"Public Enemies" Review

3.5 out of 5/ B –

“Public Enemies,” the latest from director Michael Mann (“Heat,” “Miami Vice”), follows the life of John Dillinger, the notorious bank robber during the Great Depression. The film opens with Dillinger (Johnny Depp) rescuing some of his buddies from a prison in Indiana. Once they escape, they return to their favorite pastime: robbing banks. Meanwhile, J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup), a police administrator, and Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) start “the United State’s first war on crime.”

With the new threat of Purvis’s police force – which would eventually evolve into the FBI – one would think that Dillinger would be a little worried about his lifestyle, but this is not the case. As he says to one of his cohorts in the film, “We’re having too good a time today. We ain’t thinking about tomorrow.” Needless to say, Dillinger does not feel threatened by the workings of Hoover and Purvis. Bank robbing, to him, is like a job, and he knows how good he is at it. When Billie Frechette (Marion Contillard), Dillinger’s love interest, asks him about his profession, he answers with an almost candid professionalism, “I’m John Dillinger and I rob banks.” It is this adventurous, daring spirit that attracts Billie – whose life, according to her, has been, for the most part, rather dull. At the same time, she is frightened by Dillinger’s dangerous lifestyle, but eventually is gently soothed by his promise of protection. Cotillard perfectly displays Billie’s naivety in believing Dillinger and carries it through to the film’s powerful conclusion. Contillard’s power in the final scene alone easily confirms that she is best in show.

Depp’s performance – while not as memorable or as detailed as some of his past performances – is still interesting. He manages to infuse Dillinger with a coolness and confidence that suggests feelings of invulnerability within Dillinger. It is these traits that allow Depp’s Dillinger to easily win over Cotillard’s Billie.

Cotillard and Depp’s performances, as well as the uniqueness of their character’s relationship, ensure that the romance between Billie and Dillinger is the best part of the film. Their relationship, unfortunately, seems to be the only idea in the script that was fully developed. While the public’s fascination with Dillinger is mentioned and seen to good effect in a couple of scenes, it is never fully explored. Mann also hints at some ideas regarding police ethics, but they do not really come into play until the third act. There are also some interesting lines about Dillinger’s moral code when bank robbing. The problem is that none of these ideas are developed enough for them to resonate. The only idea that feels fully rendered is Billie and Dillinger’s aforementioned relationship, and even that feels a tad incomplete when Cotillard’s character disappears during the film’s second act. Instead of using one or two ideas, Mann insists on exploring five or six, and in a better screenplay, that could have worked, but Mann and screenwriters Ronan Bennett and Ann Bidermann inject too many side characters. Some of these characters are introduced briefly at the beginning of the film, disappear, and then play a major role in the film’s conclusion. This makes the film feel cluttered and hard to follow. The excess of side characters stifles not only the ideas that film may be trying to get across, but also the characterization of the main characters. While this does not hurt Cotillard and Depp, it does hurt Bale, whose character comes off as dull and unthreatening.

Because Bale’s Purvis is so uninteresting, it makes the scenes involving him and his amateur police force feel unnecessary. One wishes Mann might have spent more time probing the psyche of Dillinger, instead of trying to sloppily weave the two narrative threads together, thus giving the film’s first half a rather sluggish pace. Once Dillinger and Purvis meet in a scene near the film’s half-way point, the pacing picks up and the weaving of the two narratives feels more natural. While the film is still plagued with an excess of characters in its second half, they do not affect the pace at which the story is conveyed.

The film’s second half also showcases some of the film’s best sequences. One of them, a thrilling chase through the woods, while somewhat convoluted, is both original and suspenseful. However, it is the film’s last few sequences that are its most memorable. Everyone knows that Dillinger eventually dies (no spoilers here), but the sequence depicting his assassination is both visually enticing and sharply conveyed.

Speaking of the film’s visual merits, many have complained about Mann’s aesthetic for “Public Enemies.” Mann shot the picture on video instead of film in order to give the story a more realistic feel. Many think that the visuals in the film look too murky and unfitting for a period piece, but I appreciated that it gave the film a distinctive look – a look that will make the film memorable when compared to other crime films. Unfortunately, this visual style – along with Cotillard’s great performance – may be the only things that the film is remembered for. In conclusion, “Public Enemies” falls short of greatness.

"Brothers Bloom" Review

3 out of 5 stars/C+

“The Brothers Bloom” could have been a good film. The script is nearly impeccable and the performances are both fun and inventive, but director/writer Rian Johnson fails in translating his script to the screen.

