Roger Ebert's "J. Edgar" Movie Review

From Roger Ebert:

J. Edgar Hoover was the head of the Bureau of Investigation from 1924 until he died in 1972; he added the word "Federal" to its title in 1935. Under the administrations of Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, he was, many believed, the second most powerful man in government. Now he has been dead for 39 years, and what most people probably think they know about him is that he liked to dress up like a woman. This snippet of gossip, which has never been verified, is joined by the details that he never married, lived with his mother until she died, and had a close, lifelong friendship with Clyde Tolson, the tall and handsome bachelor who inherited his estate.

It is therefore flatly stated that Hoover was gay, which would have been ironic since he gathered secret files on the sex lives of everyone prominent in public life and used that leverage to hold onto his job for 47 years and increase the FBI's power during every one of them. He was outspoken against homosexuality, and refused to allow gays (or many blacks, or any women) to become FBI agents. He was sure enough of his power that he sometimes held hands with Tolson in restaurants and shared rooms with him on vacations. There wasn't a president who could touch him.

Given these matters, and the additional fact that the screenplay for Clint Eastwood's "J. Edgar" was written by Dustin Lance Black, who wrote "Milk," you would assume the film was the portrait of a gay man. It is not. That makes it more fascinating. It is the portrait of the public image that J. Edgar Hoover maintained all his life, even in private. The chilling possibility is that with Hoover, what you saw was what you got. He was an unbending moralist who surrounded himself with FBI straight arrows. Those assigned closest to him tended to be good looking. Agents wore suits and ties at all times. He inspected their shoeshines. He liked to look but not touch.

In such famous cases as the capture of John Dillinger and the manhunt for the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby, Hoover's publicity machine depicted him as acting virtually alone. He was not present when Dillinger was shot down outside the Biograph theater, but America got the impression that he was, and he never forgave the star agent, Melvin Purvis, for actually cornering the Most Wanted poster boy. Doubt persisted that Bruno Hauptmann was guilty in the Lindbergh case — but not in Hoover's mind. The fight against domestic communism in the years after World War II provided an ideal occasion for him to fan the Red Scare and work with the unsavory Joe McCarthy. Two of the reasons Hoover hated beatniks and hippies were their haircuts and shoeshines.

This man was closed down, his face a slab of petulance. He was so uncharismatic that it's possible to miss the brilliance of Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in "J. Edgar." It is a fully realized, subtle, persuasive performance, not least in his scenes with Armie Hammer as Tolson. In my reading of the film, they were both repressed homosexuals, Hoover more than Tolson, but after love at first sight and a short but heady early courtship, they veered away from sex and began their lives as Longtime Companions. The rewards for arguably not being gay were too tempting for both men, who were wined and dined by Hollywood, Broadway, Washington and Wall Street. It was Hoover's militant anti-gay position that served as their beard.

Two women figured importantly in Hoover's life. One was his domineering mother, Annie Hoover (Judi Dench), who makes clear her scorn for men who are "daffodils." The other was a young woman named Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts). In an extraordinary moment of self-image control, Hoover concludes that it would be beneficial for him to have a wife. He asks Helen, an FBI secretary, out on one of the more unusual first dates in movie history; he demonstrates the workings of a card file system with great pride. It must have been clear to her that nothing was stirring in his netherlands. Their budding relationship segued smoothly into her becoming his confidential secretary for the rest of his life — the woman entrusted with the secret files.

Eastwood's film is firm in its refusal to cheapen and tarnish by inventing salacious scenes. I don't get the impression from "J. Edgar" that Eastwood particularly respected Hoover, but I do believe he respected his unyielding public facade. It is possibly Hoover's lifelong performance that fascinated him. There's a theme running through most of his films since "Bird" (1988): the man unshakably committed to his own idea of himself.

As a period biopic, "J. Edgar" is masterful. Few films span seven decades this comfortably. The sets, the props, the clothes, and details, look effortlessly right, and note how Eastwood handles the many supporting roles (some of them depicting famous people). These minor characters are all to some degree relating to Hoover's formidable public image. As a person or as a character, he was a star of stage, screen, radio and print; he was said to have the goods on everyone. People tip-toed around him as they might have with Stalin. It's a nice touch, the way Eastwood and DiCaprio create a character who seems to be a dead zone and make him electrifying in other actors' reaction shots.

Amelia- Movie Review

A good movie can make us feel a number of things. It can take us places and make us wish we were back home simultaneously. Mira Nair's ambitious portrait of the mysterious Amelia Earhart is a daring attempt to show us the high price of our dreams and the courage it takes to get us there.

Although the Earhart story has been and told again, Nair has found insightful ways to probe the Kansas bumpkin who captured America's heart in the trying thirties. Played eerily well by Hillary Swank, Amelia is passionate and uncompromising. Her speech is plain, but infused with an enlightened adoration for the view from a cockpit and the feeling of tangible freedom. The film is sweeping, profound and colorful, offering not only Amelia's love/hate relationship with the spotlight, the essence of celebrity. No to mention swelling strings in almost every scene.

