L'Ennemi public n° 1

I loved Killer Instinct, the best film I've seen in 2010, perhaps in the last few years. Vincent Cassel is stupendous at Jacques Mesrine, a brutal and bold bank robber with an ego that would intimidate Sigmund Freud. In Public Enemy, Mesrine's ego continues its meteoric growth, but his character development stagnates. And that's what makes Part 2 not as good as Part 1.

Part 2 is simply entertainment for those who enjoyed Mesrine's bravado in Killer Instinct. Bold escapes and robberies, shoot em ups, etc. But without any character growth--and a pseudo- revolutionary mindset does not ring authentic--you come away thinking that you've seen this before and done better in Part 1. In fact, with a little thought, parts 1 & 2 could have been merged to make one heckuva movie at a longer than average length.

But it's still worth watching and, in fact, worth purchasing. Go Vincent Cassel.

'It's pronounced may-reen!' Jacques barks at a police officer for mispronouncing his name while recording a statement for one of his latest misdemeanours. Jacques now claims his crimes are politically motivated, but if anything, they have become less a means to an end than an end in themselves. Sustaining his role as France's number one outlaw becomes a vocation in itself.

As his weight increases, so too do his risks. He starts a tradition of stealing from one bank then immediately stealing from another; he cheekily goes incognito to a police station to obtain information they have about him; and he even kidnaps a judge whilst on trial for yet another bank robbery.

It can't have been an easy thing for the director to capture or for Cassel to personify, but what is impressive about this modern-day Robin Hood is that no matter how bad he gets he is never quite an Al Capone or a John Dillinger. But it's not long before his inner Mr Hyde resurfaces – this time with catastrophic consequences.

Jacques arranges an interview with a policeman-turned-journalist, but it's a set-up, for Jacques confronts him about negative coverage he has given him. What ensues is a highly graphic display of violence. It proves to be one crime too far and prompts the minister of the interior to order police forces to hunt him down.

Jacques's vulnerability is exposed in a number of emotional scenes, especially one with his father. When questioned about why he does what he does, there is a heavily pregnant pause before a powerful soliloquy, 'I don't like laws… I won't dream my life away, and I won't pass every store thinking: that'll cost me 10 months' work'.

The brilliance of these two films is that both flagrantly show Jacques's demise in their opening scene. However, you either ignore this fact or convince yourself it is not real; testimony no doubt to the allure of the main character and the manner in which his story his conveyed.

'Death is nothing to someone who knows how to live.' This matter-of-fact proclamation from Jacques sums up his philosophy from the beginning. Forget politics, forget justice, forget morality. None of these were his motives. Crime was the motive and an addiction to crime was his punishment. Jacques Mesrine always knew that once dead he would be 'guilty of nothing'. And I for one agree.

www.scottishreview.net

I think it's common knowledge how the film ends, but I won't divulge for those that don't know. Public Enemy No. 1 is far more action packed and seems far more 'Hollywood' than the comparatively quieter 'Killer Instinct' - unsurprising though, considering it's the business end of the Mesrine story.

Cassel is the driving force behind the whole film, without him it would have been an average to good film - with him it's good to great.

I don't know where everyone stands as far as the real life Mesrine goes - hero or villain. I certainly put myself in the villain camp, and so does Cassel and it shows.

From the offset we see that all though Mesrine can speak passionately, lucidly and 'rabble rousingly' it is always characterised by an impenetrably brash and brazen arrogance which is NEVER counterbalanced with any vulnerability to make the character more endearing. Jacques Mesrine's inherent evil is often masked by a jocular bravado and his monologues justifying his way of life are mesmerising - but you're never convinced enough to actually like him. Therein lies Cassel's greatest achievement in the film - to create a character for which all you can feel is antipathy but nevertheless to find him intriguing enough to carry on watching.

Certainly, he does afford us some light touches. I smiled as he boasted at the beginning of the film of being Public Enemy Number 1; his face being Gallic nonchalance personified, as well as the scene of him and his accomplice Francois Besse (played by Mathieu Almaric) trying to cross a river.

Besse provides a solid sidekick for Mesrine to flourish, telling Mesrine that they are not 'luminaries' soon after Mesrine's interview where he tries to elevate himself to hero status with the most simplistic of demagogic arguments: "I don't like laws and I don't want to be a slave to those laws in perpetuity" (to paraphrase).

I do have some small criticisms, such as Anne Consigny's (who incidentally appeared with Almaric in 'Wild Grass', 'A Christmas Tale' and 'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly') unconvincing role as Mesrine's corrupt solicitor. Her face seems just too honest.

That petty criticism aside I'd give the film 7.5/10, giving the benefit of the doubt it's an IMDb 8.

All in all, i highly enjoyable and competent work from Richet, he truly captured Mesrine animal like charisma, his rebellious and determined character, his savagery and his sense of humor. Cassel did a amazing job as well, he's so impressive, funny and scary, idealist and cynical, he really brings it all on screen. One really as to salute Richet's accomplishment here, the pressure on him was huge, Mesrine is truly France's "Scarface" (only here it's for real !), known by all and fascinating as hell, i mean the guy was a superstar, a media freak who wonderfully played with the media to get some kind of support from the population and ridicule the system and the government, and he almost reached his goals! Now i just cant wait for the BR to arrive, so i can watch both movies consecutively and confirm my first impression, which is that Richet has done something huge, exiting and impressive, un coup de maître if you will !

Last Month, I commented Mesrine Part One: "L'Instinct de Mort".

Now, there is Part Two.

This movie is as terrific and exciting as the previous one. The characterization as fascinating and poignant too. Cassel gives here his best performance ever. Whatever he will do in the future, he will never do better. He has reached here the top of his career.

I'll just describe one sequence. Somewhere the equivalent of the one I gave you for the previous chapter. Remember, when Cassel and Depardieu took a woman protector - an Arab - for a "ride" in their car.

Here, in this movie, Cassel and his anarchist, revolutionary and extreme left winged friend Lanvin - Charlie Bauer - take a journalist for a ride in their car, too. An extreme right winged one. A fascist. So, when the journalist in question tells the two men that the Algerians deserved to be killed in Paris, in 1961, and thrown in the Seine by Papon's policemen, don't miss Lanvin's eyes in the rear mirror. Don't miss his face. Especially when you already know that Lanvin -Bauer - fought for free Algeria, and that he hates fascists to the death.

At this moment, you understand that this journalist - who also told in his papers that Mesrine was a traitor for his friends and a coward too - was going to live some "difficult" moments...

So delicious to witness in the audience, I mean.

And about the very ending, the last shot of this film, I promise that every one in the theatre stays still some minutes afterwards. Stroke by lightning. Even if every one is prepared for it.

Just one more little last thing, but with great importance. In real life Jacques Mesrine had a very little voice, not a woman's voice, but the voice of an ordinary, gentle, harmless blue collar worker asking for a cup of coffee at the local café round the corner. Mesrine's face - not eyes, face - was the common ordinary French red neck, that's the reason why he could easily disguise himself and being hidden in the middle of a crowd. Only his eyes were not common. HIS EYES were themselves a war path, a milkyway of violence and brutality, merciless and will of revenge and destruction. The previous film, made in 1983, and starring Nicolas Silberg, was a good movie, but not as sharp nor ambitious as these two made in a row. Silberg was though more like Mesrine than Cassel, I mean his face. And Silberg had a rough voice, adequate to his physique, despite the fact that Mesrine had NOT a rough voice. So, the funny thing is that Silberg was more Mesrine than Mesrine himself !!!!

Weird and confusing, I admit. And rare too.