Terrific interview by Roger Ebert with director Michael Mann, his new movie PUBLIC ENEMIES...of course about the one and only John Dillinger...comes out next week.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090624/PEOPLE/906249990

Looking forward to this. Is it the first mainstream period feature shot on HD?

I think it is. It will be interesting to see the 1930s set in HD. When I think of period films, I usually think of dark tones, like "The Godfather," or "Once Upon A Time In America." I'm wondering if this will have a mental effect on how I view the film?

I saw Depp on Letterman last night. He really is a strange dude. Kind of like Brando; living on his own island, etc... He just wants to be alone with his family, which I can respect. He's a great actor. I think he and Bale are the two best actors in their prime today.

I'd like to see Depp do more naturalistic roles. Until then, he's not a great actor.

Like?

More Donnie Brasco, less Willie Wonka.

Does PUBLIC ENEMIES fit that criteria?

I doubt Mann is making a cartoon of Dillinger, so yes, I hope it does.

Isnt this the first Depp picture in years where he isnt wearing make-up to make some sort of thematic point?

That is appealing.

I saw the film last night, it's really really good! and it's sad too.

It's funny, but I couldn't decide whether or not he was wearing make up in this film. He will be, of course, for lighting, etc. But the HD just picks up every single pore on his face. I actually found it distracting.

I noticed the make-up, too. I couldn't tell you if it was the HD or whether to chalk it up to Depp's ever growing weirdness, but I think he's starting to channel Amy Winehouse.

I can't wait to see the film!

My thoughts, which I also posted to Facebook:

For his latest film, Michael Mann returns to his home city Chicago to tell the tale of John Dillinger, a 1930s bank robber. Dillinger organises a jailbreak, falls for a working class girl (and she for him), escapes prison, and is hunted down by J. Edgar Hoover's newly formed FBI whilst robbing banks along the way.

The title of Public Enemies recalls James Cagney and other 1930s American gangster movies, but Mann shoots in HD, so that the period feel and look of the film seems oddly detached, like some flat fairytale embraced through a lens. Similarly, in narrative terms, where the gangsters of old had dark skeletons in the closet rattling away at their otherwise masculine psyche - Oedipal desires to please Ma, incestuous feelings for siblings, and sexual impotence - Public Enemies strips itself bare and gets on with the bank robberies and shootouts.

The first fatal flaw of the film, then, is its lack of character, not so much in the way it romanticises (indeed, sentimentalises) the image of a Modernist Robin Hood pitched against an oppressive, fascist FBI, but in the absence of a more worked-through human protagonist who is a product of social and historical circumstance. The film doesn't address why Dillinger is the way he is - why he robs banks to make a living - nor is it interested in asking why the FBI is so intolerant of him, beyond vague references to the "upkeep of the law", or, in reality, opportunistic careerism on Hoover's part.

As a result, the film feels overlong: it has absolutely no characterisation, no traceable character arc for Dillinger or FBI Agent Purvis, because there is no social context from which anything can grow. (Those entering a Mann film for the panache and grace of powerful rat-a-tat automatic machine gun sequences may disagree about it outstaying its welcome.)

As Dillinger, Depp intrigues but ultimately has little to play with; without his Pirates costume, he seems a little lost. As Agent Purvis, Bale seems not only miscast, but uninterested - again, perhaps, a result of poor writing. An endnote tells us the real-life Purvis retired shortly after the time frame in question, and that he took his own life in 1960, but given that there's little implication as to who Purvis is or how the case might affect him psychologically and/or morally, there's no resonance in the insight.

Mann is quick to make us dubious towards Hoover, who comes across as a creep (though he was probably a human too), but the film's also too quick to romanticise Dillinger. He's a hero through and through, and in failing to remind the viewer that he was also a violent sociopath (and in turn without delving further into the social implications from this), the film is unable to go deeper in its portrayal.

Because Mann approaches history as if it were happening today - but for the Tommy Guns, the bank heists may be retreads of Heat - the blank characters in the film seem excuses for the period template, and not vice versa: the sets are decorations, backdrops, and not full social environments. Mann is in tech-fetishist mode: he shows little interest in social analysis - indeed, even Dillinger himself comes across as a decoration, a mere prop.

And so Public Enemies is a watchable genre film at most, though even as a homage to the 1930s films to which it is indebted, it fails in comparison. The love interest in the narrative is straightforward and pedestrian: Dillinger more or less bullies Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) into being his girl; thereafter, it's love. It happens overnight, and is the romantic note on which the film ends. Frechette is neither a practical obstacle nor moral guide to Dillinger, and so her inclusion is less dymanic than, say, the Neil/Eady subplot in Heat.

Formally, Mann provides some rich visual moments. He seems keen to show us every pore on Depp's face throughout, shooting very close in with background action unfolding. But as nice as it is to see directors embracing the potential of digital, it still doesn't seem fully developed enough.

Dante Spinotti's camera is at times loose and involved, at others more withdrawn and steady. These latter moments are more arresting, more 'poetic', though like similar moments in Miami Vice, are too few and far between. In such an action-heavy film, Mann is unable to take a time out for too long, and so seems much more at home when employing (gratuitous) hand-held and fast zooms.

As a result, many of the action scenes are confusing in their spatial exposition. The one scene that does have a less frantic pace is the jailbreak halfway through, in which for perhaps the only time in the film, the viewer gets a genuine feel of who is where and what is going on.

In the climax, Mann attempts to up the tension with a slow build up to the inevitable. But with so little investment in character hitherto, it seems unwarranted. In an aesthetic twist recalling last year's Milk (as well as De Palma's The Untouchables), the climax unfolds in slow motion, striving to dramatise what in actuality is a bit of a whimper.

This is indicative of the film as a whole - though it is unfortunate that we must wait 140 minutes to realise it. Mann approaches his material as if attempting another would-be crime epic, but with too little regard for social context to make anything profound of his characters. Indeed, Public Enemies presents a world full of impressive stylistic veneer, but no heart. As is often the case with celebrated contemporary American directors these days, it is a frustrating waste of potential.

Excellent review.

I just read an interview with Stephen J. Cannell, the prolific tv producer and novelist. He says that a movie version of "21 Jump Street" is a go, with Jonah Hill co-writing and producing. It's going to be more of a comedy than the '80s tv show.

Anyway, I was surprised to find out that Johnny Depp already approached him and told him he'd love to do a walk-on or a cameo, free of charge. It's just nice to see a Hollywood star who remembers where he came from (for those of you who are too young to remember, Depp got his start on Cannell's "21 Jump Street" back in the mid '80s).

I thought the show was kinda cheesy back then, but I'd probably see the movie, because Jonah Hill is a riotously funny young man.