Essentially there are two kinds of gangster movies: those made during the time when men wore hats in real life and those made during the time when men wore hats that came from wardrobe. The first type are usually in black-and-white, punchy, nervy and full of wisecracks. The second type are usually longer and more violent, but slower-paced and nobler of purpose, as if the hats suddenly carried an extra weight, an extra sadness. What Michael Mann has achieved with the new Public Enemies is an often fascinating, striking combination of the two.

I walked into the new film, convinced that it could never top lean, mean B-movie classics like Max Nosseck's Dillinger (1945) or Don Siegel's Baby Face Nelson (1957) in which these gangsters were initially immortalized. But it equals them, capturing some of their raw energy and allure and clocking in as a longer, but equally fast-moving and adrenaline-pumping example. Somehow Mann only manages to use the extra time for flash and spectacle, and hardly any for depth or detail, but that only helps to speed things along. Happily, he also avoids the typical origin story, and plunges right in.

Are you psyched to see Captain Jack Sparrow as a real-life gangster? Johnny Depp plays an infamous criminal in Michael Mann's Public Enemies, which opens tomorrow. But in a world where giant robots draw huge crowds, "do audiences want to see Depp as a fairly realistic, non-fantasy version of Depression-era bank robber John Dillinger?"

That's the question asked by Anne Thompson, a veteran industry analyst. She describes the movie as only "fitfully engaging ... often flat as a pancake." She says that Michael Mann's "biggest misstep here is the same as the Wachowskis with Speed Racer. His pursuit of what interests him formally may leave audiences behind." Like David Fincher's Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Mann's own Collateral and Miami Vice, Public Enemies was shot on high-definition video. Thompson claims: "When moviegoers watch a period film, no matter how authentically recreated, they aren't expecting it to look like this. There's something jarring about the way Public Enemies shoves us into the past."

I don't know about you, but I could use a good shove now and again. I've enjoyed Mann's last two films, and the trailers for Public Enemies have done a good job of whetting my appetite. The cast, including Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, and Billy Crudup, looks solid. I don't have any preconception about how period films should look -- I want a good, well-told story with interesting characters. How about you? Do you have certain expectations about how films set in the past should look? Do you want to see Johnny Depp as a "fairly-realistic, non-fantasy" bank robber?

A new adaptation (I refuse to use the word remake here) of Fahrenheit 451 has been in the works for ten years now. I was very excited by the news that Mel Gibson was planning it as a Braveheart follow-up, as it seemed like that would mark a new and serious phase of his directing career. I wish that was something I could have been right about.

Frank Darabont was the next one to take it on, and he's been attached to it since 2001, rewriting Terry Hayes' script and being delayed by everything from Indiana Jones IV, Mission Impossible III, The Mist, and Law Abiding Citizen. SciFi Wire caught up with Darabont at the Saturn Awards, and the director / writer declared that it was really time to get on with it already ... and that it might actually get underway this time, depending on whether or not the Big Name Actor he wants signs on.

"Fahrenheit is the thing I'm trying to get up next, which is casting-dependent, so it's one of those. I'm out to somebody at the moment, fingers crossed, because, boy, do I want to make that movie. I'm not giving up. I'll die in the traces before I don't make that movie ... It's not one of those movies that are vastly expensive by any contemporary standard, but money is still money, and it's of a price that requires somebody that will justify that investment. This is definitely going to be more than The Mist, so those other considerations do come into play."

You can go crazy wondering just who that Big Actor who can pull in the money and box office might be. Could it be someone that rumors have long attached, like Tom Hanks (Darabont's pick for years), Brad Pitt, or Tom Cruise? Or could we be looking at someone newly bankable, like Johnny Depp?

Mere days ago I passed on the report that Disney was making The Lone Ranger their priority and pushing back Pirates, which wasn't too surprising since Ranger had a director and Pirates didn't. Well, belay all that, because ComingSoon caught up with Jerry Bruckheimer, who assured Jack Sparrow fans that a fourth installment was just around the corner, and suggested that Ranger had stalled out for the moment.

When it comes to the masked man, there's no hunt for a lead, and Bruckheimer & Co. are essentially waiting to hire a director, and for Disney to hit the gas on the whole thing. Despite all reports, Mike Newell is not attached to the chair because he's still hard at work on Prince of Persia -- and frankly, Disney could be waiting to see how that flies before signing him onto another franchise maker.

But Pirates, well, that's a sure thing. "It's a great franchise for [Disney] and for us, too," Bruckheimer said. "We love the character and Johnny was really excited about coming back to Captain Jack. He certainly is interested in Tonto, but Disney's priority is to get Pirates made first. You never know what's going to happen, but they would like it." Franchise scribes Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott (who are also writing Ranger) are scribbling a script as you read this, one that Bruckheimer promises is "funny" and a "whole new way of going."

