The Hunger Games (Review)

BRIEFLY: Though The Hunger Games is well-acted and decently paced, there is simply not enough character development to justify the film which is itself reaching for a sort of young adult gravitas. We come to find in the end that, much like the reality television of today, the characters are disposable with motivations that conveniently yield to the plot rather than reflect the person. Further the dodgy camera work that schizophrenically pulls in and out of focus further undermines any sense of storytelling that director Gary Ross is reaching for. As a non-fan of the series(I haven’t read the books), the film did nothing to excite me for a sequel, but I’m sure that matters little as hardcore fans will certainly flock to the multiplex for this installment and several yet to come.

DETAILED REVIEW: It’s no surprise that The Hunger Games has been adapted for the screen. With Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, and Twilight carving out their own blockbuster film franchises it was only a matter of time until someone picked up the dystopian novel. The source material has all the makings of an epic: romance, action, death, sacrifice, and did I mention death? The Hunger Games is brimming death, but in the end, as each demise stacks up one after the other, the impact of such violence is lost and dismissed. Maybe this is a societal issue rather than a story issue, but if our society can care whether Snooki is pregnant or not, we should (the key word here being should) hold the capacity to care for death (albeit fictitious) of characters on screen. Couple that with the fact that the deaths are happening to teenagers and in some cases mere children, and I found myself reasoning that the film lacks the story elements necessary to help an audience connect and engage, but more importantly resonate with any character in the film.

Undoubtedly, you’ve heard the plot of The Hunger Games probably in passing, either from your mother, the cleaning lady Consuela, or your teenage niece. My niece in fact summarized it best, “It’s like in the future and there’s like these 12 districts who send two teenagers into a fight for the death, but only one makes it out.” Indeed, that’s about all you really need to know. Additionally, you probably should know that there is a romance (actually several romances), a few familial issues, and a global government hell-bent on utter control—sounds a lot like the Clinton administration doesn’t it?

In the midst of the story there is our main protagonist, Katniss and her fellow “tribute” from her barren home, District 12. The two have a history, but it’s unclear exactly what that history is until about two hours into the movie. The lack of characterization here really makes their relationship lack any resonance—romantically or otherwise.  

The lone exception to sloppy characterization however, is Katniss played by Academy Award nominee Jennifer Lawrence. As the protagonist, Lawrence plays a powerful, independent, and cunning female. Indeed, the biggest achievement the film provides is its very positive representation of females. Katniss is strong without succumbing to clichés yet also maintains a tender and emotional core that feels authentic rather than pigeon-holed into the so called norms of femininity.

On the other hand Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), slumps around with hunched shoulders and a chip on his shoulder that is more annoying than appealing. I found myself wondering why Katniss would ever wanna make babies with him? I think that for some reason we are supposed to connect with Peeta maybe even sympathize with him, however we can’t because we truly never care about him between he is either pouting or smirking with angst. He is jealous of the far stronger Katniss, something we see in his mannerisms, yet we get bludgeoned with dialogue that restates the character’s non-verbal thesis: “Katniss is better than me.”  

Though the characterization is shoddy, the acting is actually very sound. Lawrence is perfectly cast as Katniss. Lenny Kravitz is spot on as the fashion designer turned motivator, Cinna. Woody Harrelson is similarly great as the has-been hunger games trainer Haymitch. Even Stanley Tucci plays an effective role as the announcer/talk show host with Stephen Colbert’s candor and a Nicki Minaj hairstyle. If there’s one reason to see The Hunger Games, it is indeed the acting.

The biggest complaint is the camera work which is dodgy at best. At times it’s almost like watching one of those “found footage” films like Blair Witch or Cloverfield. But here, it’s far worse as the camera, for reasons unknown to this critic, moves in and out of focus faster than a Tebow Jets jersey at a Manhattan Footlocker. It’s an unnecessary move that proves futile in doing anything other than make it really hard for the audience to understand what’s going on.

Though it sounds like I really disliked The Hunger Games, I must admit that I was overall entertained. It’s a far better effort than Twilight, which it is somehow drawing comparisons to. I did find it at times very exciting, but those were only brief. The social commentary here screams the 21^st century where we love reality television and have catapulted mere “nobody’s” into society’s “somebody’s” overnight—look no further than Teen Mom on MTV for further evidence! The film is most certainly trying to tap into that vein and for the most part it succeeds and does for once resonate, at least on the social commentary level.

In the end, the film concludes with a dues ex machina that removes any tension the film was attempting to build. It’s far too convenient (regardless of what happened in the books). I found myself going, “Okay, so what? What was all the hype about?” That’s most certainly never a reaction a Hollywood studio attempting to build a franchise would hope for. Though as previously mentioned, it matters little because the fans have spoken with their wallets and ticket sales are sky high (though still not quite to Dark Knight levels—just sayin). I’ll probably see the sequel, yet I can’t say I want to. Though if anything, seeing Lawrence command the film the way she did may be all the reason I need. I do love that lady.

 GRADE: B-

From the Archives... Oscar picking the wrong film--AGAIN!

The Artist won Best Picture... yawn. Will we even remember the movie come 10 years from now? Probably not. I mean we might remember it as the "black-and-white silent film," but it's impact on the film industry at this point is moot at best.

