2009: An amazing year for sci-fi and fantasy, led by "District 9"

It seems as though my best movies of the year so far list was pre-mature. Today I saw "District 9," which undoubtedly deserves a spot on that list. But before I move on to my review of "District 9" and my revised list of the top 5 best movies of the year so far, it's worth noting what an incredible year 2009 is for sci-fi and fantasy films.

The genre got off to a great start in March with "Watchmen." Although the film certainly had its flaws, Zack Snyder probably gave us the best adaptation of Alan Moore's complex graphic novel anyone could hope for. Things got even better for sci-fi in May with J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" reboot, which made a killing at the box office and received rave reviews. And July's "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is considered by many to be the best of the franchise. I certainly think that cinematically, it stands out above the rest.

Now we have "District 9," a fresh take on the genre that is already earning raves from critics and audiences in its opening weekend. And if the early buzz from Comic-Con holds true, "Where the Wild Things Are" and "Avatar" will continue this trend of high-quality sci-fi and fantasy films in 2009.

But on to my thoughts about "District 9." I've been looking forward to this movie ever since I was first exposed to its brilliant viral marketing campaign, but I was absolutely astounded by this film. It far surpassed my highest expectations. When the movie ended, a few people at my Saturday afternoon showing clapped, and I was so stunned I couldn't get up until several minutes into the credits.

"District 9," an expansion of director Neill Blomkamp's 2005 short "Alive in Joburg," focuses on a group of aliens whose ship mysteriously stopped over Johannesburg, South Africa, more than 20 years earlier. The aliens have since been confined to slums in what has been dubbed District 9. Control of District 9 has been overseen by Multi-National United since the aliens first arrived. But when MNU field worker Wikus Van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is exposed to the aliens' biotechnology, his life begins to take a different course, leading to some dramatic changes inside District 9.

Newcomer Blomkamp combines more traditional sci-fi storytelling with a faux-documentary style that makes the story seem much more real. His direction is seamless, and he clearly made the most of his $30 million budget, a small figure for a summer action film. The CGI is spectacular, especially for a film with such a small budget. The aliens look so lifelike and are so expressive that they become relatable characters.

The story is also rife with commentary about discrimination and apartheid, but it never feels forced or overbearing. It also says a great deal about how people deal with the things they fear or don't understand. Some scenes are downright brutal and hard to watch because they are so plausible, albeit set against a sci-fi backdrop.

Setting a sci-fi film in a Johannesburg slum is such an original spin on the genre, and the social commentary it provides integrates beautifully with the movie's intense and suspense-filled action sequences. A summer action film with this much depth is a rare creation.

The film features only unknown actors, and I think it benefits from this. Newcomer Copley turns in a phenomenal performance as Wikus, growing flawlessly from a somewhat naive MNU worker who is in over his head to an unlikely hero. Copley and Blomkamp, who had virtually no experience before this movie, certainly have long careers ahead of them now, especially with Peter Jackson behind them.

Everything about this film - directing, acting, writing, special effects, marketing - is simply brilliant. Any film lover should not end 2009 without seeing "District 9." A

So now that I've seen "District 9," my list of the top 5 best movies of the year so far is as follows:

1. The Hurt Locker
2. District 9
3. Star Trek
4. (500) Days of Summer
5. Up



District 9 Trailer (HD) - The most amazing videos are a click away

The best movies of the year so far

Most of the likely Oscar contenders haven't even been released yet, but there have already been several amazing films this year that should continue to resonate with audiences and critics alike as the year goes on. Here's a look at five of the best movies of the year so far. (A few honorable mentions are "Adventureland," "The Hangover," "Watchmen" and "I Love You, Man.")

5. Up
It comes as no surprise that Pixar has done it again. Part of the reason the Academy decided to honor 10 best picture nominees this year instead of the traditional five is probably because of all the backlash they received last year for not giving "WALL-E" a best picture nomination. While not quite the masterpiece "WALL-E" was, "Up" comes very close to that level of excellence.

Most of the trailers made it look like more of a kids' comedy, but it's so much more. The characters, from distant and heartbroken Carl to wide-eyed Russell to lovable Dug, are all well-developed. Even though "Up" is heavily based in fantasy, every character, even Dug the talking dog, feels real.

