User reviews

*REVIEW OF BOTH PARTS*

There is a short paragraph that opens both "Mesrine" films; the exact wording escapes me, but it says something like "no film can accurately portray the complexities of a human life". This seems to be a pre-emptive defense, as if Richet anticipates criticism for a lack of depth or some glaring omissions. After all, Jacques Mesrine is apparently still a famous name in France, and his public persona lives on. If even half his supposed exploits were true, the story would still be crying out for a definitive dramatisation. As such, Richet has wisely avoided making any real ethical judgements of Mesrine's character, focusing instead on the sex, violence and publicity that he thrived upon. But it's Vincent Cassel's committed and exuberant performance that develops this meat-and-potatoes content into an unbiased character study of excess and, over all, a very fine pair of movies.

"Mesrine" may not seem to be particularly even-handed at first because of the glamour, the wisecracks, and the endless charisma, all of which are drawn from the rich stylistic tradition of the Gangster Movie, and used very skilfully in its favour. The fast pace of the story ensures we are either seduced or repulsed by the central character, and rarely anywhere in between. Sympathy or pity is irrelevant, and he is too brutal and trigger-happy to be rooted for as a regular protagonist. The first film is the slicker of the two, and the more visually satisfying due to the wonderfully stylish recreation of early 60s Paris (and elsewhere). Cassel plays Mesrine with youthful vigour here. He's all style and brash confidence, as endearing a wiseguy as any of Scorcese's characters. It's "Goodfellas", in fact, that "Killer Instinct" is most reminiscent of, with its sharp-suited mobsters (including a brilliantly grizzled Gerard Depardieu) and episodic year-hopping narrative.

By the half-way point, Mesrine is still something of an enigma. It's only in "Public Enemy No. 1" that the pace slows down and we can see, through a few intimate and contemplative scenes, what he has sacrificed to live as a superlative criminal. "I wasn't much of a son, I'm not much of a father either." he says, while in disguise visiting his own ailing father in hospital. He gradually alienates his closest friends and accomplices by trying to maintain the outlandish public profile he cultivated, rambling pseudo-revolutionary politics to journalists and threatening to kill judges and destroy all maximum security prisons. The "Goodfellas" ensemble of the first part becomes the isolated, ego-driven "Scarface" of the second as Cassel skilfully matures his character into a man resigned to the fate he knows must be coming.

The over all impression left by "Mesrine" is that it manages to land successfully between crime thriller, gangster saga and character study. This is achieved by the virtue of a standout central performance, as well as Richet's shrewd application of an American film-making style to a very French story. It ought to go down among the top crime dramas of the decade, or at the very least raise the (already decent) international profile of its impressive leading man.

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.

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.

Although living in France I hardly speak it so was confined to reading subtitles. You have to see this movie in French though, it's as French as it can be. But, it's French as good as it can be. Hearing it in French makes it all the better. It's been a long time that such a good crime gangster movie was made. The realism level is amazing. If a car crashes into something else, it get's damaged, not like in your average American crime movie where the most ridiculous turns and jumps are made and they keep on driving like nothing happened. The shooting is realistic, shoot to kill but it's not that easy in all the excitement to hit something. It's the ugly truth about a live gone wrong. You start with feeling for the main character due to the circumstances but soon you'll end up on the other side, detesting his being, but that makes you all the more nailed to your seat to see what happens next. Gangster pure sang, which, of course, meets his end like it supposed to. I won't give anything away as that would take away your experience when you watch the movie, and watch it you must!

Jacques Mesrine (Cassel)one of France most notorious criminals, Wanted for murder and robbery. Easily escaping from every maximum prison thrown at him. He was certainly a colourful character. This amazing two part film literally blew me away. The action, characters and plot are all well thought out and directed by Jean-François Richet (Assault on precinct 13). In many ways his life mirrors that of john Dillinger's (Public Enemy) who was also a publicly acclaimed Anti-hero. As you follow the troubled front man, you start to understand that he had more in his sights then smash and grab hold ups.