This isn't the first time Oscar got it wrong--Citizen Kane anyone? Just a year ago Oscar got it wrong picking The King's Speech over the far better, more culturally relevant The Social Network. Though it's prbably a little bold to say, The Social Network might prove as revolutionary to our time as Kane was in the 1940's. In each respective case though, Oscar chose the "safe" route.

To further my disdain for Oscar's latest selections, I've turned my focus to the father of dramatic theory--Aristotle. It was he who brought up the idea of mimesis--a way by which good drama is evaluated as it mimics or replicates a representation of reality. Shakespeare took it a step further in Hamlet telling us that good thetre should "hold a mirror" up to the audience and reveal reality. In deed, we like movies because we find ourselves in them. In light of my mulling of Oscar stupidity coupled with the theory of the mirror holding itself to society, I found my review of The Social Network. It seems to echo my words and reinforce the theory of mimesis.

Take that Oscar!

The Social Network Succeeds with Snapshot of a Generation

By: Matt Howard

SUU University Journal

November 2010

A movie about Facebook sounds about as exciting as Katherine Heigl in another romantic comedy.

Yet The Social Network, a film about the founding of online-fixture Facebook, is simply incredible.
Directed by David Fincher of Fight Club, Seven and Benjamin Button fame, The Social Network is without doubt one of the best films of the year. The film is a deft mixture of Greek tragedy, courtroom thriller, college comedy and coming of age tale. Each respective genre is intricately and respectively woven into the plot’s moral fabric.

Based on the true story of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg, the film explores the consequences of success in our day and age. The very idea of Facebook actually started as a plot for revenge after Zuckerburg was spurned by a lover. He aired his disgust for the girl who turned him down the only way our generation knows how to — by blogging. From there, he took his revenge to new heights and spawned FaceMash, a site which users could vote on Harvard students’ overall attractiveness. In a little over an hour, the site had received a staggering 22,000 hits.

Being the genius that he is, Mark Zuckerburg realized the idea for FaceMash could be added upon and thus Facebook was born.

All the while, Zuckerburg is played by a hauntingly distant Jesse Eisenberg, whose lightning quick wit is mixed with an innocent yet roguish blank glare. He is the complete embodiment of a cunning wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Along the way, Zuckerburg makes and breaks friendships. His best friend and business partner, Eduardo Savarin, played by Andrew Garfield, is his only real friend and yet Zuckerburg throws it all away in order to protect his precious website.

Justin Timberlake plays Napster­­­­­ — founder — turned — Zuckerburg — friend Sean Parker, who does his fair share of bragging and backstabbing to get to the top. His cockiness exudes the one-upmanship of this generation.

The story follows a disjointed time line. Edits switch from present courtroom depositions to past events that lead to the said depositions. It’s abrupt and hard to follow in the beginning, but really adds to the fluidity of the pacing and character development.
In the end, Zuckerburg, like so many of us, is left alienated — relegated to his digital Facebook friends. He is successful, but without true human connection and interactions we are left asking just how successful he really has become.

As far as the social commentary overtones — they are apparent in every frame. For the college generation, which this film is definitely speaking to, it’s as if we are staring into a mirror, finding the ugly visage of instant gratification, fame, fortune and individualism. The Social Network is very much a cautionary tale for this digital age of social interaction and self-induced online obsessive compulsive disorder.
In fact, as I write this review I must admit that I’m logged into Facebook.

The Social Network is so masterful, that some are labeling it the “Citizen Kane of our time.” My response to that can only be answered by borrowing the words from college football analyst Lee Corso, whose popular phrase is, “Not so fast!” Truly, The Social Network is something to marvel at but it doesn’t reach Citizen Kane levels — at least not yet.

Instead the film needs some time to marinate in our minds before we get too ahead of ourselves. For now it’ll have to settle as “The Breakfast Club of our time,” as a film which offers a succinct snapshot of a generation. So move over Molly Ringwald, there’s a new nerd at the table.

At the end of my viewing of the film, a friend posed the question whether Facebook was a fad? I kind of paused and thought about it only to reason that a company with 500 million users, valued at $25 billion dollars, in nearly every corner of the planet except maybe Antarctica, should be relevant for a long time. Undoubtedly someone told Bill Gates his “personal computers,” were fads and look how that ended.
Whether we like it or not, Facebook, like Katherine Heigl romantic comedies, are here to stay.



  

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (Review)

BRIEFLY: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is a deftly crafted post-modern film that both effectively reflects and evokes the post-9/11 paranoia of America, while simultaneously being a simple story of a family told in the most unconventional Hollywood way. Most importantly Extremely Loud does little to answer all the questions of our world turned upside down on what the main character Oskar Schell refers to as the Worst Day—September 11, 2001. Instead of coming off pompous and preachy it feels passionate—a love note to the American sentiment both in fear and faith of the days that have proceeded since 9/11. Bullock, Hanks, and Davis all are on par, but it’s the silent performance of Max Von Sydow and newcomer Thomas Horn who steal the show. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is probably my favorite film of 2011 and had I seen it last year, it would have been my number one choice. Fortunately, The Academy did see it and tabbed it for a Best Picture nomination.

