![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
and in conclusion, meh
Dec. 9th, 2011 12:29 pmI watched the film Public Enemy this morning (I've been working evenings, so my schedule is topsy-turvy) and was puzzled by the discrepancy between what seems to have been most other people's reaction ("Great movie and OMG SLASHY!") and mine ("What slash? Where? Was it in one of the scenes that were fucked up due to scratches on my rented DVD? Who the hell are these 20 characters who all look vaguely alike and don't seem to have names but apparently I'm expected to understand their Important Roles In The Story? And why has this gunfight gone on for ten minutes?)
Afterwards I watched part of the making-of featurette, which helped me understand what the film was supposed to be about, but alas, very little of that had translated to the screen. For example, if we're supposed to see a conflict between the honorable FBI agent Melvin Purvis and ruthless FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, it would help if we, you know, saw Purvis being honorable and in conflict with Hoover. Instead, the first thing Purvis does onscreen is shoot a fleeing man without apparent regret, and after that he spends a lot of time reassuring Hoover that he's up to the job and will be as ruthless as necessary, yes, sir. It would also help if Bale's acting as Purvis conveyed any internal conflict, instead of ranging between wooden and more wooden.
I don't think Bale is much of an actor, but Johnny Depp's performance as Dillinger was also pretty flat. This suggests larger problems, for which I nominate the script (underwritten, with a couple of intervals of boring anviliciousness) and the direction (pretty, but mostly focused on the pretty--and the gunfights--to the detriment of everything else). Seriously, the best thing about this movie was the lighting.
Thus endeth my thoughts on a two-year-old movie that you have either seen already or have no interest in seeing.
Afterwards I watched part of the making-of featurette, which helped me understand what the film was supposed to be about, but alas, very little of that had translated to the screen. For example, if we're supposed to see a conflict between the honorable FBI agent Melvin Purvis and ruthless FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, it would help if we, you know, saw Purvis being honorable and in conflict with Hoover. Instead, the first thing Purvis does onscreen is shoot a fleeing man without apparent regret, and after that he spends a lot of time reassuring Hoover that he's up to the job and will be as ruthless as necessary, yes, sir. It would also help if Bale's acting as Purvis conveyed any internal conflict, instead of ranging between wooden and more wooden.
I don't think Bale is much of an actor, but Johnny Depp's performance as Dillinger was also pretty flat. This suggests larger problems, for which I nominate the script (underwritten, with a couple of intervals of boring anviliciousness) and the direction (pretty, but mostly focused on the pretty--and the gunfights--to the detriment of everything else). Seriously, the best thing about this movie was the lighting.
Thus endeth my thoughts on a two-year-old movie that you have either seen already or have no interest in seeing.
