Oh, Brother' place as soon as I heard the name. I wonder if the Soggy Bottom Boys make an appearance here.

Posted by: figgy at July 1, 2009 7:23 PM

Paddydog, Northern Arizona, 8.50 for a regular ticket, 6.50 for a student. Just one of the many reasons I plan on keeping my student ID for the rest of my life, never mind that I graduate in a year.

Posted by: the_wakeful at July 1, 2009 7:36 PM

Hell, Bale should have played Dillinger and Josh Brolin could have been cast as the FBI guy.

I like it. Though, Brolin would be a pretty good Dillinger, too.

Posted by: jM at July 1, 2009 7:55 PM

Sounds good enough for a date with Mrs. Bullet. We never like the same movies, so we go to the theater without the kid about twice a year.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at July 1, 2009 8:24 PM

Just got back from seeing this at a matinee and ... I was not impressed.

It looks awful, stunningly so, 1/2 the time it looks like something you'd see on the History Channel special, the other 1/2 it looks ok and the contrast between the 2 is VERY jarring.

Mostly though, the worst crime this film is guilty of is just being dull, dull, dull. A series of scenes in search of a reason to care about something, anything that's happening. None of the characters really have anything other than surface depth and the love story between Dillinger and Frechette, which should be the lynchpin of the tale just has no resonance, no matter how much swelling music plays whenever they're together. And somehow the film manages to feel both overly long AND somehow missing any number of relevant (though not critical, since you can piece together what happens) scenes.

Depp's semi-interesting as Dillinger, but it's really a collection of affectations in search of a human being.

So, overall, meh.

Posted by: Soylent Green is Sheeple at July 1, 2009 8:34 PM

I'd say I'd make an effort to see this, but I'm terribly terribly behind on movies I want to see. So, I'll get to it, eventually, maybe.

Jesus saves, George Nelson withdraws.

Posted by: Genny (actually Rusty now) at July 1, 2009 8:39 PM

Well done, Daniel. I had no real interest in seeing this, and now I kind of do. (Despite the Depp & Bale deliciosity, I have never been into gangster flicks or the era, other than fashion-wise.)

Nicely criticized.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at July 1, 2009 8:56 PM

Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash and prizes.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at July 1, 2009 8:59 PM

Just the fact that it was "filmed" in video makes it look like a bad spinoff of Midsummer Murders on BBC...wish it wasnt digital.

Posted by: Laura at July 1, 2009 9:17 PM

More importantly, PaddyDog, is: how does the_wakeful convert dollars to minutes and hours?

Some studio just made 6:50 of my dollars.

Maybe if it's not a one-to-one conversion, the tickets actually are $9.00.

Equations! I demand equations!

Posted by: Sean at July 1, 2009 9:45 PM

So did he get to go to the movies?

Posted by: will at July 1, 2009 10:06 PM

Really? REALLY?

I've just come back from the theatre, and I'm stunned at how positive reviews for Public Enemies have been (considering they've mostly been 'meh' is saying something).

I can't remember the last time I've seen a movie bearing such promise – and killed so thoroughly. There were such strong performances from the cast and some well-composed images, but these were strung together without any regard for momentum or storytelling. Scenes were choppily transitioned, the sound levels were all over the place, and Mann's shaky camera gave it the impression of an A&E special. He was completely the wrong director for this film, and turned a promising concept into a lifeless wreck.

What a week – first Transformers, now this. Why do I love movies again?

Posted by: beingclear at July 1, 2009 10:43 PM

I'm a Michael Mann fan; even if the story doesn't work for me, the performances and especially the look/composition he fosters are always great.

And then there's Depp and Bale.

But the real reason I have to see this movie is that they filmed part of it in the little northwoods town where I've been spending summers for 49 years, in the resort where John Dillinger actually hid out. The closest movie theater up there has apparently sold out for all showings over the next 2 weeks.

Posted by: Louise at July 1, 2009 10:57 PM

It's not a masterwork that'll be treasured in the decades to come, but the film accomplishes exactly what a blockbuster should, and doesn't bullshit the audience as films such as Transformers do.

