Heat vs. Public Enemies

So, what's the difference? Why is one an iconic heist thriller? Literally the movie that MADE crime drama...and the other a shallow, weak portrait of a 1930's crime icon?

What makes Heat different from Public Enemies?

1. Fictional vs. Non-Fictional Script - Michael Mann did not have to worry about explaining the story of Neil McCauley (De Niro) and Vincent Hanna (Pacino). It is easy to realize who these people are, a career criminal and a determined detective. Their background/upbringing is not relevant.

John Dillinger's (Depp) background is relevant. How did Dillinger come to be the man he is? The only background we receive is Dillinger's ancedote of "I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars... and you. What else you need to know? ". This is not nearly enough backstory for a 2 hour and 20 minute movie and one of America's most famous criminals.

2. Timeline - With Heat, Mann did not have to worry about acccuracy of dates. He weaves a storyline over a course of months in the case of Heat. Between the opening heist, the final heist and the climatic final scene. The story was what he told. The audience did not have to search for dates, question the timeline or even accept the "period" of the film.

3. Cinematography - Mann is an artist behind the camera. He knows how to capture light, portray a scene, allow a moment to resonate and properly frame a picture. But in Heat he was able to illuminate the entire city of Los Angeles (a strength he reinforced with Collateral). In Public Enemies, he has no singular location to embolden. The problem is lack of authenticity in the location. No single setting is completely "depression era", therefore Mann could not full develop any of his locations.

4. Cast - I love Johnny Depp. I really love Christian Bale. Marion Cotillard wasn't bad. The rest of the cast was alright and it was great to see the corpse of Stephen Dorff have a small role. Mann also used some of his usual suspects. But Heat? Does it get better than De Niro and Pacino? You were getting the classic INSANE Pacino, where he realized he was no longer the top dog actor, but could steal a scene by yelling and saying crazy things like,

"Cause she's got a great ass... and you got your head all the way up it! Ferocious, aren't I? When I think of asses, a woman's ass, something comes out of me."

It doesn't get any better than that. See for yourself.



You also have Jonny Voight dressed up like a cowboy with his handlebar mustache, Hank Azaria in an un-funny role, President effing Palmer, young Natalie Portman, Tom Sizemore during his smack/crack/meth addict days, Ashley Judd looking as fine as she ever has or ever will (similar to Cameron Diaz's moment of perfection in The Mask), and VAL KILMER! KILMER! KILMER! OH MY GOD...Iceman! The real Val Kilmer before he ate his way out of "cool" roles and into funny, portly gentlemen (see: Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang). Kilmer is a stud in this movie with his sweet long hair and, in the words of Robert Miller, a "killer bod". When he snipes the guys in the abandoned drive-in movie I almost cried with joy. Bale does win the battle of the Batman though, Kilmer's Batman debuted the same year as Heat, 1995.

I am sorry Ed Scissorhands/Batman, but the best cast stands with HEAT.

5. Finale - You can't match the 30 minutes of Heat. Not possible. Just like the way Orson Welles blew his load on Citizen Kane, it is possible Mann ruined the "crime-drama" genre with his work on Heat.

Heat was EPIC. Public Enemies had the tall task of living up to these lofty expectations. No dice. Michael Mann has a joyous burden that will probably never go away. Mann is again constrained by history, he needed to portray *SPOILER* the death of Dillinger frame for frame. However, Mann did not need to spend so much time developing the ending, it was very anti-climatic. It was also not consistent with the high-speed action of the entire movie. I understand that he wanted to emphasize the finale, but the lack of character development left for a hollow scene.