Virtue Is Knowledge . com

The lives of outlaws have always been romanticized from the Arabian Nights, Robin Hood, Billy the Kid, Jesse James and naturally the 1933-34 heyday of the mobile bank robbers depicted in Public Enemies. There have been a number of movies made about these characters, some better than others. This one is better than most. The acting is top notch. Johnny Depp is near perfect as John Dillinger. History reports his charismatic character and cockiness which Depp easily incorporates. Christian Bale plays the less glamorous role of Melvin Purvis (a great name for anyone but an FBI agent). There are many story lines wrapped around this movie. The personal lives of the outlaws are fascinating. The ineptness of the early Bureau is depicted. Hoover is actually shown in a better light than was probably the case at the time. The facts are largely intact in this movie. This isn’t Bonnie and Clyde. (A great movie, but not a documentary by any means.) There is lots of action and the weapons appear to be period. Lots of 1911′s, Thompson’s and BAR’s. Visually the film is wonderful. The colors and costumes stand out. There is a sense of style that reflects the era. Mann knows how to keep the movie flowing, but there are not all those quick cuts that were distinctive (and distracting) in his earlier films. I’m a fanboy of the era. I’m reading the book now and have Melvin Purvis’ son’s biography of his father, Vendetta, on my nightstand. This is an epic film and one of the most entertaining so far this summer.

I like Larry David. Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm have been ground-breaking in their style and content. Woody Allen has to be respected as a writer and film maker even if his more recent works are not my cup of tea. So, I was hopeful when this film was showing in my area. Larry David plays a miserable older man and that should be right up his alley. Allen wrote the script and he has a lot to say. David says every word and it seems he’s rushing to get every syllable out of his mouth. David is not a great actor. He is a writer and former stand-up comedian. His character is quickly seen as one dimensional and the performance lacks any life. You seem to be watching Larry David reading the lines of Woody Allen. Then we come to the content of the movie. Allen appears to be obsessed with older men and young girls. Weird huh? He kow-tows to various liberal Hollywood cliches where conservative church going women ‘find’ themselves and enjoy threesomes and the stuffy husband and NRA member discovers his latent homosexuality. Maybe this would have been clever 30 years ago, but it seems tired for 2009. I usually like dark and cynical humor, but it just goes on and on in this film. Allen appears to be advocating a type of hedonistic nihilism for his characters. Happiness is found by doing whatever works at the moment to relieve the misery of life and that is usually some form of sexual expression. If you are a fan of Woody Allen and his style of writing, directing and film making, then this movie might work for you. Whatever Works didn’t really work for me.

Here’s a remake of a 1974 movie. That tells you the studio isn’t looking for something new or innovative and wants to try and cash in on a prior success with a new generation of movie goers. Let’s take everyman Denzel Washington and put him in an extraordinary circumstance and see if he succeeds or fails. The story is not bad and the script is decent. The characters are well crafted and the performances solid. Denzel plays the ordinary guy kind of like Clark Kent. He even has the glasses. You get the feeling early on he has some super hero in him and in the end he performs well beyond the powers of mortal men. John Travolta is the antagonist and he seems to relish playing bad guys. Too much is never enough when you’re the bad guy and he goes over the top from the beginning. The only problem is when you try to make an anti-social personality sympathetic. Don’t try to make him more complicated with some noble motives or back story elements that made him this way. Technically the crisis intervention stuff was fairly accurate. John Turturro plays a police negotiator who coaches Denzel and it’s apparent someone gave the writers advice in this area. Would that the continuity folks and tactical team advisors were able to assert themselves a bit more. No SWAT team member or tactical operator is going to ‘accidently’ discharge their weapon because a sewer rat bites them. Fingers are nowhere near the trigger until the decision to shoot is made. Especially snipers whose main job is observing and reporting.The other glaring mistake in continuity is when Denzel is shown a Walther PPK and told how to work the safety. This weapon is a hidden gun he can access if things go wrong. Well of course they do and he pulls out what is clearly a Kahr pistol that has no safety at all. OK, I might be one of the few who would notice that, but it takes me out of the movie and it’s hard to get back into it. Most folks will think this a decent drama with solid performances by the cast. A typical formula movie where the the ordinary guy becomes a hero and the bad guys get what they deserve. And the original 1974 movie? Pretty much the same. Walter Matthau is the good guy and Robert Shaw is the bad guy. Interesting to watch just for the 1970′s clothing and dialog. I wish the studios would greenlight more original productions, but they’re in business to make money, not take risks for Art’s sake. We the public need to support independent films and we might see the bigger studios follow suit.