Funny People

Directed by Judd Apatow

Written by Judd Apatow

Starring Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, and Leslie Mann

The title is Funny People and being that the film is written and directed by Judd Apatow (The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up) one would assume that the key word is "funny." That assumption would be secured in the fact that the film stars Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen, two very funny and talented comedians. However, despite those above mentioned assurances and even though this film has some really funny moments the key word in the title is "people."

This is a movie about people. People who are real, honest, flawed, caring, loving, jealous, selfish and as the title suggest-funny. I know the people in this film. My friends are like these people. I have worked with these people. I have done sketch shows with these people. My family members are like these people. I am like these people. This is one of the most honest and authentic portrayals of people that I have ever seen on film. There were times in which I squirmed in my seat because I have acted like the characters on screen in word, deed, and feeling. This is what happens when I watch Apatow films. Whether he wrote it, directed it, or produced it his film are defined by the characters, the humor, and the true to life situations.

Funny People feels even more familiar because it is his most personal film. The film opens with a home video of Adam Sandler, in character, making prank phone calls. This isn't a home video produced for the film it is an actual home video of Adam Sandler making prank phone calls and it was shot by Judd Apatow twenty years ago. Through out his career Apatow has made many friends in the world of comedy and many of them are in this film. He cast his wife Leslie Mann to play a mother and his own daughters, Maude and Iris, to play her daughters. The story is based on an unrevealed friend's battle with a terminal illness. I have to imagine that the experiences of the characters are based on his own experiences. The film is more authentic than his other films because he is putting his life on the screen. I have a great deal of respect for him for doing it, but the question is does this make for a great film?

The answer is yes and very much so.

The story follows comedian George Simmons (Adam Sandler) who has achieved a great deal of professional success. He is diagnosed with a terminal illness and for the first time begins to question the course of his life. He quickly realizes that he is selfish, shallow, and worse of all alone. He hires a young comedian Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to be his personal assistant and to write jokes for him. The working relationship turns into something resembling a friendship, although it appears to be one sided with Ira caring more about George. Ira encourages George to reach out to his friends and family during his remaining time on Earth.

Adam Sandler is great in this film. He is the star of it and he has the courage to play the character without looking for sympathy. The character is a real son of a bitch and while he is aware of it, he doesn't seem to want to change it. When bad things happen to him it is because he is a victim, not because he has done anything wrong. He cheated on the love of his life, Laura (Leslie Mann) and while he acknowledges that he was wrong for doing it, he stills feels like he deserves another shot. He needs somebody to talk to him while he falls asleep; this is actually in Ira's job description. I cannot imagine a more selfish need than this one. Ira pulls a chair up next to his bed and talks to him until he abruptly falls asleep, ending the conversation. Sandler has a few chances to ask for sympathy, but he turns them down. For instance, when George is invited over to Ira's place for Thanksgiving dinner he gives a big toast about how the people around the table should enjoy their twenties because it is the best time of their lives. This speech isn't for the benefit of the people around the table it is for his own personal nostalgia and Sandler shows that on George's face. He is talking about the things that he misses in his life, not encouraging them to enjoy this time in their lives.

Any sympathy we have for anybody in this film is through the character Ira Wright, because he is a genuinely good person. Ira is struggling to begin his career. He lives with two other comedians named Mark (Jason Schwartzman) and Leo, (Jonah Hill) who are enjoying much more success. Mark is the star of a terrible sitcom called "Yo Teach", and he makes a lot of money for it. Actually, he makes $25,000 a week for it; we know this because he leaves the check stub on Ira's pillow. Leo isn't as successful but he is constantly being booked for stand up gigs and is beginning to establish his career. These details are important because they not only define Seth Rogen's character but also reveal the world of comedy to the audience. It is a cutthroat world and Ira has trouble because he isn't as aggressive as his friends. It has nothing to do with talent it has everything to do with his character and confidence. He is a good person trying to survive in a competitive world, even when he makes mistakes. The one time he does wrong somebody it blows up in his face and it feels like it is more out of desperation than malice.