The film's opening montage is one of the best I've ever seen, with its ability to tell Carl and Ellie's entire love story in a span of mere minutes with no dialogue. Pixar has always had the ability to weave its storytelling with laughter, tears and an incredible amount of heart, and "Up" is no exception.

4. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The penultimate installment in this successful franchise has received some backlash from fans who were disappointed that some significant scenes from the book were cut. But what makes a great book does not necessarily make a great movie, something director David Yates clearly knows.

No, the battle from the end of the book is not present, with the scene instead focusing on the connection between Harry and Dumbledore at a critical point in the film. No, Dumbledore's funeral is not included, while in its place is a more intimate scene in which the trio sever their ties as Hogwarts students and face the dangerous task at hand.

The book "Half-Blood Prince" serves mostly as a bridge between Voldemort's return at the end of the fifth book and Harry's battle to defeat him in the seventh. Yates makes a bold choice in downplaying the action in the film, but what results is an intimate character drama in which we get to know these characters who we've watched for six films on a much deeper level at this crucial turning point in their lives.

The acting, the storytelling, the directing and the visual effects are all a step up from the previous films. Cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel, of "Amelie" and "Across the Universe," creates some truly visually stunning shots, particularly the cave sequence toward the end of the film. "Half-Blood Prince" may even best Alfonso Cuaron's masterful "Prisoner of Azkaban." All of the "Potter" movies have been great adaptations. This one is a great film.

3. (500) Days of Summer
In a season of stale blockbusters like "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and "GI Joe," what could be more refreshing than this unique Sundance charmer from newcomer director Marc Webb? We are told from the beginning that this is not a love story. Rather than feeling the need to satisfy the Hollywood cliche of the good guy always getting the girl, "(500) Days of Summer" recognizes that even the relationships that don't work out can still be significant relationships that make a lasting impact.

The film takes a number of risks in its storytelling. The story is non-linear, jumping back forth from Tom and Summer's relationship to how Tom deals with their break-up. There are animated sequences and even a musical number that reflect Tom's changing feelings toward Summer, first elation after their first night together and later despair following their break-up. At times a split-screen is even used to show viewers what Tom is fantasizing and what is actually happening. The soundtrack is also expertly crafted, serving as an emotional backdrop to the story.

Indie darlings Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel, two of the most underrated actors in the business, turn in brilliant performances. Each character has their own motivations and desires, and nothing about their relationship is black and white. Neither is the good guy or the bad guy. The film's original and offbeat approach to storytelling has a strong element of fantasy, but "(500) Days of Summer" presents a very realistic portrayal of the relationship between a guy and girl who, though they both have the best intentions, just aren't meant to be.

2. Star Trek
Speaking of "Transformers" and "GI Joe," films that are more special effects than plot and care little about anything but action, "Star Trek" does the exact opposite. It takes the action genre and turns it on its head. J.J. Abrams, known mostly as a producer of shows like "Lost" or movies like "Cloverfield," proves his ability as a director with this film.

Rather than making just another action movie, Abrams combines well-rounded characters, a very complex plot, eye-popping visuals and intense action sequences to create a film that serves both as a crowd-pleasing blockbuster and critically acclaimed cinematic wonder.

When the "Star Trek" logo fades onto the screen after the film's action-packed opening sequence, loud, commanding music playing behind it, my heart was pounding. As someone who has never cared for "Star Trek" in the past, I was surprised at how even the opener took my breath away. That's part of what makes "Star Trek" such a great film. It appeals to new fans and hardcore trekkies alike, serving both as an homage to the original while simultaneously creating a new universe full of exciting possibilities.

Abrams also made a good call in casting mostly unknown actors. Rather than going for big names that would guarantee big crowds, Abrams cast actors that best fit the characters and are able to embody their wit, their fear and their bravery. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Zoe Saldana should all have huge career boosts thanks to this film, and I can't wait to see what the team behind this film does with the next installment of what is sure to be a powerhouse franchise.

1. The Hurt Locker
If this little movie that could fails to secure a best picture nomination at next year's Oscars, then the Academy's new 10-nominee system clearly doesn't work. This Iraq-war drama started making the film festival circuit last fall and came out of nowhere this summer as a critical juggernaut.