At the heart of this feature is the love that rages between Earhart and her husband and PR guru George Putnam. Richard Gere is more than qualified to deliver as the dutiful and tested spouse of the aviation legend. This picture will be loved and hated. It offers a tight script full of flawed characters who don't always say and do what we'd like, because while this portrait romanticizes the legend of the pilot, it demands the viewer realize that every dream has it's silver lining.

Early last May, Michael Mann presented a similar depiction of fame during this depression era with "Public Enemies." The two films offer almost inverse versions of the same story. The point being that public fascination with modern celebrity is much like man's ambition, it can easily alter those we hold most dear. I feel Nair's imagining of Amelia is faithful to the tragic and powerful story of a woman who lived exactly how she wanted. Even as her determination cost her her life, it inspired a nation, which is the very definition of a legacy.

Angels and Demons

A sequel, by definition has typically been labeled inferior in the film industry. But there are a few exceptions, "The Godfather: Part II," "The Empire Strikes Back," and who could forget "The Pink Panther 2 (Hah)." Ron Howard's screen adaptation of Dan Brown's first literary adventure featuring Robert Langdon, "Angels and Demons" is a very flawed film; but it might contain the gusto to surpass it's predecessor "The Da Vinci Code."
The thing most commented on in the first installment of these features was Tom Hank's apparently terrible hair cut. Well, the hair is gone, but this is just the beginning in terms of the improvements made in both the writing and filming if Akiva Goldman and David Koepp's adaptation. The dialogue is much smoother and easier to follow. The film capitalizes on spectacle and action, avoiding the religious controversy that derailed 'Da Vinci."
The story is set around a crisis in Vatican City. Four cardinals have disappeared just as conclave is about to begin. The threat here is a little known substance called "antimatter," which is said to be more potent than TNT. Hanks returns as the Harvard symbologist called upon to assist due to his "formidable" past. The bomb is set to go off around midnight, leaving Landgon only hours to discover a "path of illumination" to discover the missing cardinals and hopefully, the perpetrator.
His beautiful sidekick is Ayselet Zuror, playing a physicist from CERN, an enormous lab in Switzerland. The story starts quickly, the music is fast and involved and the epic depiction of Rome is worth the price of the ticket all on its own. Unfortunately, every reader when devouring a story casts their idea of how the plot should be divulged; and this book has many readers. As an adaptation, it is satisfying. But like many books that make their way to the screen, the process of condensing a several hundred page book into a concise two hours means that things get cut. For me personally this was frustrating and disappointing, removing a great deal of the meaning behind the actions of the characters.
Ewan McGregor and Stellan Skarsgard offer up potent supporting roles, yet the finished product suffers from too much, too fast, and puzzles far too easy to solve. One might call this a classic case of overproduction. The images are lush and beautiful. The cast and crew were forbidden to film in Vatican City, so almost all of the religious environments were recreated on soundstages and the it is awe-inspiring how effective they are. But that is where the strengths of this film lie, in aesthetic and spectacle.
For us die hard fans, the wait is on for Dan Brown's final Langdon installment "The Lost Symbol" on Sept.19, don't bother with the film; it might only detract from the beloved book. For nonfans, perhaps the movie is your ticket to two hours of blissful nonsense.

Burn After Reading - Review

Over the last decade and half, Joel and Ethan Coen have carved out their own niche in American cinema. Their films offer usually sparse landscapes, questionable characters, a good deal of idiocy and of course, some very very disturbing horror. They work to portray the every man faced with unordinary circumstances such as the Dude in "The Big Lebowski (1998)" or Llewelyn Moss in "No Country for Old Men (2007)." In this years "Burn After Reading," the brothers add another chapter to their American landscape. Unfortunately, all the characters are one dimensional, the timing is frought with numerous lulls in the plot, and America, which the Coen brothers have always depicted in a new and often surprising light, are now the target of much ridicule and cynicism for the team.

The story is an ensemble act loaded with talent that has questionable pay offs. Frances McDormand portrays a fitness center employee who is desperately seeking two things: human companionship and cosmetic surgery. When another employee discovers a disc containing what appear to be government secrets, she, accompanied with her idiotic friend Chad(Brad Pitt) sees this as her chance to finally be able to make the changes in her life that she desires. This disc belongs to Osbourne Cocks(the ever talented John Malkovich) as a bitter and recently fired CIA analyst. The story is is teeming with infidelity, alcoholism and sexual depravity, but perhaps this rounds out the black comedy well.

