Depp ‘amazing’ as Dillinger (3.5/5)

Public Enemies

Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard
Directed by: Michael Mann
Rating: R for gangster violence and some language.
Running time: 2 hours, 20 minutes.

“The only thing that’s important is where somebody’s going.”
“Where are you going?”
“Anywhere I want.”

In times of hardship and struggle, for some, it’s a time of infinite possibilities.

Director Michael Mann reminds us of this in “Public Enemies,” a gangster movie focusing on the life of the infamous John Dillinger.

Mann tosses you in headfirst to the gangster lifestyle of the 1930s, complete with the high (and low) society, routine heists and extraordinary getaways. “Public Enemies” makes you yearn for the days of fedoras, snazzy nicknames and gangster suits.

Johnny Depp stars as Dillinger, and, as expected, does an amazing job. Cavalier and unfettered, Dillinger does what he wants when he wants. Sick of jail? No problem, we’ll just leave.

Just as Dillinger was sensationalized while alive, he may be even more so now decades later, taking on a modern Robin Hood characterization. Mann and Depp capitalize on Dillinger’s charisma, portraying him as an inviting protagonist and not necessarily a dangerous criminal.

The movie picks up in the beginning of the end for Dillinger and pals, including “Pretty Boy” Floyd and “Baby Face” Nelson.

Tired of his hands being tied by state jurisdictions, Bureau of Investigation director J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) instructs Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) to use whatever means necessary to take down the gangsters and end their reign.

A main focus of “Enemies” is the love affair between Dillinger and “common girl” Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard). While their initial reactions are engaging, the swiftness of their relationship caught me off guard. Although Billie is a common piece of furniture in the film, you never really get a sense of who she is and how she feels being a girlfriend to one of the most recognizable and wanted men in America.

There are many, many gangster cronies to keep track of. But, for the most part, if you can familiarize yourself with Dillinger and Nelson and perhaps one or two others, don’t spend the movie wondering who that guy with the pistol is. If they don’t make it clear, you probably don’t need to know on a first watch.

It’s interesting getting a look at the infant FBI, and Bale pulls off a spectacular performance as the agent who hunted down many of the notorious gangsters.

But, for all that it is, “Public Enemies” makes the mistake of changing history to ease storytelling. A tweak here and there could be considered “creative license,” but in reality, many of the notable deaths that the movie portrays did not happen until long after Dillinger’s death. This lack of accuracy in a movie made specifically about a certain real person in a certain real time definitely drops the film down a few points.

“Public Enemies” is about more than just Dillinger and Purvis, however. It’s about the changing landscape of American history and the desire to shed daily responsibilities for a life of drive and impulse.

An interesting aspect of these gangsters that Mann failed to pursue was their youthful ages: At their times of death, Dillinger was 31, Floyd was 30 and Nelson was 25. They lived hard and fast; as Depp’s Dillinger notes, “We’re having too good a time today. We ain’t thinking about tomorrow.”

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Surrogates’ a fill-in for sci-fi (2.5/5)

Surrogates

Starring: Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, Rosamund Pike
Directed by: Jonathan Mostow
Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, disturbing images, language, sexuality and a drug-related scene.
Running time: 1 hours, 31 minutes.

If you’re looking for a run-of-the-mill action movie to kick back and chow popcorn to, then “Surrogates” should fit in nicely.

A surrogate is, by definition, a substitute. And in this case, “Surrogates” is a wanna-be substitute for just about any other movie that touches on robots or cloning. This Bruce Willis flick is a kind of watered-down version of “The Island,” missing the kind of morality questions that made the clone film transcend a typical movie.

The plot is more of an excuse for spotlighting the futuristic world, which is often the case in movies like this. It has a very interesting premise but fails to capitalize on it.

“Surrogates” takes virtual reality to a whole new level. People live their lives through robots, controlling them with their mind by hooking up to a chair. They’re able to stay home, safe from the world, while they (via their surrogates) go to work, go shopping, go clubbing and, in general, interact with the outside world.

Bruce plays Tom Greer, an FBI agent who is investigating the first murder to occur in a very, very long time. Someone has found a way to kill people via their surrogate, something that, as a legal representative for VSI (the “surrogate makers,” if you will) noted, “would entirely defeat the purpose of surrogacy.”

But there are too many questions in a movie like this that need to be answered well in order for the audience to believe it. And “Surrogates” just never manages to push itself into the realm of reality.
The movie includes little nods to our current state of being with the surrogate “salons” where the machines can get new looks as well as the rental surrogates that resemble the crash test dummies or Star Wars’ C-3PO.

And there are acute moments of revelation where an attractive, young woman surrogate is actually an overweight, middle-aged man. But that sort of interference with reality is something that should have been expanded upon but wasn’t, used merely as a punchline instead of a plot device.

As the introduction with Agent Stone shows us (“Sorry, I was in the can”), the surrogates are not a replacement for the human body. But again, the movie picks on these similarities to our current interactions through computers, but doesn’t pursue them, as it should.

As my boyfriend will tell you, I’m not a big Bruce Willis fan. I often forget which movie of his I’m watching because he is ever Bruce Willis and not the character he is trying to portray. But I can’t really blame him. The action genre has a real difficult time in characterization for whatever reason.
Willis tries here, but the quick pace of the movie holds him back from really connecting with the audience. You won’t care about the characters or what happens to them, you’ll only want to know who’s behind the murders and why.

Not surprisingly, “Surrogates” was directed by Jonathan Mostow, man- behind-the-camera on the embarassingly terrible “Terminator 3,” so why anyone would give him a second chance at a sci-fi movie is beyond me.