Masterfully directed by Kathryn Bigelow from a script by Mark Boal, "The Hurt Locker's" premise is simple yet intricate at the same time. The film isn't plot driven, simply following the last few weeks of a bomb squad's rotation in Iraq. But the whirlwind of emotions the three squad members experience about being in Iraq, the overwhelming pressure that comes from a job that means life or death and the constant fear that no matter what one is doing, one is never safe prove being an American solider in Iraq is infinitely more complex than the film's one-line description.

Relative unknowns Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie absolutely shine as Staff Sergeant James and Sergeant Sanborn, both undoubtedly deserving Oscar nominations for the nuanced performances. And in smaller, almost cameo roles, better-known actors Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, David Morse and Evangeline Lilly commit to their characters without stealing the scene from the leads.

Boal's script works so well because it doesn't have a political agenda. It doesn't tell audiences how to think but shows them the many facets of war. Bigelow's direction is at times more understated and almost documentary-like, focusing on the broader picture. Other times, she slows the action down and hones in on the little details that add to that broader picture. Rather than being uneven, these combined approaches make Bigelow's directing very well-balanced. This story is a lot to take in, but it's one audiences should see, need to see. It will resonate with you long after you've left the theater.

Review: Funny People

Judd Apatow's latest directorial venture may not be as side-splittingly funny as "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" or "Knocked Up," but it isn't supposed to be. Though the movie is called "Funny People," it's actually much more of a drama, examining the lonely underside of stand-up comedy, the competitiveness of Hollywood and the question of whether or not a person can truly change.

At the center of "Funny People" is George Simmons (Adam Sandler), a veteran stand-up comedian and movie star who learns he is dying of a form of leukemia. At this point in his life, George has a huge house, lots of money and success in his career, but he's lost the love of his life to another man and has no real friends.

After learning he is about to die, George begins performing stand-up again in comedy clubs. After his act is followed by Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), a struggling young comedian, George asks Ira to be his assistant. Ira serves as a surrogate friend for George and encourages him to reconnect with his family and Laura (Leslie Mann), his ex-girlfriend who he continues to pine over.

Anyone who has seen the first trailer for this movie knows that George finds out he is going to live. The movie is not about whether or not George will survive, but about whether or not he can change his self-centered ways after having had such a close call with death and coming out on the other side of it.

George tries to reconnect with Laura, who is now married with children, and while Laura is still in love with George, she's not sure whether he can actually change. George also struggles in his relationship with Ira, who cares about George and wants to be his friend, but George is so unfamiliar with what a real friendship means that he isn't sure how to treat him.

Another subplot involves Ira and his roommates' competing careers. While Ira can't seem to find his niche, crude Leo (Jonah Hill) has regular gigs at comedy clubs and stuck-up Mark (Jason Schwartzman) stars in the NBC sitcom "Yo Teach."

While "Funny People," isn't quite up to par with Apatow's last two projects, overall it's still an excellent film. One thing people should know going in is that "Funny People" is primarily a drama. Fans of Apatow's TV show "Freaks and Geeks" know that he can blend comedy and drama well, but people who go into the movie expecting it to be the next "Knocked Up" may be disappointed.

While the movie certainly does have a lot of humor and Apatow's trademark raunch comedy is present in the stand-up bits, the film is at its heart a character drama about funny people. It portrays well how easy it is to become narcissistic in Hollywood and the harsh toll that can take on one's relationships with others and one's self.

Overall the characters are very well-developed, which is what makes the movie. One issue I had with "Funny People" is that George stays so unlikable throughout the film that he is hard to relate to, but I understand why the character is written this way. Apatow is trying to show that sometimes the funniest people can be completely miserable, and having experienced the stand-up circuit in the past, it is likely Apatow knew people like George. He does give us a few tiny glimmers of hope that maybe deep down there is still something sympathetic within George, though so much of him has been lost to the Hollywood lifestyle. Sandler plays the part very well, having demonstrated his dramatic prowess before in films like "Punch-Drunk Love" and "Reign Over Me."

But the standout of the film, surprisingly, is Rogen, who shows depth here far beyond the crude slacker types he so often plays. I think he shows here that there is more talent in him than audiences have been able to see before. He has played the roles that people expect to see him in and seem to enjoy him in, but given the right material, Rogen does have range just like his veteran co-star.

