Am I just missing the point here?I watched all 143 minutes of this film last night and to be honest John Dillinger didn't seem particularly remarkable to me. Or rather, Michael Mann's depiction of him didn't.After being paroled Dillinger proceeds to rob a few banks. Rather unremarkably I might add.
Then through a completely unexplained happening he ends up on the radar of Hoover, and under the full focus of the (to become) FBI.These events don't appear to be linked in any way in the film! I'm fairly confident that I managed to remain conscious throughout the runtime, but unless I'm mistaken the main character leaps from being a simple bank robber to the focus of a massive federal manhunt and front page news.What happened?!This somewhat tainted the rest of the film for me. Through tense scenes generously sprinkled with extreme close ups of Depp and Bale (neither of which it turns out have great skin when looked at on a 20ft screen), and hyper realistic gun play I was left perplexed as to how the entire thing began in the first place. Mann assumes the watcher is familiar with Dillinger's story, and evidently skims over the details, concentrating on the characters themselves rather than the events. Which is fine. IF the characters were at all interesting, or worthy of such attention.
Dillinger is to some extent and honest crook. But far from the robin hood-esque figure of his mythical status. Frankly - not an intriguing man. Yes he had enough guile to escape from jail (in the film only once) and he did manage to evade for some time what was obviously a rather incompetent investigation. Nothing else remarkable surfaces about the man. As such the film and character became unbelievable, because the question keeps ringing "why have you made a film about this guy?!!!"The inevitable love interest is equally as unbelievable. Mann again skims over the details, Dillinger and Billie Frechette only appear to meet 3 or 4 times. Briefly. And yet end up in love, seemingly without any onscreen exposition at all. They are awkward together, no chemistry between actors, and to be frank, a woman playing a love interest of Johnny Depp's should be much more attractive than Marion Cotillard (who doesn't look slightly Indian I might add)Discounting the exposition void present in most of the film, it is well made, and directed. Michael Mann's talent for realism in action first shown in Heat make a welcome return. The audience flinches as bullets from Tommy Guns ricochets off walls, and the sickening wet "thunks" of metal meeting flesh aid in drawing the viewer into the battle.For me that is the redeeming feature, where the writers have failed, Mann has picked up the slack and made a watchable if not engaging movie.Heat - but set in the 1930 would have been an appropriate tagline.
Then through a completely unexplained happening he ends up on the radar of Hoover, and under the full focus of the (to become) FBI.These events don't appear to be linked in any way in the film! I'm fairly confident that I managed to remain conscious throughout the runtime, but unless I'm mistaken the main character leaps from being a simple bank robber to the focus of a massive federal manhunt and front page news.What happened?!This somewhat tainted the rest of the film for me. Through tense scenes generously sprinkled with extreme close ups of Depp and Bale (neither of which it turns out have great skin when looked at on a 20ft screen), and hyper realistic gun play I was left perplexed as to how the entire thing began in the first place. Mann assumes the watcher is familiar with Dillinger's story, and evidently skims over the details, concentrating on the characters themselves rather than the events. Which is fine. IF the characters were at all interesting, or worthy of such attention.
Dillinger is to some extent and honest crook. But far from the robin hood-esque figure of his mythical status. Frankly - not an intriguing man. Yes he had enough guile to escape from jail (in the film only once) and he did manage to evade for some time what was obviously a rather incompetent investigation. Nothing else remarkable surfaces about the man. As such the film and character became unbelievable, because the question keeps ringing "why have you made a film about this guy?!!!"The inevitable love interest is equally as unbelievable. Mann again skims over the details, Dillinger and Billie Frechette only appear to meet 3 or 4 times. Briefly. And yet end up in love, seemingly without any onscreen exposition at all. They are awkward together, no chemistry between actors, and to be frank, a woman playing a love interest of Johnny Depp's should be much more attractive than Marion Cotillard (who doesn't look slightly Indian I might add)Discounting the exposition void present in most of the film, it is well made, and directed. Michael Mann's talent for realism in action first shown in Heat make a welcome return. The audience flinches as bullets from Tommy Guns ricochets off walls, and the sickening wet "thunks" of metal meeting flesh aid in drawing the viewer into the battle.For me that is the redeeming feature, where the writers have failed, Mann has picked up the slack and made a watchable if not engaging movie.Heat - but set in the 1930 would have been an appropriate tagline.