He can't even keep up in the world of dating because he doesn't want to simply sleep with women, he wants to get to know them and be in a relationship. He has a crush on his neighbor Daisy (Aubrey Plaza) but is too afraid to talk to her. Mark just wants to have sex with her. He tells Ira that he has ten days to make his move and if he doesn't he will sleep with her. Mark ends up giving Ira three weeks and then sleeps with her. When Ira finds out he is hurt because A) Mark slept with her just because he could and B) because Daisy went along with it. Ira is a nice guy and this film doesn't guarantee that nice guys will win out in the end.

Ira actually cares for George and considers him a friend. Whenever George realizes this he corrects Ira but doesn't send him away because he is afraid to be alone. Ira stays with George in these situations because he cares for him.

I sincerely hope that after this film Seth Rogen is finally recognized as an actor that does comedy instead of a "comedic actor." From The 40 Year Old Virgin to Knocked Up to Pineapple Express Rogen has delivered strong-character-driven performances. He deserves to be recognized for the work that he puts in to his films because it is really impressive.

Finally, I want to end where I began, with Judd Apatow. I want to applaud him for telling this story as filmmaker rather than a comedian. Traditionally, comedies don't rely on filmmaking techniques as much as they rely on the zany performances to carry the film. Judd Apatow hired Janusz Kaminski to be the Cinematographer for this film. Janusz won an Academy Award for Schindler's List and has worked on every Spielberg film since. If you are hiring him to make your film look that good it implies that you are more interested in making a film rather than a "comedy."

If Apatow were interested in just making a comedy so that people would laugh he would not have made this film. He set out to make a strong film about people who work in comedy. He didn't really on jokes to tell this story, he relied on his characters. He hired people that are typically though of as comedians to act, not perform, in this film. When the film is funny it is because they are using jokes not doing "bits."

This is not a gut busting film and it is kind of a downer at times, but it is a great film.

Orphan

Director Jaume Collet-Serra
Written by David Johnson
Starring Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, and Isabelle Furhman

The best horror films might make you jump out of your seat but they are able to do so because they play into very real primitive fears. Jaws addressed a fear that many people have about the ocean. The original Nightmare on Elm Street gave audiences nightmares by putting the worse of them on screen. Halloween was a slasher film but was scary because we can all relate to that fear of a home invasion, same with the original Alien. Orphan is about what happens when you let somebody into your home and make yourself emotionally vulnerable to them only to have them try to hurt you and kill you.

The film is about John (Peter Sarsgaard) and Kate (Vera Farmiga) who adopt a young girl named Esther ( Isabelle Fuhrman) into their family which already includes Daniel (Jimmy Bennett) and Max (Aryana Engineer). The family has already suffered a tragedy when Kate went through a traumatic miscarriage and nearly avoided another tragedy when Max fell into a frozen pond. Kate was too drunk to realize that her youngest daughter was drowning and Max was saved by John. After that Kate gave up drinking. The film never comes out and says that Kate started drinking because of the miscarriage but it is implied. When the film opens the family is still healing, Kate and John have trouble with intimacy, but they feel like they are ready to adopt. They meet Esther and instantly connect with her and decide to take her home.

One of the strongest elements of this film is the fact that if you stripped away all the horror elements it could also play as a family drama. There is great care put into creation of the characters both on the side of the actors and the filmmakers. When Esther is brought home Max is ecstatic to have an older sister. Max is completely deaf and on the way home Esther learns how to greet her with sign language. With Daniel there is instant sibling rivalry, he doesn't want anything to do with this new sister. The marriage between Kate and John feels real. Through out the film their flaws and history are brought into the light but they are always in love with one another, even when they have problems their marriage endures. There was great care put into these characters and I very much appreciated it, especially in this genre.

At first Esther is nothing more than a peculiar girl. She prefers to spend time alone and dresses like she is from another time period even when she is presented with alternative outfits. She is also very guarded about her secrets. Her dark intentions begin to show up pretty much as soon as she arrives. When anybody slights her she returns the offense and then some. It is interesting to watch her begin to play Kate and John against each other and slowly begin to erode the trust in their household.