DETAILED REVIEW: Anyone who knows me knows I do read a lot of books (I’m an English major after all). I’m definitely into the more post-modern and contemporary literature than most other English majors. I prefer the voice of the time and the moment rather than the voice of decades or centuries gone by (This probably explains my affinity for Stephen King instead of Milton or Chaucer). I honestly don’t even remember where I heard about Jonathan Safran Foer’s Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, but suffice it to say I’m very glad and fortunate to have done so, because it is not just a stellar book, but probably my favorite book I’ve ever read—yes EVER. It sweeps you off your feet and you can’t put it down. A drug addict would call it ecstasy. A fat person would call it a Big Mac. An anorexic would call it Ex-lax. I however say it’s simply brilliant (like fry sauce and chicken strips—maybe I’m the fat person?).

So with that in place, let’s just say I was very excited to see the book on the big screen. I’ll admit though, I was weary. I mean off the top of your head, name a film adaptation that was deemed better than the book? (And please no mention of Twilight!). Yes, film adaptations are rarely deemed better than the source material. Ask any Potter muggle and even they’ll agree (though I do think Hermoine is far hotter on screen than on the page). Film adaptations seem to “leave out” things for the literary fans. I was expecting that this same thing could happen with Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, and it certainly did, but the result was not one of dissatisfaction, but quite the opposite. In the end I found the film to be as enjoyable and satisfying as the book—something I certainly wasn’t expecting.

The plot centers on Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn) whose father (Tom Hanks) died in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Left with nothing more than his father’s empty closet, Oskar seeks to find meaning after his father’s untimely death. He finds a key which he determines must open something his father wanted him to find. Oskar, despite his worried yet seemingly negligent mother (Sandra Bullock), gallivants around the New York to find whether the key actually is a postmortem message from his father. Along the way Oskar meets Abbey Black (Viola Davis), The Renter (Max Von Sydow), and others none of which know anything about the key or Oskar’s father.

Remarkably, the film manages not to slump into some sort of travelogue for New York City. I wondered if we’d see Oskar looking around Times Square or searching for answers at the Statue of Liberty, but fortunately the New York presented on screen is a mysterious one—the real one.  Credit director Stephen Daldry for finding the right tone for a city as iconic as New York and yet making it feel almost foreign and new.

Daldry is no stranger to Oscar fair either with his films like The Hours, The Reader, and Billy Elliot. He has a knack for finding a story that can be both touching and heartbreaking, but most of all entertaining. Extremely Loud is no different having garnered nominations now for Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor with Sydow’s work.

What’s most interesting about the film is how Daldry captures the feeling, the genuine sentiment of the dark days that preceded 9/11. We were all in deed a little nervous and wondered if things would be even darker in the days that were yet to come. Would there ever be a “normal?” Daldry projects these feelings in Oskar (who in the book has Asperger’s syndrome, though the film doesn’t clearly define him that way). Oskar wants so badly to understand his father’s death, but to an audience who grew up in such perilous times we find ourselves, in moments of pure catharsis, thinking the exact same things he does (like being suspicious of public transportation). Though Daldry dabbles with the “why,” he wisely sidesteps the answers simply with “It’s not going to make sense, because it’s not supposed to” (that’s a line delivered from a teary eyed Sandra Bullock who subsequently made me teary—Kleenex please?!).

Though I won’t reveal any of the third act of Extremely Loud I will say that is an extremely (no pun intended) satisfying climax coupled with an effective denouement. Oskar finds, something we all know but rarely say, that he isn’t the only one suffering and more importantly he is not alone. Though he can’t completely resolve the death of his father, he has finally developed the courage to move on. Much like the American public (for better or worse) that’s what we’ve done—moved on. Though the plot of the film revolves around Oskar and his family, the story aims higher, becoming a sort of allegory to Americanism in the wake of 9/11—and in my opinion it does it beautifully.

I’m truly surprised that the film has been so divisive among critics (It’s currently at 46% on rottentomatoes.com). Maybe this is more a reflection of the current political landscape, one divided both on war and the economy, than representative of the film itself? Regardless, the other 54% are wrong. It’s a movie that not only “moves” you but inspires you. I know it made me break out my laptop and pound out a few pages on my screenplay. Though one thing is for sure, anyone (myself included) will be extremely hard-pressed and have to be incredibly talented to match the revelatory scope, both in word and image, of this movie. Don’t miss it. It’s the Best Picture of 2011.

GRADE: A

The CineMATTIC's Best of Film 2011...

I was seriously considering writing something clever about what a year at the megaplex 2011 was and then I just decided to take a cue from "The Spears" and get on with the list…

  Isn't she just the voice of reason?

Without further adieu, my selections for Best Films of 2011...

 
HONORABLE MENTIONS (in no particular order): The Ides of March, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Young Adult, Midnight In Paris, Tree of Life.

10. Like Crazy – “...the perfect love story without being perfect at all. There is no Nicholas Sparks schmaltz, no John Hughes nostalgia--only real, raw, authentic, love. Though it's characters navigate through all the stereotypical moments of first love (the kiss, the awkward date, the terms of endearment, the heartbreak, etc.), they do so with such authenticity that we feel like Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones are really falling for each other. It's easy to see how Like Crazy swept Sundance off it's feet, because quite literally it floored me.” 

  

9. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo- “This is David Fincher’s version of female Fight Club. For years Fincher has been derided (and deservedly so) for his supposed hate for women, at least in Fight Club. Yet, Dragon Tattoo is the anti-male movie, with a fiercely quiet Rooney Mara saving the day and the man like some female version of a punk-rock superhero. It’s dark, but daring and all the while reinvents and redefines what femininity can be in the new millennium.”