Ira is more low-key than Rogen's typical parts. He wants so desperately to be a comedian, yet his friends don't seem to believe in him very much and George's refusal to open up to him doesn't help his esteem. He is shy, sensative and incredibly likable, only wanting to prove himself. Rogen gives Ira an innocent, good-guy charm that, in contrast to George, is extremely relatable and lovable.

Mann is quirky and funny like always, doing a solid job as a woman torn between her family and the man she used to love who broke her heart. Eric Bana is also surprisingly funny as Clarke, Laura's husband. Bana has some great comic chops, and I hope to see him in more comedies in the future. Clarke is like George in so many ways, but Bana is able to pull out the one thread that makes him different and get the audience to sympathize with him in a way they cannot sympathize with George.

The film's nearly two-and-a-half-hour runtime is a bit daunting, and the movie drags a little at times. The movie's constant stream of cameos from stand-up comedians also gets to be overwhelming, though a hilarious exchange between Eminem and Ray Romano particuarly stands out.

Overall I think this is a very well-acted and well-written movie. It has a few flaws, but I commend Apatow for not just sticking with the formula that made him famous and trying to branch out into other genres. And for the most part, he succeeds. Apatow definitely has the makings of a great director and storyteller, and while I hope he still brings us his typical raunch comedies with heart from time to time, I hope he continues to take risks like "Funny People" as well. B


Funny People Trailer - In Theaters July 31 - A funny movie is a click away

The evolution of Comic-Con

Since this past Wednesday night, the night of Comic-Con's four-hour preview before officially starting on Thursday, I have barely been able to tear myself away from my computer. I've been following entertainment sites like Entertainment Weekly and First Showing religiously, both on their actual sites and via Twitter. I've been watching video footage and looking through all the photos. I'm even watching G4's live coverage of the convention as I type this.

Over the years, Comic-Con has evolved from just another comic book convention to the ultimate destination for fans of not only comic books but video games, animation, sci-fi, fantasy, horror, collectibles, film and television.

Particularly in recent years, this convention has exploded in popularity. Entertainment reporters and bloggers cover the event extensively. Some filmmakers are now relying on Comic-Con to give their movies an extra boost by offering exclusive panel discussions and screening early footage.

Jon Favreau has stated he thinks Comic-Con is part of what made the first "Iron Man" film such a success. If a genre film garners strong buzz at Comic-Con, it's almost guaranteed to be a hit.

The first Comic-Con took place in 1970 and drew 300 attendees. This year's convention is expected to attract 125,000. So what caused this convention to evolve into such a juggernaut?

As Comic-Con expanded its offerings, it certainly also expanded its audience. But genre films have flourished since 2000, soaring in popularity and gaining hardcore fan followings. Comic book adaptations have become box office gold. "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings" have generated even more interest in fantasy while the "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" fan bases are just as strong today as they were in the franchises' early days.

Sci-fi-infused programs like "Lost" and "Chuck" have huge cult followings, and "The Twilight Saga" is attracting more young women to the convention. In the age of Youtube, Comic-Con is also getting exposed to a wider audience. Panel discussions are filmed and streamed on Youtube for fans at home to see, and some screenings are even bootlegged and uploaded to the video sharing site.

Whatever the reason, it's clear that this year's Comic-Con is going to be just as explosive as last year's. Fans who made the trek to San Diego had the chance to sink their teeth into sneak peeks from "Lost," "True Blood," "Chuck," "Dollhouse," "The Hobbit," "District 9," "Avatar," "Iron Man 2," Disney/Pixar, "New Moon," "Jennifer's Body," "Alice in Wonderland," "Tron Legacy," Lucasfilm's "Star Wars" spectacular, Kevin Smith and "Where the Wild Things Are," just to name a few.

Check out these awesome photos from the Wednesday night floor show courtesy of SlashFilm, and this photo gallery of fans and panels from the Chicago Tribune.

Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Though all of the “Harry Potter” movies have been entertaining, “Prisoner of Azkaban” stood out above the rest as a critical favorite. Enter David Yates’ masterful adaptation of “Half-Blood Prince,” which with its strong character development and eye-popping visuals has quickly become the best “Potter” film yet.