Director Jaume Collet-Serra used a technique in this film that I appreciate, then became annoyed with, and then appreciated again. He is well aware of the conventional ways to get people to jump out of their seats. Traditionally, if somebody opens something like a fridge door it is usually accompanied by tense music that builds until the door is shut and somebody sinister is now hiding behind the door. In this film somebody will open a fridge door and the music will be cued but when the door is shut nobody is standing there. After reflecting on this technique I found it to be more than clever, it was very effective.

It was used to make the audience feel uncomfortable and on edge. This is how the main characters feel when Esther comes into their home. As I mentioned before they have emotionally let their guard down and invited her into their home. As Kate and the kids begin to find out more about this girl they start to fear her. They feel like they are on edge and they never feel like they can trust her. To them she is always lurking behind a door or in the shadows. They never feel safe in their own home and the audience feels that tension.

This is a very well made horror and it is well executed, that is until the third act. I was so disappointed by the final 30 minutes of this film because the first 90 were so good. The actors put so much work into grounding these character in reality only to have the film collapse in the end. There is a twist concerning Esther's back story that I completely bought, even if it is a bit of stretch (it doesn't hurt that it is loosely based on a true story). From the point this twist was revealed the film took a nose dive into the shallow end of horror cliches.

Aside from the ending this film is a smart character focused horror film that doesn't rely on blood and gore to creep you out.

I Love You, Beth Cooper

Directed by Chris Columbus

Written by Larry Doyle

Starring Hayden Panettiere, Paul Rust, and Jack Carpenter

In my review of Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince I noted that the only thing that hurt that impressive film was the fidelity to the smallest details of the source material. The makers of that film had the emotions, themes, and strength of the source material, they just tried to fit in too many of the details. In the case of I Love You, Beth Cooper, the cast and director didn't even bother with the emotions and themes of the source material they just went for the details. 

Director Chris Columbus and most of the cast members are to blame for the failure to create a funny, entertaining, and intelligent adaptation of Larry Doyle's novel of the same name. Doyle also wrote the screenplay for this film and follows his novel quite closely. I can't blame him for the failure because the wit, characters, and story are all pretty strong in the film. They are just hidden beneath bland direction and weak performances.

The novel is not a classic and the story is nothing groundbreaking, it's a simple story of what happens after "nerdy" student Denis Cooverman (Paul Rust) takes the advice of his best friend Rich Munsch, (Jack Carpenter) and uses his graduation speech to declare his long time love for Beth Cooper (Hayden Panettiere). Later that night she takes him on the adventure of his young life. The entire story is contained within a 24 hour time frame. 

As I mentioned it is a pretty simple story which certainly invokes the spirit of American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and Superbad.  These films have an energy to them that comes from playing up the almost mythological aspects of teenage years. We have all been there and have felt that excitement that comes from being young and feeling like your whole life is ahead of you. I remember feeling like any given night of my 17th year could change my whole life. That girl that I secretly loved would suddenly feel the same way after a dance at the prom. Yes, these films have that energy but they are grounded in the reality of what actually happens. 

Unlike those films this one contains almost none of that excitement. All the big teenage moments in this film feel like "movie" moments. There is very little truth to them and as a result they completely fail to bring on any emotion. It feels like there is a great distance between the intent of the lines as written and the way the actors deliver them. 

Beth Cooper is suppose to be the girl of Denis' dreams but in Panettiere's performance I could not find a reason as to why. She doesn't know how to deliver the lines from Doyle's script. They are clearly written to deconstruct Denis' perfect vision of Beth but instead she reads them as if Beth Cooper was nothing more than a bitch. The character is written to have multiple layers and a sort of awareness that her best days are behind her. There is none of that in the performance just in the lines of the screenplay. 

Beth's two best friends Cammy (Lauren London) and Treece (Lauren Storm) are supporting characters but have been given a great deal to work with even it isn't delivered. Cammy tells Rich that she plans on going to college to study acting. Upon hearing this Rich asks her why she didn't ever try out for any of the school plays to which she replies, "social preservation". This is a character that chose her desire to be popular over the desires of her heart. Either London wasn't given the direction to explore this side of the character or she doesn't have the talent. Either way the blame rest squarely on the shoulders of Chris Columbus. 

