Compared to PUBLIC ENEMIES . . .

"Dillinger" (which I rate "9") has its flaws, but I liked it much better than "Public Enemies" (which I rate 6). The period feel of the 1930s depression in the heartland is very effective in "Dillinger."

I believed Warren Oates as Dillinger, but never saw Johnny Depp as anyone but Johnny Depp.

I have no idea what the historical Melvin Purvis was like, but Ben Johnson's character is a lot more interesting than Christian Bale's.

The coup-de-grace for "Public Enemies" is that in his brief clip in "Manhattan Melodrama," Clark Gable steals the movie, and shows what great screen acting is. The stars seem to be coasting in "Public Enemies," while those in "Dillinger" are going full bore.

I really liked Steve Kanaly's Pretty Boy Floyd and Richard Dreyfus's Baby Face Nelson. I wish "Dillinger" had not so flagrantly dis-regarded their relationship (or lack thereof) with Dillinger.

Public Enemies sucked. Sure it had a bigger budget, but Johnny Depp playing John Dillinger is like Lenny Kravitz playing Muhammad Ali. Warren Oates was not only a great actor, but he was a special brand of badasss too -- maybe the most underrated screen actor if them all. Go watch Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, Two Lane Blacktop and The Shooting for more Oates. Depp is ok in the right role, but he is not right in the role of Dillinger.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I agree - terrible film. A failed plagiarism of Bonnie and Clyde completely missing that film's superb production qualities. Much gunplay for the special effects crowd but lacking in artistry in that gunplay as B&C did so well.

A major problem with this film is its absence of A-list actors with genuine star quality. Fine as many of them were as character actors, they couldn't carry a major motion picture.

Not me. Warren Oates is Dillinger.

no I thought this was pretty great