This could have been a very good, philosophical film. Instead, “Surrogates” is entertaining and will interest you while you’re watching it, but it won’t have any lasting impression. If you’re interested in this type of plot but crave more depth, pick up a copy of Neal Stephenson’s book “Snow Crash.”

2 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Rome’: Not unbearable (3/5)

When in Rome

Starring: Kristen Bell, Josh Duhamel, Anjelica Huston
Directed by: Mark Steven Johnson
Rating: PG-13 for some suggestive content.
Running time: 1 hours, 31 minutes.

Let’s get this straight — “When in Rome” will not move you. It won’t inspire you to great things. You might not even remember it much the next day.

It’s got more corn than a farmer’s field and is, in every way possible, a rom-com. And not necessarily a good one — “Love Actually” set the bar very high and, as far as I’m concerned, is as accessible by both genders as a rom-com could be.

But for all those guys out there getting dragged to a movie this weekend for Valentine’s Day, this one may be tolerable.

“When in Rome” follows Beth (Kirsten Bell), a curator at the Guggenheim museum in New York City, whose method of knowing if a guy is right for her is whether or not she loves him more than she loves her job. And she loves her job.

So when Beth’s younger sister Joan (Alexis Dziena) shows up at her doorstep with an engagement ring — and a story of how she met her fiance two weeks ago on an airplane (oh boy I hope this doesn’t give anyone any ideas...) — Beth is understandably frustrated with Joan’s rush. Top off the speedy engagement with a wedding that is a mere few days away, and you’ve got one annoyed sister.

At Joan’s Rome wedding, Beth is nearly swept away by groomsman Nick (Josh Duhamel), only to find him outside kissing another woman.

Well, what else is a girl to do but get drunk and prance about in the Fountain of Love?

In an effort to save some poor saps who tossed coins into the fountain, wishing for love, Beth removes five coins from the waters and takes them back with her to New York.

Beth attempts to get back to her day-to-day life, but the charming Nick (who just happens to live in the city as well) pursues her.

And he’s not the only one. Beth finds herself the object of desire from a handful of poorly adjusted and generally oddball gentlemen.

Enter the true stars of the film: Will Arnett as the tortured artist Antonio, Jon Heder (yes, Napoleon Dynamite himself) as the street magician Lance, Dax Shepard as the male model Gale, and Danny Devito as the sausage packer Al. This group will keep you laughing as they each try to get Beth’s attention.

And right when she thought she could really like Nick, Beth discovers that these men are under a spell from the fountain coins that she took.

So the plot may not be the most engaging. But it’s fun, and some of the scenes, such as the restaurant where people eat with no lights on but the servers have night-vision goggles, are hilarious.

And look for Napoleon Dynamite’s buddy Pedro.

The characterization is poor. The premise is silly. But have heart, men in the four-county area: It’s enjoyable enough and there are worse ways to spend an hour and a half (if you were forced to watch “Titanic” instead, you’d only be half-way through!). Don’t expect much, but don’t hate it walking in.

3 of 5 stars

Nothing glorious about ‘Basterds’ (.5/5)

Inglourious Basterds

Starring: Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Rating: R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality.
Running time: 2 hours, 23 minutes.

I’m usually known for liking more movies than any one person should.

I try to stay positive and watch movies with an angle of wanting to enjoy it, not wanting to criticize it.

But, I’ll tell you, “Inglourious Basterds” is a horrible, horrible movie.

I am not a Quentin Tarantino fan. I loathed “Kill Bill.” But I am a believer in second chances.

Maybe I shouldn’t be.

I went into “Inglourious Basterds” already a little miffed about the spelling (don’t even get me started on people who encourage bad grammar for no reason ...) but intrigued by what I thought was going to be the premise.

If you’re like me, you might have thought the movie was about a team of Jewish soldiers (the titled Basterds) attempting to kill Hitler.

Well, you’d be half right.

But as for the other half? It drags the interesting part about these soldiers so far down into a muddy hole that they would never be able to climb out.

Most of the torturous 2-and-a-half-hour runtime is spent with people sitting at tables and talking.

And talking.

And talking.

And then you find out that none of their talking really mattered anyway.

In between these excessively pointless and overstretched periods of conversation are sporadic gunfights, scalpings and even more talking.

Amazing, though, that with all this talking, you won’t remember any of the Basterds. You might remember a few key things after thinking about it, but they never get a chance to distinguish themselves. In 2 and a half hours. The only one you’re sure to remember is Brad Pitt as their leader, Lieutenant Aldo Raine, and that’s only because he’s Brad Pitt. Otherwise you would only remember him as that guy with the twang.

Raine and his crew of vengeful Jews seem more like footnotes than the main cast.

The other storyline? Barely worth mentioning even though it takes over half the film to unfold. The only good thing about that part is there are fewer characters to talk.

But the true main character of the movie is Tarantino himself. Rather than letting the movie grow and change organically, he forces it into the dreadfully prolonged exchanges that are there to make you think this paper-thin plot has any real depth.

It doesn’t.

From a director whose last decent work was in 1994 (“Pulp Fiction”), you’d think Tarantino would actually start to care about what he does.

But the fact that a majority of the characters were created for no other reason than to insert Tarantino’s pals makes me think that he doesn’t really care about the end result, he’s just having fun.
And that’s all well and good, but don’t subject us to it.

I am absolutely befuddled as to the high critical ratings. I don’t know what movie they were watching, but don’t be fooled, it wasn’t the same one I saw.

The ONLY reason to watch “Inglourious Basterds” is for the rare appearance of Brad Pitt, and, for fans of “The Office,” B.J. Novak. Otherwise, take this film off your Netflix list while you still have a chance.

.5 of 5 stars