8. Crazy, Stupid, Love –“Might just be the best romantic comedy since Pretty Woman. It’s clever, distinctively quirky, and all the while unquestionably warm. It’s also extremely well cast and reads like a “who’s who” of Hollywood’s hottest stars with Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Kevin Bacon Steve Carrell, Julianne Moore, and don’t forget about Marisa Tomei all leading the way. This movie deftly captures love, that is both crazy and stupid and even a little over the top—well almost all the time.”

7. Moneyball- “A film that sidesteps all the sports movie clichés by creating an absorbing niche as a character study. It’ll still have you standing on your feet, but it does so in such a unique way that you almost forget your watching a movie about baseball, but rather a movie about life. Brad Pitt turns in a performance far more grounded than he has in recent memory.”

 

6. Bridesmaids – “Funnier in almost every way than the so-called crown jewel of comedy The Hangover. The acting is superb and the situations laugh-ou-loud hilarious. Kristen Wiig is a modern day Carol Burnett with her wit and undeviating talent to make every moment on screen both awkward and authentic. Even still, It’s Melissa McCarthy who steals the show as the overweight yet undeniably infectious bridesmaid. We can only hope there’s a sequel on the horizon.”

5. Super 8- “JJ Abrams love note to Spielberg films of the 80's is entertaining, while also reminding us exactly why we like movies so much. Its nostalgic when it needs to be, while not overstaying its welcome. The cast again is stellar with each character actually being a character, with real personalities and real emotion. Abrams deftly blends sci-fi with familial drama in a way that simply hasn't been seen, well since Spielberg. Super 8 might be our generations’ version of E.T. or Goonies, but one thing is for certain it's a film we'll never forget...”

4. The Help-“You is smart. You is kind. You is important. Honestly, those words alone catapult The Help this far. Sure, it’s a movie about civil rights, but more importantly a film about finding yourself—and being okay with whatever you are. Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer headline the cast, but it’s the utter joy of Jessica Chastain and the unflinching hate of Bryce Dallas Howard that provide the emotional backbone for the film. This film makes me want to believe that I am in fact smart, kind, and most of all, important."  

3. Drive- “Every frame of the film is like a piece of art, a 21^st century fresco highlighted in neon grunge and bathed in dark shadows. It’s violent, bloody, and has the biggest WTF moment of the year with a slow motion shotgun-blast-decapitation. Sure, Drive is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it’s so daring with its house infused synth tracks that both the sound and visuals combine to bore deep into your veins. Rarely do films haunt me like Drive did, but it’s become not only my neon nightmare, but the dark art house flick I never dreamed of liking let alone loving.”

2. War Horse-“… a masterpiece of staggering emotional proportions. It’s quite simply one of the best films of the year. War Horse might be described as the most manipulative film in recent memory. There’s really nothing that can be said about a film this flawless that moves both seamless and with such soft-as-satin sentimentality as War Horse.”

1. The Descendants- “Rarely do films manage to blend comedy and realism—well realistically. It’s authenticity lies not in the plot or action but in the subtle and even silent moments in the film. We feel as they fell, because they represent the human condition so closely. By the film’s conclusion we find no real happy ending, probably because life offers no fairy tale respite. Rather life goes on, we move on, the sun comes out tomorrow and yes however bleak it may appear hope indeed never dies. Don’t miss this movie. It may not be the “feel good movie of the year,” but it is certainly the “feel right” one.”


Well.. there you have it... That's it till next year...

War Horse (Review)

BRIEFLY: War Horse is a masterpiece of staggering emotional proportions. It’s quite simply one of the best films of the year. There’s nothing necessarily groundbreaking here, the camera work, cinematography, plot, etc. are nothing new in the least bit, but with legendary director Steven Spielberg behind the lens every moment feels like magic—and not the crummy Criss Angel type. Indeed, Spielberg does little more than gun for our hearts but boy does he get us. In this way War Horse might be described as the most manipulative film in recent memory. Not that that is a bad thing, but every moment of the movie is meant to do just that—move us and move us it most certainly does.  There’s really nothing that can be said about a film this flawless that moves both seamless and with such soft-as-satin sentimentality. It’ll definitely have you clinging for some Kleenex and hugging those you love a little tighter. You. Must. See. War Horse.  

DETAILED REVIEW: A couple years ago when Spielberg announced his plans to take the popular stage play War Horse to the big screen, you could almost hear the collective “meh” from film fans spanning the globe. I was one of those fans and remember saying, “Seriously this is the best Spielberg can do?” Indeed the man behind E.T., Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Minority Report, Jaws, Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, and Catch Me If You Can was tackling a stage play? And we’re supposed to be thrilled? Yet there I was standing in a theatre lobby stunned by the two hour journey Spielberg had whisked me away on. Boy, did I feel silly doubting him; kinda like Lindsay Lohan after she turned down a role in The Hangover because she surmised it wasn’t a “bankable” film. In the end, it’s Spielberg with the last laugh and likely Oscar gold to boot.   

War Horse is a film with a scope the breadth of the Titanic (both the ship and Kate Winslet’s “goods”) that feels at least a partial paean to the Hollywood films of yore—the so-called golden age. It’s got the deep spirit of adventure like Lawrence of Arabia, the prismatic cinematography of Ben Hur, and the drama of Gone with the Wind. It’s grander, at least in scale and scope, than any of Spielberg’s films aside from maybe Saving Private Ryan. There’s so many truly beautiful shots that it’s hard to single out just one, but the opening sequence which showcases breathtaking granite studded Britain vistas is truly remarkable. We immediately are taken back by a film that promises to emotionally wrestle us and does so again in part due to the overwhelming scope.