The same goes for the character of Treece who takes the whole gang to her father's cabin in the woods. The cabin exists for the sole purpose of her father's extramarital affairs. This is made clear when Treece tells everybody that she can go there whenever she wants as long as she doesn't tell her mom where the cabin is located. So when she later finds a mug that says, "World's Greatest Dad," and she remarks that she didn't buy it for him there should be a little pain and confusion in her line reading. Instead, Columbus and Storm play it up for laughs by having her deliver it as a ditzy remark. 

While these actresses deserve same blame for these poor performance there is evidence that the blame rests on Columbus and him alone. That evidence is in the character of Rich. Rich constantly quotes movie and then cites the director and release date. He also speaks in broken Spanish to make himself feel interesting all the while fighting the perceived notion that he is gay. Carpenter is able to give this character some dimension within Columbus' direction. In one scene we realize that Rich's dad doesn't like him at all, in fact upon graduation he gives him an invoice for how much he owes for his upbringing. After explaining the laborious details of the invoice to Denis Rich remarks, "I didn't think he paid that much attention to me." Again, Columbus wants to play this line for a joke but Carpenter seems to understand the pain within the joke. He is able to communicate that pain to the audience before the film moves on to some sophomoric gag.

I question whether or not Chris Columbus knows how to communicate authentic emotions on film. All his jokes fall flat as they rely too heavily on outlandish physical comedy. As mentioned all the moments that are meant to give insight into the characters are missed opportunities. The man was able to establish his career by directing  the first two Home Alone movies (the first of which was written by John Hughes) and was lucky enough two direct the first two Harry Potter films (based on his promise to JK Rowling that he would cast all British actors). He also directed Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire and Bicentennial Man and took the Broadway hit Rent from the stage to the screen. Looking at his past films it is clear that he has built his career by either working with can't miss franchises or heading star vehicles.  When given an intelligent and entertaining screenplay he can't deliver. Based on what I saw in this film he tried to rely on sight gags and how "hot" Hayden Panettiere looks. 

Had the director paid more attention to the screenplay he might have succeeded in making a funny and touching film. Perhaps in the hands of a more talented director this film could have held a candle to some of the great high school films. In the end it is a failure.

Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince

Directed by David Yates

Written by Steve Kloves

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Michael Gambon, Kim Broadbent

As the series has goes on, the Harry Potter films have grown in maturity and complexity as the story and character have dictated. The first two films were directed by Christopher Columbus and were childlike in his straight forward and simple (if not bland)  directing style. In using his vivid imagination, director Alfonso Cuaron made the third film feel like a teenager gaining a sense of style and confidence in a new found independence. The fourth film was directed by Mike Newell and felt more like an epic story of good vs evil as the main characters left their childhood for their first step into adulthood. The fifth and sixth installments have been directed by David Yates who brings a very mature and distinct style to the series. He is also the director who will be finishing out the series by adapting the seventh book into two separate films. 

The first scene of this film sets the tone for the rest of it. The film opens with Harry Potter   (Daniel Radcliffe) standing next to Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) and looking exhausted and bewildered after facing Lord Voldermort. The scene promises that the characters are entering dangerous and unsure times. Right after it a group of evil wizards destroy a bridge in London and the daily Wizard newspaper tells us innocent civilians die. The world of Harry Potter is now dangerous and frightening.

Yet, there are somethings that will endure even in the darkest of times. Even though the Wizard World is engulfed in danger there is still time for young love. I really enjoyed the coming of age subplot in this film. These characters are experiencing their first loves and in some cases, their first heartaches. I respect the fidelity that the characters have to their teenage natures in these films. 