Vincent Cassel is brilliant as the "honest bandit". I decided to watch part one (Killer Instinct) after that, I couldn't get enough of this rather vivid bio. Both parts of the story are equally as strong; the first being may be more accessible then the latter. But for the full effect I recommend you watch it back-to-back. It's a roller-coaster ride that leaves you wanting more.

But as the dust settles and Mesrine accepts his inevitable decline "If you are listening to this, then I have been sent to a cell, for which there is no escape" simply amazing cinema! Reviewer: Joshua Roberts For more weekly reviews go to www.crazyaboutfilm.com

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.

In 1973, Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) is back in France with a new robbery crew and new girlfriend Sylvia Jeanjacquot (Ludivine Sagnier). They are arrested but he escapes during court. He continues his criminal activities until police detective Broussard tracks him down. He's finally put in prison. He reconnects with his daughter and writes a book about his exploits. He befriends fellow inmate François Besse (Mathieu Amalric) and with others, escapes once again. He starts courting the media as a revolutionary. He kidnaps billionaire Henri Lelièvre and finally in 1979, he is gunned down in an ambush.

Vincent Cassel is great. This is a string of chaos and crimes. It's insane that he keeps escaping. It's violence and crimes without relief. It's not really a glossy crime drama but it does not let up. Again like Part 1, I would suggest a better medium for the material would be television. It allows the characters to breathe and the story to build.

'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

Filmed back-to-back and released a month apart, the two movies chronicling the violent, exciting life of French bank robber Jacques Mesrine were undoubtedly meant to be a high point in the careers of both director (Jean-François Richet) and star (Vincent Cassel). At least, that was the case with the first installment, Death Instinct; the follow-up, Public Enemy Number 1, isn't quite as accomplished.

It starts exactly like Part One, with the scene of Mesrine's death, only this time we're shown the reactions of the public as well, especially that of a police office named Broussard (Olivier Gourmet). We then go back in time to witness Mesrine's multiple criminal acts, arrests, trials and successful escapes. In fact, one could almost say he gets caught on purpose in order to plan a stunning break-out. During one of his lengthier stays in prison, he befriends another crook, Jean-François Besse (Mathieu Amalric, Bond's adversary in Quantum of Solace), and once the two are out of jail they form a nearly perfect team alongside Mesrine's new wife Sylvie (Ludivine Sagnier). Too bad good old Jacques has been declared the French nation's biggest menace, which effectively authorizes Broussard and his team to take him down if necessary.

The title, which is obviously taken from the real-life scenario but could just as well be a homage to William Wellman's celebrated gangster picture, would appear to indicate the film is tonally similar to Death Instinct. It isn't. Whereas the first part was a dark crime film, the conclusion is a lighter deal, a caper, so to say, in the same vein as Steven Soderbergh's Ocean's trilogy (in which, coincidentally, Cassel had a pretty important role). Perhaps it was a deliberate choice to make the second chapter more fun, an ironic contrast of sorts to the bleak ending, but as a result the picture comes off as less interesting from a psychological point of view. Amalric, in particular, while delivering a charismatic performance, isn't given a proper chance to develop his character like Cassel was able to in Death Instinct. As for the leading man himself, his work is still riveting, but even he suffers from the lighter mood and lack of focus (he's still the best reason to watch the movie, though).

Nonetheless, the film moves at an acceptable pace, showcasing good set-pieces and giving Richet the opportunity to switch genres within the same movie. It doesn't quite work as expected, but the mess he handles is still a lot of fun, even if not truly worthy of a figure as complex and fascinating as Jacques Mesrine. Well, at least he's always got the first installment to look back on fondly.