The story of War Horse is again nothing new. We are not shocked when the underdog horse affectionately named Joey plows a rocky field he shouldn’t be able to plow. Nor are we surprised when he is hauled off into a far-flung war in despite his owner’s wishes. We are also not stunned when tragedy strikes Joey and all hope is lost. Surprising—no. Shocking—Absolutely not. Are we Touched, without a doubt. We feel so deeply what happens that we almost become the myriad of characters the courageous Joey finds along his way. It’s really not the story of a horse, but the tale of a people—or more specifically us.

The acting throughout is absolutely wonderful yet there isn’t one “stand-out” performance. The acting duties are rather spread out equally over a sprawling and diverse ensemble. Spielberg has a deft eye for picking actors and actresses who accurately convey humanity. So much so, that you don’t feel like you’re watching “acting” at all. There’s literally every emotion on screen at one point or another. You’re utterly arrested by these characters who suffocate you with the lush panorama of emotions they each portray.

Earlier I mentioned that War Horse is a manipulative film, and I won’t back down from that. Spielberg goes for the poignant jugular in seemingly every frame of this two hour epic onslaught. By the end it’s draining but in a good way. In fact I cried not once, but twice—and yes then again in the car. It stirs within so many conflicting feelings that it’s hard to decipher exactly why you’re crying at all.

In the end, War Horse is exactly the film I didn’t think Spielberg would make at least at this juncture in his already illustrious career. Yet, War Horse has completely swept America off its collective feet and also simultaneously catapulted itself to the top of the Best Picture Oscar race—yes it is truly THAT good.

GRADE: A

Young Adult (Review)



P.S. Is this not the coolest movie poster... well ever? Tori Leavitt and Amanda Mitchell could back me up on this without a doubt... Right?

BREIFLY: Writer Diablo Cody and Director Jason Reitman (both of Juno fame) bring us Young Adult, a fiercely dark and remarkably authentic character study with headier content than Juno but far less gravitas or poignancy than Up in the Air. In truth, Young Adult might be Jason Reitman’s boldest film yet—yes even more than Thank You for Not Smoking. His aim here is not to create empathy for the self-absorbed thirty-something novelist, played to perfection by Charlize Theron. Rather, Reitman is concerned with portrayal under the scrutiny of a sincere if sometimes harsh lens. Yes we feel for the shallow Theron, but we also simultaneously hate her. In the end, Young Adult is precisely the kind of film you don’t want to model your life after—so yes you should probably see it.

DETAILED REVIEW: Jason Reitman’s career has been of interesting note. He crafts films that are uniquely American yet somehow manages to add just enough quirks that they seem otherworldly. Juno is one example as is Up in the Air. We know his characters and yet we don’t know them at all. Young Adult is no different as Charlize Theron is “that” girl in high school we all hated even though we secretly wanted to be her. You remember her: good looks, rockin' bod, hot jock boyfriend, popular, cheer captain, etc. She was the type of girl that was the physical manifestation of the Ms. Spears song “If You Seek Amy.” (listen to the lyrics...you'lll agree). At the end of the day you couldn’t help but want to be her—even if it meant you’d be labeled a bitch. This is exactly what Thereon channels as the Y.A. novelist Mavis Gary who goes back to her hometown in hopes of swooning back her old love flame Buddy (he was of course the aforementioned high school jock).

Thereon plays the thirty-something shallow woman with such ease that you come to accept her as Mavis. With a character like Mavis it’s easy to see how Theron could move beyond reality into straight tongue-in-cheek slapstick, but she manages to weigh her character down with an honesty that’s so harsh it cuts to the bone—thus revealing a character more insecure than she’d ever admit. Past her prime with her “Waverly Place” young adult fiction franchise, Mavis clings to her success while simultaneously degrading it. She’s bipolar in regards to her so-called “fame,” and would rather get drunk and loaded than sell books.

It’s also of note that Theron’s appearance changes faster than a diaper at KinderCare. In one moment, Theron is the ultimate femme fatale only to wilt in the next shot to a hung-over hag that even Zach Galifinakis would pass on. She deserves credit here as well, because as her looks change so does the acting. It’s deft, without being overt. It’s a well-crafted character that is memorable to say the least. Theron definitely deserves an Academy Award nomination for her work here and should have no problem garnering it either.

Mavis of course can’t help herself and throws herself at Buddy who is now happily married with a child. Buddy shuns Mavis, but because she was the “It-girl” in high school she reasons it’s because Buddy is insecure about himself. When he tells her he’s married she responds, “We can beat this together.” It’s that type of dialogue that typifies the film while revealing both Mavis’ superficiality as well as her brutal honesty.

Though it’s definitely nowhere as good as Reitman’s Juno or Up in The Air, Young Adult is the type of film Hollywood only dares to make, but rarely ever does. This is again because we can’t really enjoy watching the hometown high school has-been disintegrate, but we also don’t want her to suceed—not entirely at least. It’s really a movie about an antihero trying to be something more, something better: The Hero! Yet in doing so we and also she discovers it’s not only blonds that have more fun, its bitches too.   