Sadly fidelity to the source material is one of the biggest flaws of this film series. Fans of the  books want to see a faithful and complete adaptation and the filmmakers try to give it to them but it isn't always a good thing. I felt like had I never read the book I would not understand the motivations of the characters in this film. Harry, the title character,  doesn't seem to have any motivation in the film other than to be where the story needs him. Compelling characters only have a few scenes to convey an entire story's worth of motivation and emotion. All of the actors are able to do this well but only a few of them are great at it. Gambon is one of the actors who is great at it as well is Tom Felton who plays school bully Draco Malfoy. Felton brings great depth and complexity to his character as he wrestles with his decision  to betray Dumbledore and Hogwarts. It would have been easy to play this character as the cowardly bully who finds himself in over his head. Instead I felt the conflict in the character as to whether or not he wanted to become evil.

It is a credit to the actors and filmmakers that the poor adaptation from book to screenplay doesn't drag the film down. Yates may have to work from a plot checklist to satisfy the fans of the book but he has a deliberate vision for the film. There are dark clouds gathering through out the entire film which foreshadows the storm that is about to break in the lives of the characters. One great sequence features all the main characters preparing for the life changing events that are about to occur. It looks and feels like the calm before the store. 

The film is beautifully shot by cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel. There is one scene that takes places in a wheat field in the dead of night that is gorgeous. The stark contrast between the color of the wheat and the black of the night sky is incredible. 

There is plenty to admire in this film but I felt like I was missing a complete story. I believe that it all comes down to the filmmakers trying to be too faithful to the source material. The fans of the book will always have the books for the entire story. When it comes to the films I wish the filmmakers weren't so afraid to adapt the material from the written page to the screen. It's a totally different media and I wish they gave themselves the freedom to use it to tell the story. I'm hoping that the splitting of the last book into two films will give them the chance to tell the story without all the clutter of a completely faithful adaptation.  It is possible to be faithful to the story and characters without being so restricted by the details. 

Bruno

Directed by Larry Charles

Starring Sacha Baron Cohen and Gustaf Hammarsten

Written by Sacha Baron Cohen and Anthony Hines

I am a great admirer of Sacha Baron Cohen. I really respect his ability to use outrageous comedy to make social commentary. By playing outrageous characters he somehow gets ordinary people to do and say unbelievable things. For instance in his newest film Bruno Cohen is able to get the parents of toddlers to agree to get their children to lose ten pounds before a photo shoot, dress up as Nazi's, and operate heavy machinery. My mouth was agape and not because of what Cohen was doing but because of what ordinary people were doing or willing to do. Though, to be fair Cohen does some outrageous things as well, but he is playing a character. 

That character is Bruno an Austrian fashion guru who longs to be the most famous pop star from Austria since Hitler (his words not mine). To that end he attempts to first become a film and T.V. star and when that fails he tries to bring peace to the world. Really the plot of this mockumentary is string together his on camera stunts. 

Though the plot is a little biting. Essentially the story is about somebody moving to L.A. to achieve celebrity status no matter what the cost to their identity. When Bruno attempts to achieve celebrity status by doing charity work he approaches to women who run a charity PR firm. The women appear to be in their mid-twenties and are both wearing cheetah print shirts. They offer him advice on which charities are "in" and get him good press. They both seem to think that Darfur is somewhere near Iraq. This scene's shallowness made me shudder as I imagined how often this scene plays out in earnest in reality. 

Some of the stunts are hilarious, many of them shocking, and in some cases disturbing. This is where Cohen really shows that he has commitment to the character. He puts himself in some very graphic and disturbing situations and to be honest it became a little off putting. I respect his commitment but there were times in which people on screen were doing such graphic things it took me out of the movie.  As a result the film never really "hooked me," I always felts like I was simply observing them film. All the content whether it was graphic in nature or revealing something ugly in a person left me feeling a little...gross.

I imagine it might have been a little difficult to bring Bruno to theaters after Cohen's last creation, Borat got the big screen treatment (all of Cohen's characters were featured on Da Ali G Show). The premise of that film was more or less the same except Borat was a foreign journalist from Kazakhstan. While watching Bruno I didn't feel the freshness that I felt while watching Borat. In that film Cohen did and said some shocking things but he was able to create a more realized story. Most people were unaware of Borat, so he was able to interact with more people and create a richer story. The odd thing was that even though Borat was rather outrageous it also had some moments of genuine heart. I didn't get that same feeling with Bruno and I feel like it was because Cohen had to go so far over the line that it was hard to relate to the character. 