6,5/10

Mesrine was both a Reniassance man and a sociopath. H cooks wonderfully, loves fine wine and good cigars, as well as fancy women. But he is absolutely ruthless. When he creeps into the hospital to see his dying father, you wonder "What went wrong?" Was the father too strict? Not strict enough? Mesrine obviously had a death wish as he courts his death with flair and imagination.

He loves the media, and is loved in return. Unlike the complicit media who lied about Pat Tillman's death at the hands of members of his own company and infuriated his family, Mesrine and Paris Match are on the same page. To see how gentle he is with the family he takes hostage, and how he doesn't desert the other crook who has been shot in the leg, shows you that this murderer has many facets to his character.

As I looked up the history of the right-wing writer they leave for dead, I was amused to see a video of him from his hospital bed, and he is very handsome, much more so than the bland actor portraying him. Mesrine, au contraire, is much handsomer than the real Mesrine. But , like many movies about famous people, I am left empty wishing there was more substance to the causal factors in his life.

Nonetheless, I am buying both to see again.

'Mesrine: Killer Instinct' (2008) and 'Mesrine: Public Enemy No. 1' (2008) are two great films filmed back-to-back telling the life and crimes of legendary French criminal Jacques Mesrine. I'd never heard of him before these films came out but it seems he was a bit of a cult figure during the 60's and 70's, mainly due to his outrageous bank robberies and prison breaks.

'Mesrine: Killer Instinct' (2008) The first film shows his rise (descent?) into the criminal world and is the better of the two. Vincent Cassel is brilliant in the title role and Gérard Depardieu was also surprisingly good as a gangster boss. It all looks and feels authentic. The only criticism is that it occasionally feels a bit rushed as it jumps from location to location and exploit to exploit. Although this made sections a bit episodic it means the film is fast paced and always exciting/entertaining.

'Mesrine: Public Enemy No. 1' (2008) The second film follows on from the first but as with any crime biopic (Blow, Goodfellas etc) the second half of the story is slower and not as much fun, as Mesrine suffers the consequences of his actions including estranged family members, more prison and ultimately his death. However the second film is still good, especially the final scenes which tie in brilliantly with the opening scenes of the first film.

Overall a great double bill – especially when you consider I watched them both back-to-back and was never bored or restless (even at a total time of over 3hrs 40mins).

Once gain directed by Jean-François Richet, Mesrine: Public Enemy No.1 (Part 2) continues on from Mesrine: Killer Instinct (Part 1) the outlaw odyssey of Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel), the legendary French gangster of the 1960s and 1970s who came to be known as French Public Enemy No. 1 and The Man of a Thousand Faces. Essentially, this film focuses on the latter half of Mesrine's life, based on Mesrine's memoirs. Whereas the first film focused on Mesrine's rise from the average joe to a big time criminal, this film shows the events after Mesrine has been declared Public Enemy No.1 in France, and then his eventual demise. (My review of Part 1 is here.) In this film, Mesrine appears to have gained some weight and seems to be balding. He is also at the height of his game and notoriety. He has been playing the media, which has been labeling him a "Robin Hood," of sorts. Meanwhile, he has been declared "Public Enemy No.1" in France. One can guess that things will start to go downhill for him. As indicated in the first film, Mesrine will eventually be gunned down.

The visuals are grittier this time around, more modern, and much of the action takes place in the city. As opposed to the deep reds and greens of the first film, the modern environment is more gray with contrasts. The first film felt more "old school" Hollywood. It is more modern here. We now see more sideburns.

My complaint for the first film was that it felt episodic and crammed together as we watched Mesrine going from one caper to the next across a span of many years, sometimes almost like a documentary. This time, the film takes place mostly in the 70's and a less condensed period of time. The pacing is noticeably more even. More importantly, we also get to see more aspects of Mesrine's personality, his thoughts, and there are occasional contemplative scenes. If the first film was more action-driven, this one feels more character-driven.