GRADE: B

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Review)

BRIEFLY: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, is David Fincher’s version of female Fight Club. For years Fincher has been derided (and deservedly so) for his supposed hate for women, at least in Fight Club. Yet, Dragon Tattoo is the anti-male movie, with a fiercely quiet Rooney Mara saving the day and the man like some female version of a punk-rock superhero. She kicks ass, takes names, and even does a little body art in a moment that doesn’t just scream feminist empowerment—it howls it. This is certainly not a movie for everyone (there’s an abundance of nudity, drug use, and a few rape scenes). In other words, don’t see it if this content is offensive to you, but if you read the source material (by the same name penned by Stieg Larsson (and you probably did—It sold over 50 million copies), you’ll certainly find Fincher’s take both haunting and quite loyal.

DETAILED REVIEW: What’s so interesting about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is how popular it is. How on earth a book with such heinous content rose to such popularity is beyond me. It’s not for the Twilight, Hunger Games, or Harry Potter crowd and I certainly can’t envision it being on Oprah’s book club, but here it is 50 million sold and counting. Every terrible thing you can imagine (yes pretty much except maybe the extinction of the McRib) is in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Rape, violent killings, blood, sexual deviants, drug use, intercourse, and sexual promiscuity are all on full display on both the pages and on screen. If you have ovaries in fact, you probably should just hide in a closet somewhere. That, at least on the surface is with Dragon Tattoo is about.

Someone in the Swedish wealthy Vanger family has vanished some time ago, and the eldest member of the family wants it to finally be solved. In comes Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) to save the day. In true narrative form, one would assume that Blomkvist will indeed solve the crime, but this is not your typical film. Instead, Blomkvist needs the help of dare I say—a woman.

In comes genius sleuth Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara). She saves her male counterpart (a rather inept David Craig) while also managing to lift up her gender in the meantime by saving the oppressed females from Tyler Durden and the Fight Club misogynists. While most films in classical Hollywood form hew to the male being in charge, Dragon Tattoo skews completely to the side of the female. When Lisbeth needs something she takes it—just like the Honey Badger only instead of Half-eaten cobras, she wields brains and pierced breasts. When Lisbeth wants sex—she takes it. There’s no casual or even chivalry involved—its cold and calculated like her. She looks at times like an abstract painting with her extreme hair, piercings, tattoos, and scowl. We project our own back story onto her pale canvas face throughout the film. One thing we are sure of—if we are in a fight we want Salander. Durden is our second pick.

At one point, we do find ourselves wondering if Fincher has leapt back into his misogynistic tendencies as Salander does get raped in an unnerving display that is anything but easy to watch (semi-spoiler there). Moments later, Fincher shocks us with a revenge rape in which Salander utilizes a “night-stick” and a little permanent black tattoo ink. By the end of that similarly unnerving scene we’re not doubting Salander anymore, she can fend for herself and then some. In other words, she’s no post-rehab Kelly Osbourne.

The film follows both Blomkvist and Salander as they work to solve the crime. It’s a whodunit, but not necessarily one in which we wonder who actually did it as much as why they are connected to the two protagonists. At times the viewer will certainly wonder “what’s the connection,” but by the end they’ll hopefully have a “ah-ha” moment. That should occur when Salander literally saves Blomkvist only to ask almost mechanically, “may I kill him?” It’s at that time we realize Fincher’s full vision of the film not as a faithful adaption to the crime thriller, but to the raw power of feminism. Rooney Mara IS Salander and probably has found her way firmly into the Oscar race as a result. She immerses herself into the role so much so that the only way to describe it is to use a tired cliché: she was born for it. No doubt Julia Roberts, Reece Witherspoon, nor even Hollywood’s hottest mess Lindsay Lohan would even answer a casting call to a film as daring as Fincher’s Dragon Tattoo. None of them will probably even Netflix it—which is a compliment really. I doubt Salander’s ever seen Pretty Woman and I bet The Parent Trip isn’t even in her queue.

While Fight Club defined what it meant to be man, and maybe even still what it means to be a man, it’s hard to decide whether Dragon Tattoo will have that impact for women. If anything though, it’s the bookend to its gender sibling Fight Club and at least now we know that if Tyler Durden were real, he’d be fantasizing about Salander (as if he’d have a chance with her. After all she’s got James Bond). Watch a Kotex commercial, sip a Diet Coke, and give yourself a cigarette burn. After you’ve done all  that watch The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.   

Grade: A-

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (Review)

BRIEFLY: Brad Bird, the Pixar wunderkind behind The Incredibles and Ratatouille has crafted a near perfect Mission: Impossible film. This is easily the best in the franchise and Bird also does the unthinkable: make Tom Cruise bearable for the general public. Even more, with most of the film shot in IMAX 70mm film Bird also takes us literally to places we can only experience in real-life—until now. Simon Pegg and Jeremy Renner add some laughs and muscle to freshen up the cast. While Bird does one hell of a job resurrecting the franchise, his biggest misstep here is a sandstorm in Dubai that just feels and looks quite cheesy (I think you can even see the pixels). We expect more from special effects, especially someone who’s worked at Pixar. Nonetheless, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol can’t be missed, especially if you see it in IMAX.

