Watch Dillinger For Free

Very disappointing...

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

As primarily character actors, you don't get many chances to catch Warren Oates and Ben Johnson at the top of a bill, but they get the opportunity here in this Seventies gangster romp featuring many of the top hoodlum names of the era. My instincts tell me that most of this story was probably fictitious, and without the time or inclination to check out the details, I'll just say that it was an entertaining flick if you go for this kind of stuff.The film opens with an 'Introducing' Michelle Phillips credit, an early picture for the former Mamas and Papas singer. Though third billed right after the nominal stars of the picture, I didn't get a sense that she had a major impact on the story, even though she wound up as John Dillinger's (Oates) moll following his virtual kidnap of her in a run down barroom. She certainly didn't find herself in league with the era's infamous Bonnie and Clyde pair, though she did manage to squeeze off a few effective machine gun rounds in the latter part of the story.There's some interesting casting for Dillinger's associates, folks like Harry Dean Stanton as Homer Van Meter, Geoffrey Lewis as Harry Pierpont, and a young Richard Dreyfuss aptly chosen as Lester 'Baby Face' Nelson. That scene where Dillinger works over the fresh mouthed Nelson was one of those instances that didn't ring true to me. If it happened, I'm surprised Nelson would have stuck around.The coolest scene in my estimation took place right after Dillinger maneuvered his way out of the Lake County Jail, freeing Reed Youngblood (Frank McRae) and grabbing a guard and the warden for a brief period as hostages. As they make good their escape, Dillinger has his driver pull over so he can rob a bank! That I believe, is what they call chutzpah!

John Milius directed this biographical drama that portrays 1930's outlaw and bank robber John Dillinger(played by Warren Oates) as he rises from obscurity to become public enemy number one, the most wanted man by the FBI led by determined agent Melvin Purvis(played by Ben Johnson) who wants Dillinger in particular because several FBI agents were killed after his last heist. Dillinger leads a gang whose members include outlaws with such colorful names like Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson. His days are numbered by the time he leaves the movie theater on that fateful day... Filmed before with Lawrence Tierney, this version is just a bit too crude, though the two leads are fine.

G-man Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson) chases bank robber John Dillinger (Warren Oates) high and low, in this Depression-era action flick that's heavy on gunfights and short on character development. Throughout the film, a herd of other public enemies, including Harry Pierpont, Homer Van Meter, Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd, among others, stampede the plot, diverting us away from Dillinger the man. It's as if all these hoodlums suddenly exploded on the scene, without benefit of a childhood or motivation of any kind, and one of these hoodlums just happened to be Dillinger.Multiple shootouts go on and on and on. Bang, bang, bang ... dying bodies jerk, squirm, twitch, and lurch, with lots of blood. Antiquated autos zoom away at twenty miles an hour, tip over, crash, and blow-up. And Purvis smokes lots of cigars.Another irritation is the casting of Warren Oates. He looks way too old to play Dillinger. An unknown, younger actor would have been more convincing.On the other hand, the film's color cinematography and terrific production design create an authentic 1930s look and feel, helped along by era songs, like "Red River Valley" and "Happy Days Are Here Again". The outdoor scenes, especially, with those dirt roads and cheap frame rural houses, convey a dreary, lonesome, forlorn mood, totally in keeping with the poverty and hopelessness of that period.My impression of this film is similar to that of the more recent Dillinger film "Public Enemies" (2009). Both films lack focus on Dillinger. Both get carried away with action. And both do a great job with the Depression-era style. That is to say, in "Public Enemies" and in "Dillinger", the strength is the visuals; the weakness is mainly the script.

Had I one dollar for every burst of machine gun fire then I'd be a rich man. The actors in this film are talented people with good resumes, but that it the only positive comment I can make about this film. Cheap, trashy exploitation that wants us to feel sympathetic for John Dillinger.In these types of movies I am amazed at the gall of the director. In scene after scene Dillinger is involved in machine gun battles with police, and yet he is never touched. While the film might be somewhat accurate from a historical perspective, I am fairly certain that the gun battles did not take place as brazenly as the film suggests. There is no way that a person could stand in the open without cover, and have numerous police officers firing at them from a close distance and not get hit. While it might make for good action scenes, it defies reality. And the was also no attempt to explain the love interest between Dillinger and his "moll". One minute they meet, and the next she is his woman. Perhaps they could have shortened the gun battles and fleshed out the romantic entanglements a little.