What I must commend for this piece is that it does offer some fresh perspectives for the stylization that comes with a Coen brothers film. With each movie they make they seem to tighten their lens on a distinctly different part of the U.S. With "Fargo" it was the culture and crime of the deep north. With "The Big Lebowski" it was the dirty, decreped parts of LA that took center stage, and with "No Country for Old Men" the arid South West and it's Spanish culture was splayed out. But here we are privy to the mansions of D.C., the refined suburbs of Maryland and the sleek offices of our government intelligence agencies.

Now, do not let it be mistaken that although this is in my opinion a weak Coen brothers film, this work ranks leaps and bounds above what is more than often playing at the multiplex. The film is satisfyingly funny and dark, it is always fun to see the U.S. government personified in varies shades of bumbling ignorance. And things like fitness centers, online dating, sex fetishes, morning talk shows and divorce are all things that are easily relatable, albeit easy targets. This film succeeds to paint a vision of extreme black comedy in a world of work-a-holics and complete morons, but if you are looking for fresh takes on old shlock espionage spoofs, you might come up empty handed.

Man on Wire - Review

In 1974 Philip Petit, a street performer from Paris tight-rope walked between the World Trade Center towers. It's common in history to find truly moving and completely honest tales of extraordinary acts, but few are told so effortlessly by the players themselves. Here is story of eccentricity and discipline like never before, and here's the best part: there is no why.

The story is constructed like a heist inter meshing actual footage and recreations, laying out the covert ascent the two teams took to the tops of the two towers. The building of models and the making of fake IDs. The story contains a surprising amount of humor, the gathering of information involved posing as a french news crew reporting on the constructing the two towers as a way to examine the roof tops and make their plans, also the surprising benefits to walking with crutches. It's impossible to not be drawn in by the intelligence and poinancy of the team that planned and executed this amazing feat of art.

The true magnetism of the film all lies in Petit himself whose personality jumps from the celluloid. His brilliance isn't so much in his feats, as in his life style, his courage and his candid attitude. For example, as a preparation for the twin towers heist, he tight rope walked across a bridge in Sydney, Austrailia. When he was arrested afterward, he stole and pocketed one of the officer's watches. He is fearless and animated to the end.

After the stunt, Petit learned of celebrity. He made headlines world wide and gave the World Trade Centers come much needed good press. When asked why he did this he said: il n'ya pas de pourquoi, there is no why.

The Dark Knight - Review

Early in the summer, Iron Man starring Robert Downey Jr. defied all expectations by beginning an amazing new franchise. But Iron Man did more than that, it raised expectations for comic book adaptations forever. It changed the stigma that super hero films are flimsy screen versions meant for only the truest of fans. With the Dark Knight, this unfair fallacy can be forever put to rest. Christopher Nolan's second caped crusader outing surpasses 2005's Batman Begins in numerous ways. Here, we are finally past Batman's conception and must now get down to the meat of his personal struggle to serve Gotham regardless how Gotham feels about him.

This story plays out more like a classic organized crime drama and less like a super hero film, because all though we are privy to explosions and chases galore, we are also witness to public officials trying desperately to save their city. Nolan inlisted the help of his brother Jonathan in the writing of the script, he first helped him in the writing of Memento. Their dialogue is always crisp and lean, truly capitalizing on the A-list cast that shines in this ensemble piece.

In all the Batman films and beyond, I doubt any villain can compare to this Joker, portrayed in terrifying detail by the late Heath Ledger. Here is a villain unlike we are used to in recent years. This is a evil doer on a large scale that doesn't seek money, or fame, only chaos, making him all the more unsettling. The film is complimented all the more by Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Bruce Wayne's gadgets expert, Michael Caine as the dutiful Alfred and Gary Oldman as the newly appointed Commissioner Gordon. These are oscar worthy actors playing bit parts and the reason is obvious, because never again will a Batman film climb above its predecessors and defy its genre to not only entertain but challenge both emotionally and intellectually. So, my advice see it, then see it again just for good measure. Here is celluloid euphoria, the kind of film we all hope for in the middle of a steamy summer.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

NOSTALGIA NEVER FELT THIS GOOD

Now when I first heard that a fourth installment in the Indiana Jones saga was in the works, I was skeptical, very skeptical. I enjoy the rule of three. Trilogies are a classy inspired way to make films and keep the drama motivated and timely. But there are exceptions to every rule...

From the opening sequence with Elvis Presley blaring to the final score, I haven't had this much fun at the movies in longer than I care to think about. One of my fears going into this film was constant reminders of Harrison Ford's age, but the thought vanished from my mind well before the story actually got going. What's even better, the characters acknowledge it themselves. This feature truly embodies the capturing of that movie magic where everyone can feel like a kid again.