I'm glad I saw it, don't listen to Soylent Green, it's worth the matinee.

Posted by: George at July 1, 2009 11:22 PM

I'm with you fellers.

Posted by: sansho1 at July 1, 2009 11:27 PM

Sean: clearly the_wakeful is using the time=money theory. Since he spent ~$9.00, and this is the amount of money he earns in 6.833 hours, we know that he makes just shy of $1.32 / hour (maybe if he bought popcorn, a drink, and some candy, we can get all the way up to $3 / hour).

Which will make it that much more painful if he doesn't enjoy the movie: they'll have taken a day's wages from him.

Let's all throw in a dollar and help a brother out.

Posted by: ahamos at July 1, 2009 11:38 PM

Hope to see this movie as I love the Jonny Depp, in whatever costume he decides to present himself.

Moreover...I also loved the Miami Vice. My 2 best girlfriends and I used to watch it every Friday nite and drink one father's beer. We were saving our cash for a tropical vacation. We decided to get our Don Johnson and our drink on simultaneously. And then went to Hawaii where the drinking age was only 19.

Posted by: wsapnin at July 2, 2009 1:00 AM

the_wakeful - hey brother! I'm a Lumberjack and I'm okay! Maybe we should have our own little Bacon of two in the shadow of the Peaks. (Just none of that gawd-awful microbrew!)

Posted by: bibliophile at July 2, 2009 1:25 AM

Saw it. Marion Cotillard has some weird accent the whole time. It's not exactly American, but it isn't French either. Bale has to work on his too.

And I have to agree that Depp wasn't right for the role. And, disturbingly, that from some angles he's beginning to resemble Ray Liotta.

Posted by: Mary at July 2, 2009 1:55 AM

"Bale is getting good at playing men icily devoted to the pursuit of a single object, regardless of cost."

I find that to be his trademark - every role is a variation of the above theme.

Posted by: Stella at July 2, 2009 9:17 AM

I hate shakeycam. It just says amateur to me. If I want to watch shakeycam, I'll watch my brother-in-law's videos. When I go to the movies, I expect glorious FLAMING Technocolor. Yes, they used to market it as FLAMING back in the 1950's. I have some old newspapers with that in the movie ads.

Posted by: BWeaves at July 2, 2009 10:06 AM

"Maybe he was reluctant to lionize a killer and thief at the expense of the lawmen he respected.."

Dillinger was never proven to have killed anyone.

Posted by: Fuel at July 2, 2009 10:22 AM

This was filmed in and around Chicago and again, does not my city shine? My grandfather would tell me stories of Dillinger, Capone and others from the world of mobsters. This film made me miss him.

Posted by: Lori at July 2, 2009 10:33 AM

Miami Vice may not have been cheeseball, but the culture it inspired certainly was.

Posted by: Minty at July 2, 2009 3:44 PM

Great Review, I kinda loved the film.

Posted by: Kabir at July 2, 2009 3:53 PM

I thought it was awful. Poorly directed, poorly written, and poorly shot. It's not often that a film manages to make me both nauseated and bored at the same time. I was very tempted to walk out.

Posted by: Jen at July 2, 2009 5:29 PM

I'd like to take BarbadoSlim's anger and discontent and channel it into a weekend lovemaking fest wherein I lose my ass-virginity and heaven weeps upon the beauty we create together.

Also, I heart Johnny Depp.

Posted by: Janey at July 2, 2009 9:53 PM

And, disturbingly, that from some angles he's beginning to resemble Ray Liotta.

Please don't make me brillo pad my ovaries, Mary. That assertion makes the baby Godtopus cry. 'S right. Bastard children don't get much recognition in the "official literature" of Pajiba. Hypocrites.

As a sidenote that should probably be filed in a past comment diversion, up until the age of 14 I pronounced it hypo-crite because I'd only seen it in writing. So consider yourselves hyperbolic crites, mothafuckas.

Posted by: Leigh at July 2, 2009 10:53 PM

I would also like to mention that the underrated Giovanni Ribisi is also in this movie. Sold!

I don't care if he is a Scientologist; they had me at Ribisi.