Well, we know where we're going -- weighing anchor and heading back to sea instead of riding off into the sunset. As someone who enjoyed the Pirates franchise, I'm pleased we're going back so soon (especially if they get Geoffery Rush back) but it's always deflating when something fresh gets stuck spinning its wheels.

You know, there really isn't any point complaining about Hollywood remaking old TV shows into movies -- why, you may ask? Well, mainly because it seems like it's going to happen no matter what we do. So while I understand when fans get a little bent out of shape when their favorite show is next in line for a 're-imagining'; for the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to get all protective over 21 Jump Street. Last year the news broke that Jonah Hill was writing an adaptation of the cult TV show, and immediately there was an outcry that he would be turning their beloved series into a comedy. But, for fans of the teen cop drama, there is still hope, because in a recent interview with Complex, Hill gave an update on his remake and told them that "[Sony execs said] they were gonna let me make my kind of movie-an R-rated, insane, Bad-Boys-meets-John Hughes-type movie-and I told them the second they don't, I'm not gonna be involved anymore," -- and Hill has proven already that he has no qualms about walking away from projects that aren't working for him.

After the jump; so what exactly does Hill have planned for his Jump Street remake?

After yesterday's news that Martin Scorsese will direct a Frank Sinatra biopic, people are asking: Who will he cast in the lead? In fact, some people are even going the extra mile and asking: Whom will he cast in the lead? That's how important this is!

The obvious answer is Leonardo DiCaprio -- not because he's particularly well-suited to the role, but because he's Scorsese's muse and good-luck charm, having appeared in the director's last four films (including Shutter Island, due out this fall). But Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily, citing her usual no-named sources, says the studio wants a different superstar: Johnny Depp.

My gut reaction to this is that it's typical studio knee-jerk casting: "Let's get the most famous, most popular actor in Hollywood! He's perfect for the part because he's the most famous and the most popular!" But I concede Depp looks enough like a young Sinatra that it wouldn't be completely ridiculous, and obviously he's a good actor. So maybe it could work. (That picture is him in Public Enemies. The hat and old-school suit definitely helps his Sinatraness.)

Depp can sing, as we learned in Sweeney Todd, though Finke says that doesn't matter, as Sinatra's own recordings will be used in the film. But that doesn't mean there won't be, say, scenes set in rehearsals, or other non-performance settings, where the actor (or a voice double) would need to sing a bit. Then again, singing is one thing -- singing like Frank Sinatra is something else. Can Depp do it? Can anyone do it?

For more, Moviefone has picked 10 actors as potential candidates for the role. Vote for your favorite right over here.

Remember Terry Gilliam's The Man Who Killed Don Quixote project? It was so vexed by setbacks that they eventually had to kill the film, and it became the subject of the excellent (and tragic) documentary Lost In La Mancha. It's impossible to watch and not feel loads of sympathy for Gilliam. If you're a Gilliam buff, or want to be, you need to watch that and also read Andrew Yule's Losing the Light about The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, another GIlliam debacle, although that one actually made it to the screen (and despite it's crazy history, is one of my favorite movies).

Well, according to Variety, Quixote may actually see the light of day again. Gilliam has restarted the project with a rewritten script, and is in talks with Johnny Depp to play the lead role, this time a filmmaker who becomes a stand-in for Sancho Panza. The role of Don Quixote hasn't been cast yet, but last year Monty Python member Michael Palin was in talks with Gilliam to take the role.

Will it actually happen this time around? Oh, to dream the impossible dream.

It's been a long time since we had any buzz or movement on The Lone Ranger. For a movie that reunites Jerry Bruckheimer, Johnny Depp, and Pirates' scribes Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott ... it's just kind of sitting there. But that's probably a good thing -- we want them to take their time.

At last though, they might have a director. Production Weekly Tweeted that Mike Newell is "in talks" to direct The Lone Ranger for Disney. Yes, the British director of Four Weddings and a Funeral, High Fidelity, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and perhaps most importantly, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Clearly, Bruckheimer is hiring from within the "family," but let's look at it as a sign that Disney and Bruckheimer might really dig what Newell did with Prince of Persia. (Erik Davis liked what he saw too, for the record.)

It's not official, but let's talk about it like it is. I thought Newell did a pretty bang-up job with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and directors from Across the Pond tend to do a pretty good job tackling Western mythology like The Lone Ranger. Do you think he'd be a good pick?