In the sixth and penultimate installment in the series, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) has three mysteries to face. First, after Voldemort’s return at the end of the fifth film, the magical world is on the brink of war. With Voldemort’s death eaters attacking wizards and muggles alike, there is a feeling of impending destruction.

Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) tasks Harry with looking into Voldemort’s past to piece together the tools to destroy him. Part of this exploration includes retrieving a memory from potions professor Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) that may be the key to Voldemort’s defeat. Harry also suspects that Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) is somehow involved in Voldemort’s plans.

Second, Harry obtains a potions book with the mysterious inscription “property of the Half-Blood Prince.” Filled with notes scribbled in the margins, the Prince’s advice steers Harry to the top of the class. But some of the book’s notes are more than just helpful homework hints, and Harry has no idea about the Prince’s true identity.

Finally Harry and his friends deal with the mysteries of the opposite sex. Now 16 years old, Harry finds himself growing closer to Ginny (Bonnie Wright), who suddenly seems like more than just Ron’s (Rupert Grint) little sister. Meanwhile, Hermione (Emma Watson) comes to terms with her feelings for Ron, but may face competition from the outgoing Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave).

“Half-Blood Prince” serves mainly as a bridge between Voldemort’s return and the final battle. This story is more driven by the characters than action, but Yates still manages to keep things interesting. He creates a dark atmosphere that emphasizes the urgency of impending war but balances it out with some light-hearted romantic humor.

For the most part, the film’s romantic subplot works well. It emphasizes the fact that Harry and his friends are still adolescents and have to continue growing up even with a war coming. Ron and Hermione’s relationship plays a key role in the seventh book and is established well here, though Lavender’s over-the-top romantic gestures prove a bit overwhelming.

This film is by far the most visually stunning of the series with its top-notch special effects and cinematography. The quidditch scenes and the film’s climax are particularly impressive, and a dark look is maintained throughout the film even in its lighter moments.

The performances are also better than they’ve ever been. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson are all very comfortable in their roles now. They have all matured as actors, especially Radcliffe, who shines in both comedic and dramatic ways in this film.

Gambon, whose portrayal of Dumbledore has been divisive in this past, is spot-on here. At times he is warm while other times he is devastating. Felton also gives a particularly nuanced performance. While he was only a bully and a coward in previous films, here he is determined yet genuinely fearful of the task Voldemort has given him.

The film leaves out some parts of the book and adds others, which will likely disappoint some fans, but Yates still creates a cohesive story. What makes a great book doesn’t necessarily make a great film. This is a great film, and fans who want it to be 100 percent faithful to the book should just read the book.

Yates has a clear understanding of the world J.K. Rowling created, and he has made a beautiful film with “Half-Blood Prince.” If this movie is any indication, his “Deathly Hallows” will be the truly epic conclusion this series deserves. A-

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince(Trailer) - The funniest videos are a click away

The Infectious Indie

A friend of mine recently sent me this video, "Ode to the Indie," from Current TV. Check it out:



When I first watched this I had a good laugh at all the indie film stereotypes the video pokes fun at: people with weird names, bearded intellectuals, sped-up or slow motion, bragging about favorite bands, "melancholy ecstasy," hand-drawn fonts, etc. Then I realized I've seen almost every movie that's featured in the video.

I'll admit it. I'm an indie film junkie. Every time I see a preview for a film with any of the characteristics mentioned in that video, I'm just itching to see it. I can even think of a few films that fit some of the stereotypes the video mentions that were left out of the montage. I realize, as the video so astutely points out, a lot of indie films share many of the same qualities. Yet even if the trailer for an indie seems similar to one I've already seen, I still feel a little ping of curiosity, like I might be missing something if I don't check out this latest indie too. This genre is infectious to me.

So what is it about the indie film that draws me in? For one, in a good indie film, I feel very drawn to the characters. My favorite indies are character-driven pieces that examine, in their own offbeat way, the complexities of human relationships. The stories and characters of indie films are quirky enough to seem a little different and intriguing, but at the same time the emotions those characters experience are very easy to relate to.

I think this is done particularly well in my personal trifecta of indie favorites: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "Garden State" and "Once." There's something a little unconventional about each of the core couples in these films, but the way they open up to each other and grow together is a journey I enjoy watching. "Adventureland" is a recent film that I think captures the nuances of the emotion behind friendships and relationships beautifully.