DETAILED REVIEW: If you ever wondered, “What would a real-life Pixar movie look like?” you may have finally got that answer with Brad Bird’s Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Though it’s a film extremely low on story (at least creatively speaking), it is high on plot. Indeed, every moment leads invariably to the next and so on. This is a flesh-and-blood manifestation of The Incredibles. After an incredibly white knuckle opening, I found myself half expecting the white-lamp Pixar logo to make an appearance (a comment far more complimentary than you might think).

Ghost Protocol follows the Mission Impossible formula once again as the IMF disavows its spies, blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, villains, blah, blah, blah, world to end, blah blah blah…. Really the plot is not groundbreaking here and recounting it would be like re-watching the entire season of Teen Mom 2—teen gets pregnant. Have kids. Drama ensues. MTV cashes in. Truly, Bird doesn’t mess with the plot too much as the formula is successful at least financially, but Bird does take into account every shot with his meticulous eye, developed over years at Pixar. A crumbling, exploding Kremlin is of particular note.

The biggest surprise here though is Bird making Mr. Cruise actually relevant. Somehow, someway, Cruise channels his mid-nineties moxie—the one that lit up screens with Jerry MaGuire and A Few Good Men and even the original Mission: Impossible. Nevertheless, whatever voodoo ceremony Bird cast on Cruise, it was worth it. Somehow, Tom Cruise is back and we’ll hopefully forget that Oprah couch jump like we forgot Y2K and Furbies.

Though the film follows it’s “paint-by-numbers” plot, its well-worth the watch. Near the end of the second act, Bird takes us to Dubai and places us atop the world’s tallest skyscraper. Cruise dangles from one window and clings to another. I can’t really even remember why Cruise is doing it, but it doesn’t matter. You feel while watching him that you’re actually going to fall off the gleaming building edges and into the desert abyss. This is aided by the larger IMAX format. In fact, don’t see this any other way, BUT in IMAX; seriously. To see it any other way would be a disservice, like watching a home video of Splash Mountain on YouTube instead of actually riding it.  

Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, and a breathtaking Paula Patton (where did she come from?) round out a pretty stellar cast that manages to rummage up laughs when needed, while also being serious enough as to not paint the film in a film swatch of tongue-in-cheek cheese. Renner and Patton are “stars-in-waiting.” I’m still not sure where Pegg is, but he certainly isn’t going down.

The biggest problem I had with Ghost Protocol involved an “all-too-convenient-looks-like-a-brendan-frazier-mummy-rip-off-sandstorm.” The sand clouds seriously look like they were rendered with software from the late 1990’s on a purple plastic covered iMac (you know the ones). I certainly expect more from a film in 2011 and expect exponentially more for the guy who handcrafts reality at Pixar all the time. The sandstorm was just too-farfetched. I felt like I was watching someone try to channel the Hitchcock “plane scene” ala North by Northwest. It just doesn’t work, not in 2011, nor in the last decade—ask Brendan Frasier and The Rock.

Regardless, Mission Impossible is like a Disneyland thrill ride you’ve ridden before—perhaps like the aforementioned Splash Mountain. You’ve ridden it before, maybe several times, but you can’t help but enjoy it again, and again. That, in a nutshell is Ghost Protocol—a thrill ride you won’t be disappointed with. Just don’t see it in on YouTube (the theatre) go to the park (IMAX) and take it for a spin.

GRADE: B+   

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (Review)

BRIEFLY: If you liked the original Guy Ritchie film, you’ll love the new one. Though there is nothing particularly groundbreaking here, it’s certainly a lot of film. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows overcomes lazy plotting (sometimes you wonder even if there is a plot) and pacing issues that are bogged down due to excessive dialogue. Nonetheless, the chemistry of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law is purely infectious—making this an exciting ride you simply shouldn’t miss this holiday season.

DETAILED REVIEW: Guy Ritchie has found his foothold in Hollywood. His best work in Snatch and Lock, Stock, & Two Smoking Barrels are considered at best, “fringe” hits. I mean, if you know any of those titles you probably deserve a gold star. While married to the Miss Monster Madonna, his career took a backseat to her fame. He succumbed and mad what many regard as the worst film of all time Swept Away (Yes, even Tip-Toes plays second fiddle this atrocity). Nonetheless, Warner Bros. put trust in Ritchie to resurrect the famed detective franchise, Sherlock Holmes. Ritchie delivered with the first installment, and he has certainly done it again with the sequel, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

Back are Robert Downey Jr. (Holmes) and Jude Law (Watson). They are comedic gold and are the perfect combination and foil to one another. They are the 19^th century version of the “Bromance.” It’s refreshing to see actors enjoying their jobs like Law and Downey Jr. It’s also not a stretch to say that Ritchie enjoys it as well—after all he is the magician behind this spectacle. Every frame oozes the time period and Ritchie deserves kudos for helping us escape, completely into another era.

As far as plot is concerned, there really isn’t one. Sure, films like this really don’t need one (see Pirates of the Carribbean, Die Hard, and any Michael Bay explosion movie for further evidence), nevertheless it’s a distraction. At times it’s hard to discern how or even why we get from one scene to the next. All we really do know is there some big “end-of-the-world” thing going down and Holmes is the only one capable of solving the mystery and saving the day. Dr. Moriarty, the heretofore faceless arch enemy of Holmes is behind the grand scheme.  