Vincent Cassel is terrific as usual playing Mesrine, and here, he is now the man people know him for, he is more comfortable in his skin, confident, and has more wisecracks to dish out. Proud of his growing notoriety and his ability to manipulate the media, Mesrine appears to be having a lot of fun here as well as Cassel playing him. Olivier Gourmet plays Le commissaire Broussard, who is leading a task force to apprehend Mesrine. Broussard and Mesrine appear to have a respectful mutual understanding of each other. Broussard appears relaxed and fairly controlled most of the time, and compared to the vast emotional range of Mesrine, Broussard can feel a bit two dimensional. Matthieu Amalric is terrific as the bulgy-eyed French criminal named François Besse, a master of prison-escapes, whom Mesrine befriends in prison. After helping Mesrine escape, Besse and Mesrine begin working together in their heists. Besse is essentially the opposite of Mesrine--he is efficient, intelligent, lacks showmanship, and takes his work more seriously. There's a revealing moment in the film where Mesrine argues with Besse about their end goals.

Mesrine has also gotten a new woman, Sylvia (Ludivine Sagnier), who becomes a bit of a Bonnie to his Clyde in his heists. There's a bit of familiar glamour and lightness to the film when they dress up and start spending the money away. Cue the happy music and the lady trying on expensive hats. As in the first film, these moments are contrasted with Mesrine's violent side. The darkest moment in the film is when Mesrine's partners up with the politically radical Charlie Bauer (Gerard Lanvin) and kidnaps and tortures a journalist who had written unflattering things about him. The scene is harsh and gritty.

Ultimately, the film's greatest asset is still Vincent Cassel's amazing performance and believability. The action scenes and the progression of events are solidly directed by Jean-François Richet. Admittedly, this film still feels rather episodic like the first film. But, it is deeper. A good, solid cap to the 2-part series.

*** 1/2 out of **** stars You can also follow my movie reviews on http://twitter.com/d_art

Public Enemy Number One changes tacts in the 2009 double-bill chronicling notorious French gangster Jacques Mesrine, in that where the first was interested in detailing the rise and rise of the man, with hierarchy dominating the subject matter as well as the creating of his reputation; this edition is focused more on the tale of a gangster situated at the top of his game as well as the top of the state's hate list, hence the title, as an air of inevitability in dramatic decline begins to creep in. Cassel is back as Mesrine and playing him as the man whom ages into this somewhat grotesque, bearded, balding, overweight individual with delusions he's beaten mostly everyone up to this point and thus, is able to do mostly anything he wishes in winning any feud he instigates. The title refers to the name the state tagged onto him as Mesrine evaded capture; incarceration; thieved and terrorised to the point a 'shoot to kill' tactic had to be deployed. Since most of their primary methods were rendered futile due to the man's seeming invulnerability to being held down in a prison, a more blood thirsty tactic was forced into being deployed. As the state appear to step up their tactics and actions, Mesrine comes across as winding down as age and apparent psychological state catch up with him in that ideas of new plateaus such as politics and guerrilla warfare onto which he'll move begin to fill his head.

If Killer Instinct was more to do with building a man up, this film is concerned with knocking him down; the first film allowing us to form our own opinion of him as he engaged in all this immoral activity but director Jean-François Richet refraining from painting an overly hateful image of him. When Mesrine appeared to engage in a violent act for the first time in Killer Instinct, it was against a pimp whom had beaten a woman up, rendering said fight against a sleazy; woman hating; sex industry working individual. Here, Richet drops us into an early instigation of violence as we observe Mesrine in a courthouse facing sentencing; but, and after a brief allusion to The Godfather, is soon shooting up police officers and taking a judge hostage as he escapes in what is a sequence of violence solely designed to turn us away from him as he does what he does; this, rather than paint an imbalanced portrait such as previously. Richet gradually veers us away from this figure of Mesrine, deliberately alienating us from him as the end nears, in savage beatings of hapless helpless journalists; the kidnapping and threatening of rich old men in their 80s for ransoms and a particularly gross montage right nearer the end in which Mesrine and fresh squeeze Sylvie Jeanjacquot (Sagnier) indulge in mass spending with ill-gotten money as wallowing in the purchasing of brand new cars and expensive diamonds gradually force us into turning on them.

