| SkirmishFan | 15 Aug 2009 3:26 p.m. PST |
As per title. I had a whole bunch of gangster figures – some painted, some not – before the film came out. But since seeing the film I have been keen to put on some gangster games. Just wondered if I am alone or if anyone else has got the gangster/G-men bug? By the way I am using the excellent 'Mad Dogs With Guns' rules by our very own MJS. |
| Ed the Two Hour Wargames guy | 15 Aug 2009 3:34 p.m. PST |
Yep sure did. Made me want to do a Gangster supplement PDF link for the free rules Chain Reaction 3.0 link |
| The Jim Jones Cocktail Hour | 15 Aug 2009 5:10 p.m. PST |
No, I thought it was a fairly pedestrian film. |
 Bobgnar  | 15 Aug 2009 5:23 p.m. PST |
I was already into gangster games but Public Enemies recharged my interest. I enjoyed the variety of weapons, and the Little Bohemia episode. I was intrigued by the use of the straight clip in the tommy guns |
| bobstro | 15 Aug 2009 9:06 p.m. PST |
I had accumulated a small collection of gangster figures a couple of years ago, and had hoped to be playing them with THW Chain Reaction rules before now. If the movie motivated Ed to put out the supplement, and THAT inspired me, then yes, I suppose it did. I enjoyed the film, but I was expecting a bit more… I dunno. It just seemed a bit flat. - Bob |
John Leahy  | 15 Aug 2009 10:48 p.m. PST |
Haven't seen the film yet. Already am interested in the era. Thanks, John |
| LeadAsbestos | 16 Aug 2009 1:38 a.m. PST |
The movie was a bit lame, but it gave me the chance to buy the Copplestone Public Enemies offer and get the Gangbusters! RPG from way back in 82, so it worked out well!! |
| christot | 16 Aug 2009 3:20 a.m. PST |
the reviews didn't inspire me enough to even go and see it |
| Count Belisarius | 16 Aug 2009 4:50 a.m. PST |
|
| StarfuryXL5 | 16 Aug 2009 8:52 p.m. PST |
No. Wasn't even interested enough to see the movie. |
| tuscaloosa | 17 Aug 2009 10:42 a.m. PST |
I read the book, haven't seen the movie yet. The book was good, and was inspiring to paint up and play gangsters, but it covered too much action. Could easily have done a book per gang, instead of covering five gangs in one book (Babyface Nelson, Ma Barker, John Dillinger, Machine Gun Kelly, and Bonnie and Clyde). No idea how the movie could do it, from the looks of it it just covers John Dillinger. |
| 138SquadronRAF | 18 Aug 2009 7:24 a.m. PST |
The film was ok, not great and had a number of historical flaws, some very obvious, some forgivable for the story view point. It's worth watching on Netflix. |
 Der Alte Fritz | 19 Aug 2009 7:11 a.m. PST |
No, two sides spraying each other with Tommy guns doesn't hold much appeal to me. |
| bobstro | 19 Aug 2009 4:44 p.m. PST |
tuscaloosa wrote: […] The book was good, and was inspiring to paint up and play gangsters, but it covered too much action. Could easily have done a book per gang, instead of covering five gangs in one book (Babyface Nelson, Ma Barker, John Dillinger, Machine Gun Kelly, and Bonnie and Clyde). I saw the book in the bookstore and assumed it was based on the screenplay, so didn't bother. If I'd realized it was more than that, I'd have popped for it with my Border's coupon-of-the-week! Thanks for the info. - Bob |
| CooperSteveOnTheLaptop | 20 Aug 2009 2:42 p.m. PST |
Goddaughter & I were impressed by trailer & zealous to see it then every review said 'clunk' Do like Copplestone's figures though, hope to get round to them one day… |