Posted by: Sarah at July 2, 2009 11:01 PM

Perhaps I went into it with the wrong mojo. I pretty much hated the movie. After 40 minutes of nearly endless in-scene cuts that were perhaps innovative and fresh 10 years ago, the technical aspects of Mann's direction overwhelms the movie with "prowess" one might find in a better episode of CSI: Miami. I hated that Emilie DeRavin and Leelee Sobieski others were used for single lines of dialogue (for the work) for some upended attempt at adding cred to their filmographies. Moreover, the movie sucked the action right out of American gangster picks. The best sequence was an interrogation of Billie Frechette, so that should give you some idea of how dismally boring and pocket-lining this movie felt. I like Bale, Cotillard, and Depp, but sitting through the last hour and a half of this movie felt like I was doing them a favor. I stayed because I thought it was going to redeem itself. Nope, instead it was a weaker episode of a crime procedural complete with soaring orchestral cues and a side of Superstars.

Posted by: Jackseppelin at July 3, 2009 8:59 AM

The review is very ambiguous, but the comments seem to be telling me that this movie sucks?

I'll probably go see it anyway. It's Depp and Bale and that pretty French woman... and Chicago! Yeah!

Posted by: kayla at July 3, 2009 11:16 AM

I'm just pleased so many people can easily throw off O Brother quotes. I feel at home here.

Posted by: velocibadgergirl at July 3, 2009 1:35 PM

I'd like to take BarbadoSlim's anger and discontent and channel it into a weekend lovemaking fest wherein I lose my ass-virginity and heaven weeps upon the beauty we create together.

Posted by: Janey at July 2, 2009 9:53 PM

------------------------------------------------

WO HOO sounds like a date.

You are buying the liquor.

and the smokes.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 3, 2009 4:07 PM

Friend, some of your folding money has come unstowed.

Posted by: coveredinbees at July 3, 2009 4:13 PM

I agree with pretty much everything Jackseppelin said, and yet I still strangely enjoyed the film. I didn't particularly like the choice of digital cinematographhy for this project, for two reasons: 1) I can't reconcile "shaky, lifelike movement" with "1930s" because it comes off as too modern - I would have preferred a classic look to match the costumes and settings; and 2) everyone's pancake makeup jumped right off the screen at me, especially Bale's. I think Mann should've used film.

Also, it was incredibly obvious that most of Marion Cotillard's lines were overdubbed in post-production - and even then, her accent was terrible. She's a fantastic actress but she needs to play French until she gets a little more coaching under her belt. She was great in that interrogation scene, though.

Posted by: Another Jen at July 3, 2009 6:26 PM

"Cheeseball? Miami Vice? Maybe YOU should stop your cheeseball habit of masturbating to Ryan Reynold scenes from Two Guys a Girl and a Pizza Place.

THAT shit was cheesy as hell, NOT Miami Vice.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 1, 2009 5:59 PM"
_______________________________________________

Ooooh shiiiit..That's a bad way to start the thread. It's like Dad just called Mom a bitch at the dinner table and we still have to stay and finish the meal. Awkward...

Posted by: smatt584 at July 3, 2009 11:00 PM

I saw this earlier today and then read the review with Billy Crudup's accent in my head. My brain also started putting "the" in front every instance of Michael Mann's last name, so it would read the Mann. It makes for an interesting review.

I liked it.

Posted by: Monica at July 4, 2009 12:35 AM

Great review, Dan. I enjoyed your theory about the two sides of Michael Mann.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at July 4, 2009 10:01 AM

Caught it yesterday and think it's good Mann, but not great Mann.

The characters are cyphers or caricatures. There's no sense of Dillinger's personality. All we learn of him is in that little moment where he convinces Billie to leave with him (The "I like fast cars, fine suits, baseball and you"). That's it. Billie, meanwhile, comes off as a Jonas Brothers-like lovestruck tween. Purvis is even less developed -- he's just the dog chasing the fox.

In fact, the only character that comes off as interesting is Crudup's Hoover.

This movie doesn't seem to know what it wants to be. Cut 20 minutes and this would be a rather interesting action movie. Add 20 minutes and perhaps you'd get the sweeping drama that Mann appeared to want.