Director Richet paces this alienation wonderfully, only very gradually taking this character away from the audience before the inevitable comes to a hilt. If Killer Instinct was all about telling a story about a criminal flying all over the place and whose tales became dangerously entertaining and engaging as we wanted those around him, on several occasions, to fail in their apprehension; Public Enemy Number One is all about rendering Mesrine oafish and as if nothing more than a middle aged thug with a school playground mentality. When we begin, he's still up to his old tricks in robbing a bank before holding up another across the street for the thrill of it; in hiring a boxer he meets to act as the driver for another escapade, whom is apprehended before the plan can play out, and the consequent getaway which very nearly kills Mesrine and his second accomplice whom himself argues and walks away from Mesrine, we get the feeling the wheels are beginning to come off.

Mesrine's chief criminal relationship is with another French criminal named François Besse, played by Mathieu Amalric. Besse is a quiet voice of reason amidst an inaccurate growing sense of invulnerability; the first night they break out of prison sees Mesrine bring over two women for sex and drugs, despite their faces being all over the news; whilst on another occasion, the venturing into a police station in disguise feels like a discerning act too far, and we relate to Besse as his facial expressions; tone and body language begin to mirror our own. Again, a sense of deliberate alienation creeps in on a number of occasions. The relationship hits a hilt when Besse questions Mesrine's mindset and philosophies, and the distinction between a man on a criminal ladder engaging in hierarchical struggle to that of someone veering more and more away from this life is established. Mesrine's admittance to this new existence and new found sense of life pushes him away from what it was he was in the first film, disobeying and betraying the demands of the genre; a rule breaking which costs him. While not as good as the first film detailing Mesrine's exploits, Public Enemy Number One offers an effective change of tact in covering the man's dangerous, brooding, cut and thrust life; culminating in a sequence which carries the lonesome air of inevitability as the packed, bustling Parisian streets act as the setting for the finale. As a matching set of engaging, powerhouse film-making; Richet's Mesrine double bill certainly delivers.

MESRINE: PUBLIC ENEMY #1 is a sequel, or actually Part II of MESRINE: KILLER INSTINCT. It is important to note this fact because for the casual viewer who picks up this DVD first there will w a lot of background story missing. Apparently there is somewhat of a cult of Mesrine devotees, so powerful was his image as the most devious criminal of the 1960s -1970s in France. Or perhaps it is the media that makes criminals like Charles Manson, Bonnie and Clyde, John Gotti, Al Capone, John Dillinger etc etc 'heros' to the public. But if examining the lives of such beings entertains you then this film may register.

Apparently the first film in this biopic showed the development of Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) as he becomes a bank robber, kidnapper, jail breaker, etc, but this film starts with Mesrine in court form which he escapes and then proceeds to rob banks and kill people and eventually end up believing in his own grandeur as Public Enemy #1. The film was written by Abdel Raouf Dafri and director Jean-François Richet who obviously are more concerned with setting up ambushes and escapes and robberies than with character development. The is one well-written scene in the film - Mesrine sneaking into a hospital where his father (Michel Duchaussoy) is dying that is true drama, but the rest is rather uncontrolled raucous crime. Vincent Cassel is such a fine actor that he is able to bring to life this atrocious character (having not seen Part 1 leaves any advantage that film may have given to his character development and why this actor suddenly has a beer gut, etc). He is abetted by Ludivine Sagnier as his pickup girlfriend Sylvia, Mathieu Almaric (another very fine French actor) as his accomplice François Besse, Samuel Le Bihan, Gérard Lanvin, Olivier Gourmet, and Georges Wilson.