Oddly enough I found the graphic sexual material less offensive than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I expected that material in this film, but it had no place in the kid's movie about robots. In this film it was disturbing but it sort of served a purpose in the grander scheme of things. In Transformers it was gratuitous and disturbing for a whole other reason.

So yes, I do respect the creator of Bruno, but I can't say that I enjoyed the film. I laughed and fairly hard at times, but that was it. At the end of the day I knew what he was trying to say about society I just didn't feel connected to how he went about saying it. I really hope that Cohen follows his tradition of retiring his characters after the films so he can move on to new things. I am fairly excited to see what he will be doing next. 

The Hurt Locker

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

Starring Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Owen Eldrigde

Written by Mark Boal

The Hurt Locker is one of the most intense movie watching experiences I have ever had. If it weren't such a cliche' I would use a metaphor about explosives to describe this film about a United States bomb squad working in Iraq during the current conflict. Director Kathryn Bigelow demonstrates extraordinary film making ability as she adds more and more tension to this film while firmly grounding it in reality.  She slowly increases the tension through out certain scenes which only serves to build an almost unbearable amount of tension. She takes her time and doesn't rely on action movie cliches. The situations in which the characters find themselves become more intense and more emotionally complicated as they go on.  

This film might have all the elements of an action film, and by all rights it is an action film, but it relies on character rather than spectacle to tell the story. The main character Staff Sergeant William James, played by Jeremy Renner, is an expert bomb technician and he is addicted to it. He actually craves  it and not because he is suicidal or anything like that, it's all that he knows.  He flat out disrespects death. He refuses to even acknowledge that it is a part of the equation of what he does. He knows it's a possibility but he just doesn't deal with it at all. He is a very compassionate character and shows great deal of respect and adoration to his fellow soldiers and some of the Iraqis, but none to death. Everything he does is to disrespect death right down to the fact that he is a chain smoker.

Jeremy Renner is fantastic in this role. He brings such personality and warmth to this disturbed individual. He is introduce while sitting in a dark room, listening to  heavy metal, and smoking a cigarette and from that moment on I knew the character. All it took was that one scene to bring him to life. It would have been easy for Renner to play this character as a closed off insensitive action hero but he makes him real. 

His fellow actors are just as great. Anthony Mackie plays Sergeant JT Sanborn and he is the voice of reason in the squad. He is just trying to keep James and fellow soldier Specialist Owen Eldrigde, played by Brian Geraghty, alive. Eldridge is a younger version of James. He is new to war and at the open of the film has his first exposure to the dark side of it. It shakes him to the core and the through out the film you wonder is he going to end up like Sanborn, a sane and rational person, or like James. 

Director Bigelow sets her film in reality. All the situations seem possible because of everything that she puts into it. As mentioned the characters are real and fully fleshed out. She wisely chooses to use handheld cameras but is able to do it in such a way that it feels natural. Everything she does is to make the audience feel like they are embedded with this squad. Which is appropriate given the fact that screenwriter Mark Boal was embedded with an actual bomb squad in Iraq to research this story.

One detail of this film that I consider to be a master stroke is that Bigelow uses four cameo appearance to great effect. Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pierce, Evangeline Lily, and David Morse all appear in this film. Usually when a recognizable face appears in a film as an audience member you more or less assume that they will be okay. Bigelow understands the audience will feel this way and as result they are not all safe. I'm not going to say what happens to whom but I will say that some make it and some aren't as lucky. This is slightly jarring for the audience and played  to great effect, like everything else in this film. 

In many ways this is the polar opposite of Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Where Michael Bay uses explosions  to amuse, Bigelow uses them to tell her story. Where the characters in Bay's film are flat and their personalities are nearly non existent, the characters in this story are real. When Bay uses handheld cameras it is chaotic and frustrating. When Bigelow uses handheld cameras it is clear and engaging. 