Posted by: Fredo at July 4, 2009 4:55 PM

Bah. At the end of the movie, I was still left wondering what Melvin Purvis' deal was. The long, jittery firefights were so confusing that I longed for them to be over so I could figure out who was dead and whose side they were supposed to be on. Hell, even the bank robbery scenes were free of tension and full of "characters" that I had never seen before and couldn't place as they went through the motions.

This movie had all the seeds of an interesting human drama, and yet... I want two hours of my life back. Well, ok, maybe one hour and forty-five minutes. I'd give fifteen for the fine thirties fashion.

Posted by: anon at July 5, 2009 6:08 PM

Just know a great cel eb site ___BigTalls C O M___ where you can me et many big beau tiful wo man and hand some guys.

Posted by: clarkm at July 5, 2009 9:32 PM

Friend, some of your folding money has come unstowed.

I like my women like I like my coffee. covered in beeees

Posted by: the_wakeful at July 6, 2009 1:32 AM

I know I'm late to this rodeo, but Mr. M and I saw this last night and I had to weigh in. This movie felt like it was running at 3/4 time. It never developed any momentum. I thought Mann was being a little lazy to let History do all his plot development for him.

Thank the godtopus for Giovanni Ribisi! I love him dearly (he's my movie star fantasy best friend) and he was the only person in the movie who didn't look like chalk and sound like he hailed from Fransyltuckiana.

On an even shallower note, that had to be the looniest, most uninteresting sex scene ever. I'm not wholly puerile, but at least take your goddamn clothes off! And they practically talked about the weather the whole time. It just made the dry and lifeless characterizations worse. I wanted to bring that up because I don't think it had been mentioned yet.

Posted by: Young Grandma Ben at July 8, 2009 8:42 AM

Hated the movie...Bad script, Bad lighting, Bad pacing, Bad soundtrack, Bad portrayal of a GREAT city in a movie (Chicago. I love Chicago (My home town for 50 years)however, it is barely recognizable in this poorly angled film. If I had not been a witness to the traffic snarls that the filming created, I would have thought it was filmed on some cheesy backstage Hollywood set. Oh, and by the way...Miami Vice was not cheesy.

Skip the theatre, Skip the video, skip the bootleg!

Posted by: freeyomind at July 12, 2009 10:58 AM

It all fell flat to me. But then again, I suppose police movies aren't my genre. They all seem the exact same to me.

Really, the only thing that kept me awake was discussing the merits of digital vs film with my friend the film student. Our conclusion? It looked like a student film. Well, that, or a Canadian production (in a bad way, and if you're Canadian you'll know what I mean).

Posted by: Ling at July 13, 2009 8:38 AM

Saw this over the weekend. It wasn't terrible, but Dan's review is too kind. I was dying for someone to care about. Mann made it impossible.

Do yourself a favor and go rent The Untouchables, Goodfellas, Heat, or The Fugitive instead. Public Enemies is like a bad fusion of these 4 superior films.

Posted by: ed newman at July 14, 2009 12:24 PM

excellent review, the bottom line of which is that this is a film that turns out to be less than the sum of its parts.
incidentally, " manhattan melodrama " was a terrific movie in its time and dillinger was lucky that he saw it before purvis caught up with him.

Posted by: snake at July 15, 2009 2:42 AM

Greetings to those wandering fat babes! Are you guys still worried about your overweihgted body? always the loser in a relationship huh? Ain't love innocent? there must be another way for us fat babes. I do believe it. And i fell in love with a fat guy in this April thanks to the website http://www.plusflirt.com/ i wanna share it with all of you. it is really the right place for us fat group.You are warmly welcomed to this site.

Posted by: nikkibabes at July 16, 2009 2:25 AM

Way too long and drawn out. If this movie was 30 mins shorter it might have been enjoyable. The shoot out at their hide out went on forever, bordering on ridiculous. I agree the and look was awesome and you really were taken back to the 20s. I can't believe this reviewer rated this movie so highly.

Posted by: Tom at August 8, 2009 3:05 AM