And while I concede to the video's point that people in indies often feel the need to make non-chalant references to their favorite bands (Natalie Portman's insistance in "Garden State" that The Shins "will change your life, I swear" springs to mind), I think the music in many of these films does add something to their emotional impact.

Zach Braff is someone who I think really understands how good music can capture the mood of a scene for the audience and move the emotion of that scene forward. "Garden State" wouldn't be as great of a film if it weren't for the soundtrack Braff hand-picked to supplement his storytelling. "Once" and "Juno" use this tactic to their advantage as well. And if the early reviews for "500 Days of Summer" are any indication, that film will likely join the ranks of indie soundtrack greatness.

This isn't to say that I'm charmed by all indies. "Margot at the Wedding" is one that I certainly don't have any desire to see again. In that film, the characters are so filled with misery, so narcissistic, so devoid of any redeeming qualities that they are impossible to relate to. One leaves that movie feeling the same misery those characters feel, without one single shred of happiness. A film like "Rachel Getting Married," on the other hand, captures the misery that can emcompass a family affected by addiction yet still shows that no matter how many problems a family has, love is still there whether you want it to be or not. This single difference makes the film infinitely more relatable.

I recently came across a quote from Jessamyne West, "Fiction reveals truths that reality obscures." To me, a good indie film, through its unique brand of storytelling, makes me think about elements of my own life. Certainly not every indie film has the ability to do this. But the ones that do have a certain charm that I can't stay away from, no matter how much they fit the stereotypical indie mold.

Review: Public Enemies

"Public Enemies," the first major film of July, opened last week to mixed reviews, and after seeing the film this past weekend I'd have to say I agree. It certainly wasn't a bad film. It was a good portrait of an interesting true story and it featured some really strong performances, but it was nothing exceptional. It's worth watching, but it wasn't exactly a masterpiece.

For those unfamiliar with the Michael Mann-directed film, "Public Enemies" tells the story of notorious criminal John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), who robbed banks during the crime wave of the 1930s alongside the likes of Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd. Dillinger was admired by the American public, who found him to be charming and charismatic and thought his robberies and jail breaks were exciting in light of their dissatisfaction with the banks.

This image drove J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) to view Dillinger as public enemy number one. His Bureau of Investigation, led by Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), was charged with capturing Dillinger at any cost, along with all of his accomplices.

The film also examines Dillinger's relationship with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), who became enamored with Dillinger after meeting him in Chicago and spent two years in federal prison for harboring a criminal when she refused to give up his whereabouts.

Overall, "Public Enemies" is a decent film. It tells an interesting story, but it likely wouldn't have been as strong without the amazing actors Mann was able to recruit. Depp and Bale, who consistently turn in top-notch performances, shine again here, but I wish Bale's character had been developed more. The audience doesn't get to know him as well as I would have liked. So much of the film was robbery after robberty and prison escape after prison escape. It would have been nice to balance that out with some more backstory.

In spite of having powerhouse leads like Depp and Bale, the movie belongs to the supporting players. Crudup plays against type in his small but significant role as J. Edgar Hoover, and Cotillard exercises her Oscar-winning chops and adds depth to the "girlfriend" role that is usually so one-note.

The look of the film is another strong point. The scenic design, costumes, hair and make-up capture the Depression well and create a visually appealing atmosphere for the film.

My biggest compalint is that the film was too long. At two hours and 20 minutes, the film is actually shorter than blockbusters like "X2: X-Men United," "Titanic" and the "Harry Potter" films, but "Public Enemies" suffers because it felt long. The action sequences were great, but if Mann had cut those down and added just a little more backstory, the film would have felt fuller without being unnecessarily long. I'm happy to sit through a long film as long as it's worth my while. Here, I found myself wondering when Dillinger would finally be captured so I could stand up.

Universal Pictures made a smart decision in releasing the film during the summer rather than holding it until awards season. The film is not quite up to par to receive any major Oscar nominations, but during the summer it's an option for moviegoers looking for a film that's still action-packed but more intelligent than "Transformers."

"Public Enemies" is an entertaining look at an intriguing true story with some great action sequences and outstanding performances, but overall Mann's look at the life of one of America's most notorious gangsters falls short of spectacular. B-