Anschauen Public Enemies

Public Enemies

Public Enemies is a movie starring Christian Bale, Johnny Depp, and Christian Stolte. The Feds try to take down notorious American gangsters John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd during a booming crime wave in the...

Other Titles
Enemigos públicos, Verejní neprátelé, Državni neprijatelji, Visuomenes priešai, Dimosios kindynos, Wrogowie publiczni, Közellenségek, Ennemis publics, Populaarsed vaenlased, Halk Düsmanlari, Gangsteri, Ennemis Publics, Drzavni sovrazniki, Inamicii publici, Inimigos Públicos, Δημόσιος κίνδυνος, Nemico pubblico - Public Enemies
Running Time
2 hours 20 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Biography, Drama, Crime
Michael Mann
Bryan Burrough, Ronan Bennett, Michael Mann, Ann Biderman
Johnny Depp, Christian Stolte, Jason Clarke, Christian Bale
Japan, USA
Audio Languages
Deutsch, English, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

The difficult 1930s is a time of robbers who knock over banks and other rich targets with alarming frequency. Of them, none is more notorious than John Dillinger, whose gang plies its trade with cunning efficiency against big businesses while leaving ordinary citizens alone. As Dillinger becomes a folk hero, FBI head J. Edger Hoover is determined to stop his ilk by assigning ace agent Melvin Purvis to hunt down Dillinger. As Purvis struggles with the manhunt's realities, Dillinger himself faces an ominous future with the loss of friends, dwindling options and a changing world of organized crime with no room for him.

Comments about biography «Public Enemies» (8)

Heather Perry photo
Heather Perry

This is the first movie that I have ever seen in which I was so deeply immersed in the world of gangster life that I forgot the existence of the characters on screen. This movie makes you feel like you are in the mob, and the feeling lasts long after the credits have rolled. It is a great movie that will stay with you long after you have seen it. The acting is brilliant, and the story is intense and compelling. This is a must see movie!

Nicholas West photo
Nicholas West

A few years ago, I heard that Denzel Washington was being offered a major part in "Predator" and that the film was being called "Predator 2". I knew nothing about "Predator" other than that it was a sequel to the "Predator" movie and that the action-packed, blood-thirsty action was taking place in the jungles of Central America. When I heard that the script was written by David Leavitt, I knew it was going to be very different from the other "Predator" films, which were simply action films set in the jungles of the American south. I was wrong. "Predator 2" is far from a bad film and if you don't see it, you're not missing anything. The action in the film is at least as good as the first one and in fact, it's better than the first "Predator". The movie is based on the true story of William F. "Bill" Russell, the Hollywood star who owned the gun industry in the United States during the 1910s. The film is about the rise and fall of Russell, who was the top gunmaker in the world and who became a symbol of violence in America during his time. The film is also about the CIA, FBI and the movie studios who were trying to put him in prison, as well as how Hollywood was trying to destroy him. The film was also about the FBI, Hollywood and gun manufacturers and was about the politics of the time. The film is very action-packed and has a lot of action in it. The action was also good, as you can see in the film, but the film is better than the first "Predator". The acting was good, but the plot and the story was good too. The plot was about the rise and fall of Russell, but the story was about how Hollywood was trying to destroy him. I think that the first "Predator" film was better than the second "Predator". However, I did like "Predator 2". If you don't like the first "Predator", I think that you will also like the second "Predator". "Predator 2" is a good film, but I think that the first one was better.

Richard Dixon photo
Richard Dixon

John Dillinger was a national treasure in America during the time he was alive. The film is a factual account of how he was destroyed by the press during his life. However, many elements of the film are fake. For example, Dillinger's family claimed that his grandfather, who was never there, and the couple who had him committed to a mental institution are not real. The film also makes it seem that his wife, just to be a piece of propaganda, would have had a affair with the boss of the paper in New York. Most of the people who were involved in his life are portrayed in a bad light. When the press finally makes its way into the film, we see the Dillinger family as a bunch of bickering people who never believed in anything Dillinger stood for. The film leaves you feeling good about the media destroying a person who is a hero in some circles. If you don't agree with this, you will hate this film.

George photo

This movie is a classic example of how a great movie can be made from a mediocre script. This movie is very violent and violent movie, but it's a great movie. It has a great plot and the characters are great. The movie is very violent and a lot of blood, but it's not that bad, you will enjoy the movie more if you are not a bloodhound. The acting in this movie is very good, especially by Scarface. This movie is about a group of hoodlums who rob banks and kill a lot of people. The movie has a lot of action and violence, but it's very good. The violence in this movie is very graphic, but it's not too bad, it's good. I really enjoyed this movie and I recommend it to anyone who likes movies about hoodlums. 7/10

Mary C. photo
Mary C.

John G. Avildsen's dramatic portrayal of John Dillinger, a small time mobster and former FBI agent, is a spectacular performance, and the movie is a marvelous study of the way the human mind works. It is a very well-written story, full of tension and suspense, and the movie does a wonderful job of portraying the atmosphere of the 1960's in the Midwest. The cast is excellent, and the casting director, John Landis, did a marvelous job of bringing the right mix of actors to each role. John Travolta is brilliant as Dillinger, and James Woods is also very good as the mob boss. However, this movie is not for the faint of heart, and if you are easily disturbed, you will probably not enjoy this movie as much as I did.

Nicholas F. photo
Nicholas F.

Ralph Fiennes and Denzel Washington are two of the best actors in the business. Fiennes is the only actor that can be considered a genuine "best" actor. The same goes for Washington. They are both very good in both drama and action films. The problem with "The Brotherhood of Terror" is that both of these two actors are the only reason for watching the film. The others aren't worth watching. I would recommend watching "Gangs of New York" instead. The story is more original. Washington and Fiennes are great in that film. But, "The Brotherhood of Terror" was not as good as the first "Gangs of New York". It had some great action scenes, but it could have been better. In conclusion, I would say that "The Brotherhood of Terror" was better than the first "Gangs of New York", but it was still not the best film of 2003. I give it a 7/10.

Emma photo

This film is an exercise in how to make a movie about a social issue. It is also an exercise in how to make a movie that is entertaining, and not preachy or inane. It's a "get out of jail free" card for anyone who is having trouble with the "justice system". That said, it does show a bit of what life is like for a person with an "associative disorder", and how it's treated, and how it can affect people, especially children. It also shows how the justice system is set up, and how it is handled. Overall, it's a good film, and worth watching.

Helen photo

I can't think of a better way to spend an hour and a half. I don't know who wrote this, but it's a little too long. And what about the characters? I thought they were all very well played, but the people who played them were a little too distant. The cinematography was good, but the movie needed more dialogue. Overall, this movie is great. It's a "feel good" movie, but not a true "feel good" movie.