The film is overly long (133 minutes) to tolerate all action/no story, but one factor remains: Vincent Cassel's performance is intriguing, right up to his grisly death scene. Not for the faint of heart or for viewers who appreciate a script with a story.

Grady Harp

I ended the review of "Death Instinct" with the following statement: "Mesrine cared enough to leave a legacy that he wrote it himself. That a film was adapted from it says it all, and that one movie wasn't enough to cover everything says even more".

Now, I realized that even two movies couldn't actually do 'justice' to the self-proclaimed anarchist who constantly defied it. And I couldn't possibly write a review before reading the autobiography he wrote during his period at La Santé jail… for once that he wasn't busy masterminding an escape.

With manly gusto, Cassel rendered most identifiable traits of Mesrine but the book made them understandable from a skeptical perspective. Some say "no honor among thieves". But even the cops acknowledged that Mesrine was a man of his word. The film opens with a negotiation with his rival Broussard. Mesrine is cornered and has a girl in the house and no chance to escape, but even in defeat, he stays in command.

He gives his word not to open fire in exchange of twenty minutes; Broussard knows Mesrine will burn some incriminating papers, but anything to avoid the bloodshed. He earns Mesrine's respect, and even more when he accepts to come unarmed as a way to earn the arrest. Mesrine welcomes him with champagne and cigars. After all, if you're going to be arrested, why not do it with some style? It says something crucial about the man; he valued relationships more than money or freedom. Didn't he get back to the Canadian penitentiary he had just escaped from i Canada, because he promised to get his friends out?

Mesrine makes no secret that he's a criminal, that he always wanted the easy way (that wasn't that easy), that he regarded working men as castrated slaves who resigned to a life of mediocrity unchained to the alarm-clock. You can't read the first pages without getting some "Goodfellas" vibes, but the kinship between Mesrine and Henry Hill's stops when you realize it isn't just a choice of lifestyle but a case of determinism guided by a sense of social revolt à la Camus' "Stranger". The greatest enemy of Mesrine isn't the police but the petty representatives of a system that "good" people respect out of cowardice rather than free will.

And Mesrine hasn't enough tough words to denounce the prisons: instead of giving inmates chances for rehabilitation, they only break their spirit or turn them to into tougher and ruthless criminals. That's why he always escaped, and the book he wrote preceded the most sensational of all, it's not just about determination but competence, too. The escape from the trial by hiding gun in the toilet was a masterstroke but the book makes it even more impressive because Mesrine planted the gun before his arrest. He anticipated the possibility and planned the escape 'just in case'. Anticipation is the key to success and Mesrine wasn't only brawn, his brain was his biggest asset.

Now, don't get the wrong idea, competence and honor don't make him "honorable", still, his ego wouldn't have tolerated any defaming accusation, he was a gangster, a killer, who could kill cops but no civilians, he loved children, animals, braved all the risks to go visit his dying father, he was a master of disguise who couldn't disguise his feelings when it came to love, as he could write passionate and romantic declarations of love to his women. He 'finished' two Canadian rangers by executing them in the head but he felt more remorseful toward that bird he accidentally shot when he was twelve. As regret, he only wished they didn't draw their guns… but they knew the rules, they played, were slower, and lost. Anyway, the way he saw it, he never gratuitously killed.

So he knew his value and operated in an endless spiral of bank robberies and parties, only punctuated by short periods of jail. That was his routine, he couldn't stop. At one point, his partner in crime Charlie leaves him because he knows he reached the no-return point. Mesrine moves forward, it's the business he's chosen, he loved the taste of adrenaline and the testosterone-driven life, he says that the day the nation gave him a weapon to fight the Algerians; he couldn't get rid of it. It became a drug. The same year, "The Hurt Locker" was released and it started with the quotation that 'war was a drug'. Mesrine was addicted too, he cherished the risk, he didn't care about his own life as long as he had a chance (he never foolishly risked his neck) but he never feared death, which made him even more dangerous, death was still a better option than jail, and he proved it four times.

