Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

GManfred The part of John Dillinger must have been red meat for Lawrence Tierney, the baddest of Hollywood's bad boys. A notorious brawler and sociopath, Tierney seems the embodiment of the erstwhile Public Enemy #1 and plays it to the hilt. This was his first starring turn and is remarkably at his ease in the part. In all subsequent roles he was belligerent and humorless, and I can't recall ever seeing him crack a smile."The Lad In Red" is lovely Anne Jeffreys, and the gang members are all familiar faces; Elisha Cook, Jr., Eduardo Cianelli, Marc Lawrence, and in a change from his normally sophisticated roles, Edmund Lowe as the gang leader. The picture is very entertaining and was made by Monogram, a charter member of Poverty Row. Here they've pulled out all the stops and produced a top notch gangster flick. If you're a fan of 'cops and robbers' movies you won't be disappointed. I've put my star rating in the heading as the website no longer prints them.

brucewhain Things like this are usually better if they stick more or less to known facts. In this case it's so garbled that it's difficult to tell exactly what these peoples' intentions were.Dillinger is a cartoon character with limited social graces and seldom without some inept business or something awkward to say. It would have been nice - and seems to me particularly film-worthy - to include the part about the amazing plastic surgery that enabled him to avoid capture for a while. But then Wikipedia doesn't include that either, sticking strictly to a well known "after" (as opposed to "before") picture, to ensure implementation of their propaganda goals. Ditto this movie as to intentions.The result is that the requisite gratuitous violence is so implausible it turns into a cartoon, about a mild-mannered guy who goes around shooting a lot of people without explanation. The criminal characters are so gaseous and dull! Except the one mentor guy, but he's not believable either, due to the stilted Affekt of almost every line and directorial detail. Of course all their names have been changed... to protect the guilty, I suppose.In real life it was not his long-time squeeze but a hooker working for the FBI that finally lured him into the staked out movie theater. It took her about a year as I recall from reading about 10 years ago. The intentions of the present cinematic squeeze are garbled as well in this regard. (To protect the innocent?) And he didn't die in a pile of back ally garbage, but right in the middle of the sidewalk: Great, if your intentions are in the lines of gruesome noirishness.There's certainly little that's sinister or noirish about it.

winner55 By no means true t the actual story of famed bank-robber John Dillinger, but may be true to the personality of the man. Tierney plays Dillinger unromantically as an unredeemable sociopath completely obsessed with getting money on his own terms. His depiction of Dillinger's transformation from punk wannabe to actual cold-hearted thug is completely believable. The supporting cast is all tops, especially Lowe and Elisha Cook Jr. in his best bad-guy performance. The cheap sets, integration of stock-footage, location shooting are all surprisingly effective - only some of the back-screen effects are weak. The script is demandingly tight but both the cast and the director are up for it - despite the fact that the story spreads across some 15 years, it moves right along, intent only on depiction of the high-points of its theme. It's an intentional throw-back to the Warner Bros. gangster films of the early thirties, which makes it top-of-the-line of a wave of crime B-mellers in the late '40s (also dominated by Warner Bros., which studio apparently insisted on this film losing the Academy Award for Best Screenplay, and which, with further irony, now owns its rights). And its hard to imagine a film that makes so much use of violence without any graphic depiction of it.A true gem of American B-movie history.

RanchoTuVu A brief and pointed bio pic on a tight budget, which dictated a fast and efficient manner, but from a director who knew how to organize the story in an intriguing way where we see Dillinger (Lawrence Tierney) and his gang (Elisha Cook Jr. and Edmund Lowe, among others) both on the job robbing banks (above average scenes) and hiding out (way above average) thanks to the screenplay that captures the internal tension of a group constantly on the run. It's a stellar 40's version of a 30's gangster film, with double crossing and cheating lurking behind a lot of the action, and a couple of very well cast against type characters in Edmund Lowe as Specs and Anne Jeffries as Dillinger's wayward girlfriend.