This finale to the classic films finds the good doctor in the fifties surrounded by greasers and poodle skirts, cold war protesters and nuclear experiments. Shia LaBeouf portrays Mutt, a young, reckless sidekick, at first I felt he was slightly miscast, but the idea grew on me. Ray Winstone is marvelous as Mac, a British explorer who wears his greed on his sleeves. They and the rest of the cast are the stuff of dreams. I even enjoyed Cate Blanchett as the villainous Irina Spalko, a Russian scientist who is on a quest for all things supernatural and promising in the field of psychological warfare.

The story is far-fetched, but what Indiana Jones adventure isn't. This films offers all things we dream of at the movies: exotic locations, sword fights atop moving jeeps and a score to die for. My advice, sit back and revel in the cheese.

Untraceable - DVD Review

MORE LIKE UNMEMORABLE

If your looking for mediocre thrills and generic lackluster, torture violence, look no further than the latest in the already overrun genre of thriller/horror flicks: Untraceable. This hum-drum boredom festival is headed up by Diane Lane as Agent Jennifer Marsh. She is a federal agent with, you guessed it, the FBI; working to traffic the law breakers of cyberspace. She has the typical tragic background, the quintessential eccentric mother and the ridiculously cute daughter, but no husband(gasp). Yeah right, saying this character is deep is like saying George Bush is a beautiful orator. As the story unfolds a series of killings begin. A website(killwithme.com) broadcasts the deaths of victims live. As the number of viewers increases, the victim dies faster.

Now I have to admit, this is a promising premise: a killer using the internet to actively involve the general public in a gruesome, terrible act. But sadly the fun ends there. The story plays as predictably as possible, even the villain is as uninteresting as they come. In a society where everyone is a critic to the use of violence as entertainment, this film is more a typical review and less a glimpse of insight.

One vivid ray of light in this monotonous mess is Colin Hanks. He plays Marsh's sidekick/comedic relief. As always Hanks shows tremendous promise despite this vile and morbid sludge he partakes in. The motive is dark and pointless, the heroine is one dimensional and the script is borderline trivial at best. Save your money.

Funny Games - Review

If I were going to the multiplex on some hot date to see 'Funny Games' with absolutely no knowledge of what I was getting myself into, I would have probably walked out. When the final credits rolled for this film, I ached all over; my muscles and nerves were shot. This film has been called "a thesis(which I agree with)," "artsy garbage(which I don't agree with)" and "the one film to definitely avoid in 2008(which I don't know how to feel about)."

The film's premise is like that of a horror film, but no horror film has had me scratching my head in amazement quite like this. George(Tim Roth), his wife Anne(Naomi Watts) and their son are settling into an enormous, beautiful vacation home when they are visited by boys dressed completely in white. What follows is... well games. I'll let you decide if they are funny. The family is tortured in a number of gruesome ways that could make the most complacent movie-goer squirm in their seat. Enjoy the first twenty minutes because once the suspense begins, it's do or die until the end(no pun intended).

The performances are stunning and the writing is staggeringly well done. There is a message here, but it is less a lecture and more a broad slap in the face(much like Michael Pitt, one of the white-clad assailants receives in the beginning) to Americans and frankly movie watchers everywhere. I don't think it is wrong to call this film "pretentious" or "vicious," but its safe to say 'unforgettable' should be added to this colorful list of adjectives.

Perhaps this film is preachy, but the attention to detail is exhaustive. Some could call this a critique on violence in cinema or violence porn. Call it whatever you like, I found it hypnotizing and completely terrifying to my bones. But I don't know if I can blatantly recommend this film. It takes an open mind and a strong stomach. So if you do decide to see "Funny Games" prepare for suspense, prepare for violence and prepare for the absurdly bizarre and maybe you won't be disgusted and appalled like everyone else in the theater.

I'm sure this film will be pounded into submission by critics and make close to no revenue, but if anything do not dismiss this film as yet another violence drenched piece of celluloid. To quote Hannibal Lector: "This one will give you plenty of exercise."

The Bank Job - Review

Jason Statham has had his fair share of rock'em sock'em British capers since his film carrier has begun. Namely with Guy Ritchie's trilogy of witty, crass explorations of the crime underworld of Britain (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, and soon to be released in the US: Revolver). This was accompanied by The Italian Job and a coming sequal, The Brazilian Job. So, Statham looked and sounded right at home in Roger Donaldson's telling of the infamous robbery of the Lloyds Bank on Baker Street in 1971. The film is suave and sexy, introducing the viewer to an entire ensemble of loathsome characters from Lew Vogal, the porn king of Soho to Michael X, a drug-dealing, pimping, extortionist, would-be revolutionary. The film follows closely on the heels of Ritchie and Matthew Vaughn(Layer Cake) but this feature has something that none of it's predecessors contained to my knowledge: a foundtation of truth.
Because of this, the film's pace and dialogue are not consistent because, well, there are casualties in the real world. But the film glazes over these predicaments with royal finesse, leaving a seedy, fast-paced and ultimately engaging film.