He knew Karma would finally have the last word. And the ending was the one part he could have never written, but he foreshadowed it. He knew police would never give him a chance in an ambush. They didn't, he was killed without summation, with explosive bullets (prohibited) and the most shocking moment was when a cop coming from another car gave him the same treatment than for the Canadian rangers. Mesrine never believed in the 'blaze of glory' death but I guess if he wrote a book from beyond-the-grave, he wouldn't have been much spiteful toward his executioners, he knew the rules, he played and lost, like the Canadians, fair trade.

I don't feel much admiration toward him, but who doesn't want to be a tiger rather than a sheep. I guess that's the power of cinema, to make us live a character's life by proxy, admiring a bad guy the time of a film and then come to your sense. Still, if you read the book, it'll take more time. It doesn't say that there is honor among thieves; just that there are brave people and cowards in every kind of people. And gangsters are people, too.

Where the first film follows a reasonable story arch, but remains episodic, this film seems to abandon the narrative and instead jumps through the remaining years of Mesrine's career and life. It reminded me a little of reading a biography; which, of course, it probably should. However, it reminded me of reading a biography that I got bored of, i.e. I start reading it intently and then flick to the bits I'm really interested in from about half way onwards. The episodic film that worked so well in the first instalment became more similar to a sketch or clip show. I guess, at having established the character there was little more to show, other than a particularly lazy interview sequence. By lazy, I mean that having the lead character get asked a series of questions, it meant the film did not have to show anything more than that. In the first instalment, I felt that no such sequence was necessary, as the film showed a subtle enough touch to provide the audience with information without having it delivered straight to them. Cassel was as engaging as ever, although I did feel that there was little to stretch him in this film. Although Cassel did show himself to be equally at ease performing comedy, as he is at playing pure rage. He was ably supported by Mathieu Amalric, with their scenes together bordering on laugh out loud funny. Dispersed within the comedy sketches are absolutely edge of seat heist, escape and action sequences. These parts, for me, with their accompanying score made the film. Without these, it would have seemed a very disjointed effort. However, one sequence that was really overcooked was the sequence involving Mesrine and his girlfriend leaving their house only to have their car blocked by the police: the first film opened and ended with this sequence, albeit shown in different views and the second film did the same. The last of which was excruciatingly ponderous and added several minutes onto a film whose story had already been told. Overall, I felt that I would have been happier sitting in the cinema for 3-4hours watching the first film unfold into a more complete view, than to sit through 2 films of 2 hours that don't seem to sit quite right next to each other as a single vision. www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

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 !

This is definitely entertaining and a command performance by Vincent Cassel. It took me awhile to get into it – for part I that is.

The story is more or less straight-forward. It's about a thug who robs banks, intimidates his adversaries- sometimes brutally and escapes from prison any which way he can. It kind of resembles Scarface, but it is certainly not like the Godfather (I and II). It lacks subtlety (that's what I mean by straight-forward) and most of the characters who partner with Mesrine are more or less interchangeable and don't add much to the story. It's Mesrine and the action that drives this film. When it tries to get too serious; as with his wife, and many girlfriends, and the pseudo- revolutionary conversations, the film starts to sputter and wither – until the next action scene.

This second part of the story sees Mesrine lose his direction a little - what is he doing it for? He starts to see himself as a revolutionary, opening up some avenues for the film to explore. However, considering the run-time of the films when put together approaches a whopping four hours, we see very little of the vacuous, empty soul of this disgusting man. By far the most revealing scenes of the whole thing occurs when he is in prison in the first part. The terror he experienced is not built on. All we see in this part is surface.

