In want of anything else to do, I went to see Public Enemies for a second time today, this time with my brother. Rather than a re-review of the film (I still stand by what I wrote here), here are a few other observations and criticisms of the film that stood out in the rewatch. This after a rewatch, a re-read of the book, watching a History Channel docu and much discussion/argument about the film in the meantime.
- The film's overall sound quality seemed significantly better - maybe enough people complained that they tweaked it for subsequent viewings, but I picked up on a lot that I missed the last time due to better audio if nothing else.
- Historical inaccuracies didn't bother me nearly as much, if only because I knew they were coming this time. I still had a problem with Nelson's death scene, mostly from Purvis personally shooting him full of holes. Otherwise I mostly got over it.
- That being said, I didn't get a lot more out of the viewing besides some details about characters/dialogue that I missed the first time around. Some examples: I spotted James Russo's character this time (he gets wasted in the jailbreak); the crooked cop Martin Zarkovich getting a prominent supporting role; Dillinger historically shooting a cop during one of the bank heists; and Alvin Karpis's buddies are indeed the infamous Barker gang. But these aren't enough to significantly change my opinion of the film, most of them being little more than curios. The plot, story and characters affected me about the same, though I did get a bit more enjoyment out of the Little Bohemia shootout than my first viewing, perhaps for the reasons named above.
- Another thing that struck me this viewing: it stood out that the silly scene where Dillinger infiltrates the Chicago PD is supposed to that he's the last of a dying breed. However, the movie directly contradicts this by showing Dillinger planning another heist with what is fleetingly identified as the Barker Gang. So, what gives? Karpis isn't given a prominent enough role to really do anything, and given the film's twisting history to suit its theme, why the hell is he even featured in the film? It only seems to muddle whatever point the film is trying to get across.
- It struck me how little Billy Crudup was actually in the film - I somehow remembered him having a lot more screen time. I guess his performance was that good. Best Supporting Actor anyone?
- In a similar vein: Peter Gerety really stood out this time as Louis Piquet, giving a hilarious, pitch-perfect turn as the sleazy, hambone mob lawyer.
- The shooting of Dillinger at the end was as effective as it was the first time I saw it. I called that scene the one truly transcendent moment of the film and a rewatch confirmed it.
- I think the last scene between Billie and Winstead was uber-cheesy. I didn't mind it first time but it really bothered me this time around. The movie should have ended with Dillinger's death or a Hoover/Purvis epilogue.
- I still sat a row in front of chattering old douchebags providing their own running commentary on the film - almost as annoying as it was the first time.
- My brother thought it was an okay movie except he hated the shaky cam and didn't like the romance. We disagreed also as to the quality of Depp's performance.
Overall, my opinion is basically the same as it was after my first viewing: It's a good enough film, but it could have been a lot better.
Will I get back to writing substantiative things in the near-future? Perhaps, but you'd better quit bitching first.
No comments:
Post a Comment