Linkshoch
Wonderful Movie
Mjeteconer
Just perfect...
Haven Kaycee
It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film
vitaleralphlouis
Amazing that 60+ years ago the low-budget Monogram Pictures made this Dillinger movie 9 times better than Universal's 2009 sorry looking mess, "Public Enemies." This 1945 movie grabs you from the opening credits and keeps your interest for the entire 70 minutes. That's right, 70 minutes. There's no need to pad this story into a 2 hour + boring mess.To begin with, and all-important, it's true that Lawrence Tierney was born to play Dillinger. He's perfect. Johnny Depp maybe was born to play Jack Sparrow, but he stumbles around looking stupid in the 2009 film.Just everything about the 1945 clicks like clockwork. Just one example is the simple-but-effective shootout at the Biograph Theater. The 2009 film ought get special honors for incredible multiple layers of Bad Film-making 101. In the 1945 gut-level film we have a bored and broke Dillinger taking his girl to the neighborhood movie for a few laughs. In the old days people went in and out of movie theaters all day, not at starting time. Thus when Dillinger steps outside there are just two people leaving, not the 500 marching out in "Public Enemies." So the FBI can easily spray him with bullets without hitting other folks.This fine Monogram Picture can be found on Netflix and other places. No need to settle for today's silly trash.
Spikeopath
John Dillinger (Lawrence Tierney) was an Indiana farm boy who had a thirst for cash, once realising where the cash was, Dillinger rose to become the 1930s public enemy number 1. This portrayal of a man who not only terrified the public, but also captivated them wholesale, benefits from an excellent screenplay courtesy of Philip Yordan. The picture's strength is not in purely aiming for entertainment values in guns and robbery rampage, it begs the questions of what made Dillinger the man he was? Was it an early stint in the big house that marked his life out for him? was his unison with Specs Green merely igniting a murderous rage within? or was Dillinger just a greedy bastard who was rotten to the core?Running at only 70 minutes, and filmed on a "B" movie budget, Dillinger comes out as something of a triumph within the gangster genre. Posing questions and providing moments of genuine unease, it may just be one of the best gangster films that does not starg Cagney, Bogart or Eddy G. Stirring stuff, from a vengeful return to a bar, to the ripper of a finale, Dillinger is to me holding up considerably well in this day and age of pictures over killing violence for violence sake. 7/10
Jem Odewahn
This solid, efficient, very low-budgeted little film deserves to be as well-known as other 1940's "Poverty Row" films such as Ulmer's DETOUR. In fact, it's much better than DETOUR- the King Brothers sense of narrative economy and relentless, fast-paced storytelling make this a compelling ride throughout, while Ulmer's film only really gets interesting once Ann Savage shows up.Tierney is fascinating, frightening and utterly dominating as Dillinger, and he barely even has to raise his voice to do so. Debates still rage over whether or not the real John Dillinger was a Robin Hood style thief or a vicious killer. Tierney plays more towards the vicious killer angle, though his eyes are both suspicious and strangely sad.The film, made for Monogram, was very low budget and it shows. However, this benefits a film like DILLINGER. Set in the Depression and with much of the sequences filmed on location, the film seems to breathe authenticity even if it does take a few liberties with the Dillinger story. The atmosphere Nosseck conveys is dark, foreboding and very noirish.The film is very well-cast, with such unforgettable tough guys like Cianelli and the not-so-tough Elisa Cook Jr filling out the supporting slots. Anne Jeffreys does very well as Dillinger's gun moll and I was pleased that Nosseck's film didn't take the "Hollywood" route and turn events into a love story. The most memorable supporting player, however, is Edmund Lowe as Specs Green. Lowe, a veteran of many films, gets one of his best roles here.I also enjoyed how Nosseck (because, I suppose, due to the Hayes Production Code, but he also cuts away when he has the opportunity to show more violence) cuts away from some of Tierney's most violent acts, such as glassing a waiter and killing a double-crossing gang member with an axe. This narrative efficiency (rather than have a prolonged scene of a man screaming in agony he cuts away, then back again) and sense of letting the audience think for themselves is seldom seen in today's graphic, blood-and-guts cinema. It's a pity more film-makers don't look towards this film and the King Brothers later brilliant effort GUN CRAZY (one of the seminal pictures of the 1940's) for lessons on how to make a tough, raw crime pic with very little fuss and a hell of a lot of bite.
ccthemovieman-1
This movie has several big things going for it: its short, fast-moving and just plain entertaining. How much more do you want? Also, Lawrence Tierney was made for gangster/film noir movies. He looks the part, acts the part, and was a thug in real life, too. Who better than to portray famous criminal John Dillinger as a cold-blooded killer? This was Tierney's starring debut and it was a good vehicle for him. I also enjoyed Edmund Lowe as the gang boss prior to Tierney taking over. I enjoyed the supporting cast, too: Anne Jeffreys, Elisha Cook Jr., Eduardo Cianelli and Marc Lawrence. All of them add to this film.I was glad they concentrated on the crime part of the film and didn't go crazy with a sappy romance. However, I am sorry Jeffreys wasn't on screen more often. She had the '40s look, if I ever saw it.