As a result, we know very little about Mesrine after watching this film, except that he hated the capitalist system he waged war on. Of course, perhaps there is little you can say about him without humanising him. I know Cassell, a powerhouse of an actor who carries the film in the manner of a Brando or De Niro, wanted to give an honest portrayal, without causing excessive sympathy for his character. However cinema can do so much to convey depth and humanity in all its glory and terror, sometimes in a single shot or line, and that is lacking here both in the writing and in the direction, which (and this is a flaw of many biopics) is too episodic and even paced to create much drama or interest other than that brought by the efforts of Cassell.

Perhaps a tighter single volume would have been a better film, even if it meant leaving out some details of the story, perhaps a braver editor might have cut some of it down. But this film is too long and delivers too little. Maybe its just not that good a story to tell?

Epic (less bloody and funnier than part 1) biopic of French gangster Jacques Mesrine superbly interpreted by Cassel (Don't be fooled by the subtitles: Public Enemy No. 1 is actually Part 2...)

Both Killer Instinct (Part I) and Public Enemy No. 1 (Part II) seem to be intended as action films; you see them to be entertained rather than to find meaning. Despite this, Killer Instinct still managed to maintain a somewhat believable tone that this part quickly lost.

The music throughout is painfully generic and overblown. In the final scene, action music races while Mesrine and his girlfriend are walking on the sidewalk and then stuck in traffic for a solid five minutes. Elsewhere generic action scores grow tiresome as the violence also grows repetitive.

A number of characters overact in Public Enemy No. 1, particularly the policemen in the last scene. It seems the director tried to force an extra ten minutes in of showing Mesrine inconsequentially strolling around, which the viewer knows won't lead to anything as we've already been shown the conclusion to this scene, while the police watching him panic and pant. I found Vincent Cassel's acting to be much better in part one than part two as well, not to say it was particularly exceptional in Killer Instinct in the first place. He fell into some of the overacting utilized by some of the more minor actors. He was better in La Haine. Mathieu Almaric and Ludivine Sagnier were better.

The writing in this film becomes overindulgent of Mesrine's self justifications. One would think that his rantings aren't meant to be taken seriously but for the fact that they are played up as dramatic monologues in scenes such as the interview. If this was intended to come off as misguided self-righteousness rather than a serious social critique, the director failed to convey that.

On a basic level Public Enemy No. 1 was also much less exciting than the first. As far as part II's plot goes, Mesrine is pretty much riding out the hype that he built up in part I. The action sequences are fewer in number and on a smaller scale.

Overall, it did the job in that it was mildly entertaining. Despite this, the action of this half of the story line wasn't as much so as in Killer Instinct, and as a result the director seems to have used cheap techniques such as an overblown music score and overacting to compensate.

Greetings again from the darkness. This is part two of director Jean-Francois' tale of famed criminal Jacques Mesrine. As in part one, Vincent Cassel delivers a frightening performance of this psychopath who is addicted to the spotlight, danger, women and little else.

The second film drives home the point that Mesrine was little more than an aggressive hoodlum. What I mean by that is that he was no criminal mastermind. No real strategist. He just steals when he needs money and then quickly helps the press fill in the blanks on his escapades. Watching him swell with pride as he is pronounced France's Public Enemy Number One is just plain creepy.

Ludivine Sagnier (so great in "Swimming Pool") plays Sophie, his last girlfriend. Watching her reaction to her dog being shot in the final shootout tells you all you need know about her and her relationship with Mesrine.

Much of this part is based on the police chases and the efforts put into "catching" Mesrine and his accomplice. His new partner in crime is played by the terrific Mathieu Amalric ("Quantum of Solace", "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"). Amalric has the steely eyed stare that give him the chops to hang with Cassell.

While I truly admire Cassell's performance in these two films and I find them extremely well made, I still feel a bit empty about the subject matter. Mesrine was a brutally violent criminal who managed 3 daring prison escapes, numerous bank robberies, kidnappings and killings. However, there is just not much depth to the man. Maybe it's true ... some people just want to see the world burn. No matter what, these two films should be seen as close together as possible. This is ONE STORY cut into two pieces. Set aside 4 hours and see the entire thing.