Compared to PUBLIC ENEMIES . . . - Dillinger (1973) Discussion

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 12 years ago

Yes.

I've already written so much about it, I've gotten sick and tired of the whole topic.

See also: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069976/board/nest/93777245?d=191275444#19 1275444 -- I used to like Milius' "Dillinger," and would have been glad enough to continue liking it even after "Public Enemies" came out, but then Puttle-Butt-Gum started invading the "Public Enemies" boards on IMDb with one brainless post after another about how Milius' second-rate effort is supposedly so much "better" than Michael Mann's movie, and that offends me more than I can ever say.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 12 years ago

The cinematography and editing are indeed excellent in Milius' "Dillinger," I'll give it that. The screenplay, on the other hand, is the very definition of "mess," juvenile-minded and hackneyed to the max.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mgtbltp 12 years ago

This is excellent storytelling about the Myth of Dillinger

reply

[–] tkidcharlemagne 11 years ago

Geezus H. Dillinger is far far far superior to Public enemies and the recent release Lawless. If you think otherwise you really have no understanding of storytelling or indeed cinema. This is a monumental piece of work with the imperious Oates superb as always. Watching him perform makes you actually believe he is Dillinger's reincarnation. Depp's a fine actor but there really is no comparison. Oates you believe could REALLY have ridden with Dillinger's gang. He comes across as a supremely tough son of a bitch. I also love the newsreel stylised aspect. Public enemies is all style yet very little substance.

reply

[–] Katz5 11 years ago

"All style and very little substance." You nailed it - that's apparently what the generation raised on MTV reality TV and hyper edited video games cares about.

reply

[–] CannibalCraig 11 years ago

I am quite of the opposite opinion. Grew up with Dillinger and it is one of my favorite Gangster films of all time. On the other hand, I tried to get into Public Enemies but really didn't like it anywhere near as much as I enjoyed Dillinger. I enjoy Michael Mann's films but I really didn't care for his Public Enemies.

reply

[–] joe_538 11 years ago

Don't agree, bianafiore.
I saw Public Enemies once, and didn't care to see it again. I've seen Dillinger about ten or eleven times now. There's a natural feeling in the acting, the narration and pacing work well, the action was good, and the 1930's atmosphere is well captured.

I also like this better than Bonnie and Clyde, which took a few liberties with the facts and injected "weirdness for the sake of weirdness."

reply

[–] ccr1633 10 years ago

There were few films in the past decade that I looked forward to with greater anticipation than Public Enemies. I think Michael Mann's work is terrific, usually, and the subject of Dillinger seemed a match made in movie heaven. I was bored to death. The digital look was awful. Depp was tedious and lacking personality. It was a C+ movie from which I was expecting an A.

Dillinger is much better. At the very least Oates came off as a believable gangster, unlike Depp.

reply

[–] highway_demon_77 10 years ago

I haven't seen Dillinger yet, but watched Public Enemies two times. It has a great cast (Bale, Lang, Crudup, Graham) except Johnny Depp, he is just awful in it. It's not all his fault, imo he is just not the right type for Dillinger. I expected a masterpiece like Heat, but eventually Public Enemies is more similar to Miami Vice, too much style - not so much substance.

...they mostly come at night... mostly.

reply

[–] LeonardPine 10 years ago

Much as i am a massive fan of Michael Mann, i still prefer Dillinger. I've loved it since i saw it quite a few years ago. Warren Oates just owns the role! Great action and a typically macho script and direction from John Milius.

I like Mann's film, but it's not up there with his best work.

"Perhaps he's wondering why someone would SHOOT a man before throwing him out of a plane..."

reply

[–] CarlCarlson 8 years ago

I prefer Dillinger to Public Enemies. Dillinger has more of a vintage essence, a 70s movie about the 30s, where Enemies, though a better movie (eg action scenes, production, etc ...), is an obvious neo noir movie.

"If Mad Max Fury Road is an 8, then I'll use 8 for OK, 9 is better, 10 is best."

reply

[–] TheHestinator 9 years ago

Dillinger is one of my favorite movies of all time (10/10 from me), but I still liked Public Enemies (7/10). The latter looks more polished than the former, but, when it comes to entertainment value, it's hard to beat the 1973 film. Dillinger may be less historically accurate (as far as I know), but it's great, pulpy storytelling. It may not be how the actual events went down, but it's how they, from a storytelling point-of-view, should've went down.

reply

[–] funkyfry 9 years ago

I didn't see "Public Enemies", but I will say this: If dude had a face like Johnny Depp, or Christian Bale, he would be a gigolo not a bank robber. Say what you will about this movie, but at least Ben Johnson and Warren Oates look like grown men who've had a hard life, not pretty-boy actors.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

[–] CarlCarlson 9 years ago

Compared to PUBLIC ENEMIES . . .. . . this film is terrible, in my opinion. Does anyone agree?

Not me. I just saw both and I prefer Dillinger. It short, Dillinger, the sets, props, cinematography, age of the film, dialogue, mannerisms, even Warren Oats' resemblance to John Dillinger, all made it seem much more authentic.

Though good, Public Enemies seemed to be too "vanilla" (no accents, dialect, quirks) and short.
__________________________________________

Heaven forbid I have an opinion.

reply