The film follows two con men, Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and his reluctant brother Bloom (Adrian Brody). Bloom is sick of always being a character in Stephen’s complex cons and yearns to live a normal life, but Stephen is able to convince him to help with one more con, then he will allow Bloom to go on and live a normal life. The victim of their con is Penelope Stamp (Rachel Weisz), an eccentric lonely heiress who eventually begins to have romantic feelings for Bloom – a feeling that is mutual. Bloom isn’t just wooing her as part of the con. So, like most complex con films, twists and turns ensue. Oh, and explosions too. Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi), a Japanese explosives expert, aids the Brothers with her rather "unique talents."

The script for “The Brothers Bloom” is beautifully rendered. Despite a few abrupt shifts in tone, the film is masterfully structured with full-fledged character arcs that are set up from the film’s opening and carry through to the film’s closing shots. The characters are wonderfully original, especially Penelope and Bang Bang. Too often, female roles in films are reduced to lazy stereotypes, but Johnson keeps things fresh with these two characters. The casting is nearly flawless. All of the actors fall into their roles seamlessly, except, perhaps, Robbie Coltrane (“Harry Potter” films) whose performance as the Belgian, a crafty church curator, comes off a bit too forced and silly. Of course, Kikuchi’s role is also quite silly, but she strikes a better balance than Coltrane. The true star, though, is Rachel Weisz who is able to show her talents as both a comedic and dramatic actress.

The problem with “The Brothers Bloom” lies in its execution. In order for an audience to fully become invested in the characters, they need to be engaged. Johnson fails to engage his audience. The comedic rhythm of the film is off. This causes most of the well-written and genuinely funny jokes to fall flat. This problem worsens thanks to Johnson’s bizarre – yet refreshingly original – sense of humor. Since the comedic rhythm is off, the audience does not exactly warm to the film’s aforementioned humor. Another problem is the film’s pacing which is far too leisurely for a quick-witted con film. If Johnson might have established a quicker, more frantic, pace, maybe the film’s humor would have worked better. Instead, the film feels disengaging, and – at times – boring. The audience only half feels for the characters, so the film’s emotional pull at the end only half resonates. Therefore, one could say that “The Brothers Bloom” is a half-good movie.

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" Review

PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM BEING SARCASTIC IN MY REVIEW OF "TRANSFORMERS REVENGE OF THE FALLEN." I DO NOT SUPPORT SEXIST VIEWS OR RACIAL STEREOTYPES.

1 star out of 5 / D

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” arguably the best film of the year, manages to be not only a simple story told at an epic length, but also a wonderfully shallow comedy that pokes fun at those crazy teens and their wacky hi-jinks.

The story, brilliantly elongated by explosions – ranging from big to really really big, continues the adventures of Sam Witwicky (Shia Labeouf) as he goes off to college. Meanwhile, those darn Decepticons – a team of transforming robots who are at war with the good Autobot robots – are up to their dastardly deeds again, this time aided by an evil robot with one heck of a grudge. His name – the Fallen. But those screenwriters (Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Ehren Kruger) are clever enough to keep the details on the down low. Instead of letting exposition slowly ooze out as the story continues – a rather tired approach – they realize that it is better to give the audience all of the information in one scene. Oh, and they make sure it is conveyed really quick. No dilly-dallying with plot detail. Those who care about the plot can try to piece together all the fragments of exposition. Meanwhile, the smarter audience members can enjoy the explosions and robot fighting.

And, boy, aren’t those explosions exciting?! Director Michael Bay (“Transformers,” “Bad Boys 2,” “Pearl Harbor, and “Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell II”) creates some of the most memorable action sequences in years. Bay, unlike many Hollywood hacks (i.e. Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron), realizes that the most taut of action sequences do not require suspense. The characters would have to be developed in order for thered to be true suspense. But character development is lame! Thankfully, Bay and those crafty screenwriters know this.

They also know that the audience does not like genuine relationships between characters. We don’t want Sam and his girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox) to have a relationship that really means something. Fortunately, the screenwriters only put in a few easily ignorable lines about “true love.” The rest of Sam and Mikaela’s relationship is all based on lust – the way it should be. After all, women should only be seen as pieces of meat and witless dingbats. Thankfully, Bay and his screenwriters share this wonderfully sexist view and use it to great comedic effect in several scenes involving Sam’s dimwit mother and her comsumption of brownies with pot in them

Of course, the mother’s crazy antics aren’t nearly as gut-bustingly funny as the hilarious “twin” robots, who not only talk jive, but also have yellow teeth and openly admit to not being able to read. But, aren’t they adorable? When they triumphantly save the day at the film’s climax, the audience in my theater cheered. That’s right, kiddies! You can save the day too, but only if you conform to the racial stereotypes that society sets for you. This message, along with humping dogs and a guffaw-inducing midget joke, makes “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” excellent, wholesome family entertainment. And that demographic will ensure that the movie becomes a bonafide box office hit.

But, reader, are you naïve enough to think that this movie was only produced to make money? Surely, the quality of the film would suggest otherwise.