Movie Review: J. EDGAR

J. EDGAR

2011
R


"What's important at this time is to re-clarify the difference between hero and villain."
-- J. Edgar Hoover

J. Edgar is a 2011 biographical drama directed by Clint Eastwood that centers around the life of J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), the first director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The film is told through a series of flashbacks as Hoover dictates his life story to a series of writers in order to have his life's story on paper. It takes us back to his beginnings with the Justice Department all the way through his years as the head of the FBI; however, the film chooses to focus specifically on two specific aspects of Hoover's life: the case surrounding the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh's (Josh Lucas) son, and the alleged romantic relationship Hoover had with his right-hand man, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer).

When I first saw the trailer for this film, I was thoroughly impressed and began to think this might be the film to beat come Oscar season (for those of you who've been reading me for a while, you'll know that I placed this film as my second most anticipated film of fall 2011). Most of the reasoning behind my excitement was the apparent brilliance it looked like DiCaprio would bring to the role, and the fact that Eastwood was directing didn't necessarily hurt the film's chances either. Early on, I was predicting that DiCaprio might finally bring home an Oscar statuette for this performance, but after the film was released, it opened to some rather mixed reviews. Although most critics agreed that DiCaprio gives a powerhouse performance in the titular role, it seemed as though the screenplay and the direction bogged the movie down and made it terribly uninteresting. Still, I had to give the film a chance on my own, so here's my thoughts.

Let's start with the acting this time around. While I do think DiCaprio did a great job with the role, I personally don't think it's really as good as he's been in the past. It's a far cry from his Oscar-nominated performance in 2004's The Aviator, which I consider to be the best of his career, and personally, I don't think I'd put it in his top five. Still, it's serviceable and a head above what another actor might have been able to do, so I suppose he should be applauded. He's already received a Golden Globe nomination for the performance, but he'll have a tough time bringing home the win with competition from the likes of Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Michael Fassbender. The rest of the cast fills out nicely, but there really isn't anyone truly to rave about. Hammer does well in the main supporting male role, and he's been nominated for a Screen Actor's Guild Award. Judi Dench does well in a limited role, but she's vastly under-utilized. Also watch for some nice scenes from Naomi Watts, who plays Hoover's secretary Helen Gandy.

Now, for the screenplay which has drawn so much criticism. After watching this film, I can honestly say that all the criticism it has received is definitely deserved. While the film does well as to tell some of the major events of Hoover and the FBI's early stages, it all feels very dry, and there's little emotional punch behind any of the scenes in the film. There are some scenes that should be highly emotionally-charged, but I could hardly muster more than a yawn throughout the flick. There's no real hook into the film; instead, it just starts and immediately throws facts and dates at you without setting any real groundwork beforehand. If Eastwood's intent was to craft a moving-picture timeline of Hoover's time with the FBI, then he has succeeded entirely; however, that doesn't necessarily make for an entertaining film, and even a biopic should find a way to hook its audience and keep it engaged with the storyline and the characters. Because there's no access point for the audience, there's no real way to stay engaged with the screenplay, and I personally found myself wandering to and from the screen. That's not good for any movie, much less one that should have been a front-runner for awards season.

At the end of the day, J. Edgar is a film that's probably going to bore you, but it'll still manage to nab at least some nominations come time for the Academy Awards. At this point, I'd be shocked if DiCaprio doesn't nab a nomination, but if he wins, I'll be a tad bit surprised. I personally wouldn't put him at the top of my list - I'm currently leaning towards Gosling's brilliant performance in Drive - but perhaps DiCaprio will find a way to bring that golden statue home for the first time in his career. I'll applaud him and be happy for him, but I just think he wouldn't have won it for the right movie. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: C+
1 Thumb Down

Movie Review: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES

2011
PG-13

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a 2011 action film directed by Rob Marshall that serves as the fourth installment in Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. The film opens with our favorite hero, Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) traversing the streets of London in the hopes of finding a ship that will take him to the fabled Fountain of Youth. After meeting - and fighting - a former lover named Angelica (Penélope Cruz), Sparrow finds himself a deckhand on the Queen Anne's Revenge, ship of the feared Blackbeard (Ian McShane). Angelica, who happens to be Blackbeard's daughter, has learned of a prophesy saying that her father will be killed by a one-legged man unless they can reach the Fountain of Youth and guarantee his immortality. So, with the help of "Captain" Jack, the Revenge travels across the Atlantic Ocean, sailing through mermaid-infested waters to the island where the Fountain of Youth is said to be. To make matters worse, the crew has to keep a weather eye out for their competitors: a mysterious band of Spaniards and a crew of British privateers led by none other than the all-too-familiar Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), all who also seek the Fountain's amazing power.