In a summer in which most of the films that have been released are adequate at best and mundane at worse, The Hurt Locker stands out as a fantastic film. I would be surprised if this film is not on my top ten list come the end of the year.  

Public Enemies

Public Enemies

Directed by Michael Mann

Written by Ronan Bennett and Michael Mann

Starring Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, and Marion Cotillard

During my first summer in Chicago I went to go see Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle at the Biograph theater on Lincoln. At the time I was completely unaware that it was the famous theater where the Lady in Red betrayed John Dillinger to the feds. When I found out I was amazed and a little disappointed  that I didn't go see a more appropriate film at such a location. When I was growing up my Grandma Collins would tell me stories about the early days of the FBI and Dillinger was certainly mentioned. 

Dillinger was a gangster and folk hero and the site of his death is now a recognized National Historic site.  He was a criminal, killer, and robber and yet he was adored. He was one of many gangsters that despite their exploits were celebrated and obviously still have a draw today. I'm not sure I understand why but I'm certainly not immune to it. 

Michael Mann's film, Public Enemies explores the public fascination with the gangsters of days gone by.  The film is set in when those days are waning and the public perception of these gangsters is going from adoration to resentment. At the open of the film John Dillinger, played by Johnny Depp, is an exciting and daring outlaw stealing from banks but not from the pockets of the customers. His exploits helped galvanize the Federal Bureau of Investigation to become a force against crime. In the film the task of taking down Dillinger is given to Melvin Purvis, played by Christian Bale. 

The conflict between the ways of the gangsters and the feds is played out between Dillinger and Purvis, but it is not personal. It comes down to Purvis's duty and Dillinger's nature. Dillinger loves the thrill of the gangster life and will keep on going until he can't go any longer.  He spent ten years of his life in prison and now that he is out he wants to enjoy it all. Purvis is a dedicated law man but what it will take to bring Dillinger down does not come natural to him. He is over his head because it is not in his nature to be cruel. The FBI is young and Dillinger is an embarrassment to director J. Edgar Hoover, played in this film by Billy Crudup. The heat comes down on Purivs and he is forced to betray his conscience to stop Dillinger. He is forced to resort to brutal and cold tactics to bring him down.

Through out the film it becomes clear to Dillinger that he is a dying breed. in the beginning he has the support of the public and he thrives on it. He tells an associate that he won't do a kidnapping because the public doesn't like it, they are fine with bank robbing. When they start to... well get bored of him he loses that support. At first he is able to outsmart and out run the local and state police officers but when the FBI  starts to trail him,with all their new techniques and technology, he is out of his league. Finally, even the criminals begin to leave his side. At first they love John Dillinger but when they find that he is bad for the new and lucrative ways to make money they give him the cold shoulder. 

Michael Mann seems to be very interested in exploring ideas through his stories and his characters. Through out this review I realize that I have been fascinated with the ideas that he explored in this film. They are incredibly interesting but that doesn't necessarily make the characters engaging. Mann seems to be interested in Dillinger as an idea not so much as a person. He uses this film to wonder what it would have been like to be Dillinger but doesn't quite get into his shoes. It's all exploration without a great realization. As a result I felt the same way about the character. This isn't a bad thing but as an audience member it doesn't really invite you to invest in the characters. 

Would I have preferred Michael Mann to explore the characters more than his ideas and themes? No, I really enjoyed this film. I think if he wanted us to embrace the character then we would have cheered him on during his crimes. I don't think Mann wanted the audience to enjoy what Dillinger did but wanted to explore why his life of crime is so fascinating. The gun shots wounds in this film are some what disturbing and I appreciated that touch. All the fun that Dillinger was having was negated by bloody wounds and dire consequences. 

Still, I'm left wondering why we enjoy our outlaws so much in this country. We don't anymore but there was a time in which we celebrated those who fought against authority. Maybe there is something inherently American about wanting to buck against the establishment, we were born in rebellion after all. We love our outlaws in this country and the best of them become folk heroes. I'm not sure of the reason but I do know that whenever I walk pass the Biograph theater I always think about John Dillinger.