Dillinger (1945)

Very well executed

Pretty Good

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

There's a saying: don't cross that line, meaning that at that point you've gone too far. Well, in this movie the title character, John Dillinger, not only crosses lines but obliterates them. Apparently John Dillinger did not know the meaning of the word "caution". Nor was impulse control part of his package. This movie takes some liberties with the facts pertaining to the life of the actual John Dillinger, but otherwise succeeds in conveying the driving force that shaped his character - a propensity for violence. To the movie's credit, the violence is not glorified, but neither is it denigrated. It is presented as being part of American society. Dillinger lives in a society that allows him access to a wide range of lethal weapons, including bombs. Dillinger is portrayed as an angry fellow with a chip on his shoulder. He has issues with interpersonal relations and his conduct is thoroughly reprehensible. Yet, paradoxically, Dillinger is not a monster. He wants to live the good life too, except that after awhile nobody wants anything to do with him. He's a reject and knows it. The actual John Dillinger was a Navy veteran who was dishonorably discharged. That part of his life is not included in the movie. He also had a troubled childhood, at an early age revealing problems which would persist into adulthood, with lethal consequences. One thing about Dillinger: as a bank robber he was fearless. There was no bank too big or too well guarded that he would not want to rob. But in the process of robbing these banks he was quick with the gun and because of that a lot of people, including police officers, got hurt. This movie gives a chilling portrait what happens when an emotionally maladjusted individual gains access to lethal weapons.

I am not saying that "Dillinger" is a brilliant or must-see film, but it definitely was unusual for 1945 and way ahead of its time. In addition, I was completely amazed that such a production could come from crappy old Monogram Studios. You just don't expect such a well-crafted film from such a lowly production company.Before I go on, I should point out a major problem with the film. Although it's supposed to be the story of the most-wanted bank robber, John Dillinger, the filmmakers did very little to get the facts right. In general, it is his life--but only in general. The early portion of his life before he went to prison was totally wrong and it only got a bit better as the film progressed.How, then, can I give an inaccurate film an 8--especially when I normally jump all over films because of historical inaccuracy? Well, it's because the film lacked the sentimentality and clichés you normally saw in films of the day. Instead, it's direct, blunt and a bit cruel for 1945. Now it is NOT an ultra-violent film in the style of "Bonny and Clyde"--it always seems to pull away from the most violent scenes when something REALLY violent is about to occur. But the film is still pretty brutal for its day and entertaining--and a nice bit of film noir. Lawrence Tierney did a great job in playing the lead so coldly and the script, while inaccurate, was great. I just didn't understand why the film LOOKED like 1945--especially when Dillinger died in 1934. I assume it was simply because cheap old Monogram didn't want to pay to get the look just right.By the way, near the end of the film you get a VERY brief look at Santa's face. What is with him?! He looks like Leatherface or something!!

This film bears about as close a relation to the facts of Dillinger's life as Arthur Penn's "Bonnie and Clyde" did to that other set of outlaws. It's amazing that a film made about a decade after the historical events could play so loosely with the truth, when the audience would no doubt remember the real story.It's also a cheap production, with re-usable sets, bad rear projections, and the substitution of California scenery for the Midwest of the story. The acting isn't bad, but the script feels more like a set of snapshots being flipped as fast as a deck of cards.John Milius (who did his own Dillinger pic in the 70s) does a commentary on the DVD, which is interesting, but he's also unsure of many facts in the story. May I recommend the book "Dillinger's Wild Ride" if you'd like a historical, documented account.

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.