When I first heard about the idea for On Stranger Tides, I was immediately filled with a sense of glee and fanboy-ish excitement. As you may or may not have noticed from my posts in the past few days, I'm quite a fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, so taking another venture with good ol' Captain Jack seemed like a fantastic idea. However, as some of the details of the film started to be released, I started to question whether the franchise was going in the right direction. (I think a lot of the questions I had were raised in my trailer breakdown for On Stranger Tides). It seemed like there were just too many changes: the characters of Will and Elizabeth wouldn't be returning; Rob Marshall had replaced Gore Verbinski in the director's chair... I'm sure I could list any number of deviations from the original trilogy. So I feel like my concerns were somewhat justified. One piece of information that kept my hopes up for On Stranger Tides was the fact that the screenplay was going to be loosely based on Tim Powers' novel of the same name. The fact that they actually had award-winning source material for the storyline gave me a little bit of hope that we might have a legitimate screenplay this time around. But that's neither here nor there, I suppose. But I digress... Let's get into my review of the film.

I don't think I need to say much about the acting that I haven't already said before. Depp and Rush are their fantastic selves once again, and Kevin McNally does well reprising his role. Aside from those three, however, we have an entirely new cast, and I think that was the most off-putting part of the film. Because we the audience had spent three films with the same characters, something felt a little amiss without Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley running around and falling in love. I even missed our little bits of comic relief from some of the minor characters. That being said, I didn't think that our newer characters were all that terrible. Academy Award-winner Cruz does well with her role, but I don't think she was given a lot to work with (more on that in a moment). McShane is also a force on the screen, and although I think they could've gone a little deeper with his character, he was definitely serviceable. Also be on the lookout for cameo appearances from Keith Richards and Dame Judi Dench.

The storyline is also serviceable, but it's lacking a little bit of the bite that the previous films have seen. But I have a bit of a theory on this. Let's think back to 2003 when The Curse of the Black Pearl hit theaters. No one really knew what the film was going to be like - I mean, it was a movie adapted from a theme park ride, so it probably could've gone either way. As we all know, it turned out to be a smash hit, but critically, financially and personally for me (the original film ranks as the fifty-fifth greatest film I've ever seen). Because no one knew it would have such success, however, the film was crafted so that it could stand alone as its own story. After its massive popularity, two sequels were shot simultaneously, and they were both completely connected, creating two films that cannot stand alone - they need each other to make sense. The reason for this complementary nature is the amount of exposition we're given - information given in Dead Man's Chest is essential to understand At World's End completely. The first film didn't delve into the exposition because we didn't know whether it would click with audiences in the first place.

Fast forward to 2011, and we have the fourth installment in a highly successful franchise. All reports currently say that two more Pirates films will be on the way, crafting a second trilogy for the series. Because these films are almost certain to rake in huge numbers at the box office, I think it's safe to say that Pirates 5 and Pirates 6 loom on the horizon. Because of this, I think the filmmakers chose to give On Stranger Tides - the first film in their NEW trilogy - a different feel. With the certainty of successive films, they could delve into exposition with this particular installment. The whole feel of On Stranger Tides gives the sense that there's much, much more to come.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is just the start of another continued adventure into the Jack Sparrow saga, and it should be viewed as such. Some people may be put-off by the slightly slower pace, but this second trilogy is already looking to have a vastly different face than its predecessor. I for one am excited by the prospect, and I shall eagerly await the next installments. Maybe it's just me being a fanboy, but I'm expecting some great things from the next couple of Pirates adventures.

(Oh, and as is the usual with the Pirates films, don't forget to stay through the end credits for one final scene.)

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B
1.5 Thumbs Up

Addition to Rankings
Best Sequel - #32

Movie Review: JANE EYRE

JANE EYRE

2011
PG-13

Jane Eyre is a 2011 drama directed by Cary Fukunaga. It's an adaptation of the 1847 Charlotte Brontë novel of the same name. The film mostly plays through flashbacks as the titular character (Mia Wasikowska) remembers how her life progressed and how she found herself in the stead of a young priest named St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his two sisters. The audience learns that Jane was placed in an all-girls home after her aunt accused her of being a liar, and the time she spends in the institution hardens her resolve. Upon leaving the home, Jane finds work as a governess at Thornfield Hall, home to a mysterious Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender), where she takes to teaching Rochester's French-speaking daughter. Eventually, Rochester returns home and meets Jane; he soon takes a liking to her, and the pair go back-and-forth with their affections and their loyalties. As time progresses, however, the feelings they have for one another cannot be withheld. Unfortunately, it turns out that Rochester may have a secret or two hidden deep within the walls of his eerie mansion estate...

I was originally drawn to this film for two reasons. The first reason stems from the fact that I actually acted in my high school theater department's rendition of Jane Eyre during my junior year. Although I only had bit roles here and there, I still remember my few scenes on-stage (although I never could tell you the storyline for the life of me). The second reason I wanted to see this film was for director Cary Fukunaga. It's only his second feature-length directorial effort, but I absolutely loved his first one (2009's Sin Nombre), so I figured I'd give him another shot and see if he was just a one-hit wonder, so to speak. While Jane Eyre doesn't quite reach the power than Sin Nombre possessed, I'd have to say that Fukunaga could be a director to watch in the future.

I had a couple of issues with the film, but nothing was terribly pressing. The screenplay works well, and it offers a good look at the ups and downs of the love between Jane and Rochester. I wouldn't say it provides twists and turns, but there's definitely little tweaks here and there for those unfamiliar with the storyline. It's a very effective dramatic romance, but I felt like the story moved a little too slowly for my personal tastes. The two-hour flick seemed like it dragged on for a lot longer than that, and it was difficult for me to maintain my interest throughout its entirety. One of my biggest beefs with movies is when they can't hook me from the start, and Jane Eyre never entirely hooked me. I've seen snails move faster than this one.

That being said, we actually get a pretty good acting ensemble in the flick. Wasikowska is starting to stamp herself as one of the better young leading ladies on the Hollywood scene. If you haven't seen her work, you don't have to look far: she starred as the titular character in 2010's Alice in Wonderland and played a semi-lead in 2010's The Kids Are All Right. Look for her to make a splash with awards season in the coming years. Michael Fassbender, who has quickly become one of my favorite actors, also does well with his role as Rochester, but I think he's a little upstaged by Wasikowska. We've also got a decent performance by Dame Judi Dench in a supporting role, but she isn't given much reign with the character. Overall, the acting is quite good - at least, it's better than the average fare you'll find in cinemas at any given time.

At the end of the day, Jane Eyre is a decent dramatic romance flick that will definitely appeal to my female readers more than it did for myself. Up until the minute before the movie started, I was the only guy in the theater, so you can tell who the target demographic probably is. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it; it's a good movie that just moved a little too slow for my own tastes, but that doesn't mean you won't love it (if you're into some romance).

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B-
1 Thumb Up

Movie Review: NOTES ON A SCANDAL

NOTES ON A SCANDAL

2006
R

Notes on a Scandal is a 2006 dramatic film directed by Richard Eyre. It follows the intertwining stories of two British schoolteachers. The elder is Barbara (Judi Dench), a lonely woman and seasoned teacher who rules her classroom with an iron fist. She befriends the new art teacher Sheba (Cate Blanchett) who is having a difficult time acclimating to the school. As their friendship progresses, Sheba starts to open up to Barbara which comes to no surprise to the older woman. She tells the audience via her diary writing that she has been the confidant of many a person in her past. One night before the Christmas break, Barbara catches Sheba in the throes of relations with a young student (Andrew Simpson). Rather than immediately reporting the incidence, Barbara decides to work the situation to her advantage. She insists that Sheba's secret is safe with her, causing Sheba to draw even closer to the older woman. However, when questions of loyalty and friendship begin to arise, Barbara has to decide whether to continue with her silence or tell the world of her friend's heinous act.

I've been meaning to watch Notes on a Scandal for quite a while and finally got around to doing just that. I've always been a fan of Cate Blanchett, but I can't say that I've seen a ton of Judi Dench fare. Her most recognizable role for me is as M in the James Bond films in which she's appeared. When I heard that both of those women had garnered Oscar nominations for their roles in this film, I knew that it had to be a must-see, for me at least. I'd like to say now that I wasn't disappointed by any means.

Let's start with the screenplay, as I so often do. It was adapted from Zoë Heller's 2003 novel of the same name and also nabbed an Oscar nomination. I was rather impressed with the actual story. When a movie is delving into the topics presented in Notes on a Scandal, you can imagine there might be a little hesitation from the filmmakers. Fortunately, Richard Eyre held nothing back and let the story unfold as it was meant to unfold. However, the story isn't exactly what drew me into the film. Yes, it's good - and it comes full circle, which is totally a plus - but what truly drew me into the movie were the completeness of the characters. Each individual character felt so real and believable. Barbara is the aging spinster who's so desperate to find a loving connection and companion that she'll go to any lengths, no matter how devious and undermining, to achieve what she wants. Sheba is an overworked mother of two who is struggling with her first foray into the teaching scene; she thinks that a real education comes from helping her students find something they love to do, and that's how she ultimately finds herself in her, well, "situation." Even our young student Stephen is a complete character despite having much less screen-time than you'd imagine. Kudos to our screenwriters for bringing such real characters to the screen.

Fortunately, Notes on a Scandal benefits from an all-star cast to bring those characters to life. Dench is a revelation, playing Barbara to a tee. I've never had the opportunity to see her in a role like this, but I think I'll have to delve a little deeper into her filmography. Blanchett is always spectacular; I don't think I've ever seen her in a bad role. I feel like there isn't much I can say about these two acting legends that hasn't already been said before, but I would like to talk about some of the supporting actors. Bill Nighy plays Sheba's husband Richard, and although he delivers a pedestrian performance for most of the film, he does have some rather brilliant, albeit over-the-top, scenes filled with anger and rage. I'd also like to give a shout out to one of the younger actors in the film. Juno Temple, who plays Richard and Sheba's daughter Polly, also has a relatively small role, but her scenes were so genuine that I couldn't help but fall in love with the character. I could go on and on about all of the actors in the film, but I'll just sum it up by saying that Notes on a Scandal brings a fine ensemble cast to the table, and they do not disappoint.

I feel like this review is a bit on the short side for my tastes, but I could be wrong. Notes on a Scandal is a solidly great film that's definitely worth watching. It's firing on all cylinders, and I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: A-
Current All-Time Rank: Best - #171
2 Thumbs Up
Addition to Awards