Noomi Rapace plays a gypsy whose brother has something really bad to do with the whole “end-of-the-world” scheme and thrust Europe into a World War. Problem is, Rapace does absolutely nothing to make us care about her, and we do have to assume she is the emotional backbone of the story (Mostly because Holmes and Watson are all about the slap-shtick). Instead, Rapace is seen scrambling with Sherlock and Watson while both of them talk a lot and she manages to do very little, both in dialogue and in serving whatever plot the films upholds. Perhaps she was meant to be some sort of Femme Fatale archetype, but she is never fleshed out enough to really do anything but be a “tag-a-long.”

The pacing is uneven as well, at least in the beginning, but that was a problem with the original as well. We move either really fast from one action set-up to the next, or really slow, plodding through painfully drawn out dialogue. Nevertheless, Downey Jr. and Law make up for it and sweep the film back from its lull.

Though it sounds like I didn’t enjoy the film, I really did. I had more fun at Sherlock Holmes than I did in Green Lantern, Transformers 3, Captain America, and X-Men combined. So, that’s definitely a compliment, and I’m certainly excited for a sequel. I do hope though, that perhaps Ritchie can fix some of these problems next time around. Again, that’s not at all to say I didn’t like the movie, just that there are still a few tweaks that will benefit the franchise and make for an even better experience.  If you love the original you’ll love this one. The comedy is as funny as the first and the action is sequences are breathtaking in a “Matrix” sort of way. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is the perfect fix for anyone who needs a laugh and doesn’t need a plot.

GRADE: B

The Descendants (Review)

BRIEFLY: The Descendants is one of the best films of the year. Without a doubt its greatest moments surpass anything else at the multiplex. The acting is taut, but refreshingly realistic as we come to not only know the characters but identify so greatly with them that we become them. Indeed, we feel what they feel even in the most subtle moments. Though the film’s opening smolders with a clumsy voiceover and sloppy pacing, it finds its groove and stays there for the remainder of the film. Undoubtedly, The Descendants will garner some serious Oscar gold, but might also find itself walking away with the Hollywood Big Kahuna—Best Picture.

DETAILED REVIEW: George Clooney is one of those mysterious men who just happens to have “it.” What “it” is is entirely a different question, but there’s no question—he has “it.” He is like the acting equivalent to a Big Mac and fries. His films are always successful sans Batman & Robin. He has triumphed genres, nearly everyone (I’m still waiting for him to be in horror—Scream 5 maybe?) while also managing to be the GQ cover boy we all aspire to be.

In The Descendants though, Clooney gives us quite possibly his best performance filled to overflowing with nuances so subtle yet tactile that you might feel like you’re watching “real” people go through “real” situations. The Descendants is less a representation of reality as it seemingly is reality itself. And no not the reality we see on VH1, but rather the reality we see in each other—at school, Wal-mart, etc. At the center of this film that mirrors the real world (not the MTV version) is Clooney, whose emotional core is the literal center of a film shrouded in the chaotic elements of everyday life.

The film takes place in Hawaii, where Matt King (George Clooney) and his family try to pick up the pieces while his wife is under a coma. At the same time, Matt (what a great name—right?) is the primary descendant of a tract of land his family has inherited for centuries. His family wants him to sell the land—and Matt’s okay with that, but finds that this decision, coupled with his wife’s condition, is far too complicated for him to bear.

Matt surrounds himself with his daughters Scottie (Amara Miller) and Alexandria (Shailene Woodley) as his wife nears the inevitability of death. His relationship with each of them is dysfunctional and disconnected, which he hopes he can mend. Soon though, as life itself usually yields, more complications ensue, including finding out his wife was cheating on him prior to her accident.

Though the film has every excuse to swirl out of control into straight shtick comedy it doesn’t. Conversely the movie could pour on the “mush,” transforming it into a Rachel McAdams love tragedy. Nonetheless, director Alexander Payne maintains a healthy balance between humor and heartbreak as we find ourselves laughing through tears.

Though Clooney’s acting here is certainly the flagship performance, it’s Shaileen Woodley (The Secret Life of the American Teenager), whose performance might actually be the most memorable. Indeed, Woodley is on the brink of a career explosion that could be on the same level as current “it” girl Emma Stone. Woodley does this thing with her eyes (Not like Tyra’s made-up term “Smizing”) that actually communicates with the audience. Her eyes whisper words that even a mouth couldn’t muster.

Though the title The Descendants refers to the land inherited by King and his family, it could also be linked to Matt’s family as they are the ones left with suffering. Each of them has to both move on and live on, as offspring having inherited a dire situation—the death of their mother and wife.     

In the end, The Descendants ends with what some will call a “happy ending.” However I think its conclusion is more explicit about the theme of the movie: that life goes on, rather than being simply happy or sad. This ambiguity actually is the resolution itself. Life moves on, the Sun comes out tomorrow, and yes hope never dies. Clooney and his daughters do what we all would do in similar circumstances by picking up the pieces and trying to move not only on, but up.  Don’t miss this movie. It may not be the “feel good movie of the year,” but it is certainly the “feel right” one.

GRADE: A

Like Crazy (Review)



BRIEFLY: Like Crazy is the perfect love story without being perfect at all. There is no Nicholas Sparks schmaltz, no John Hughes nostalgia--only real, raw, authentic, love. Though it's characters navigate through all the stereotypical moments of first love (the kiss, the awkward date, the terms of endearment, the heartbreak, etc.), they do so with such authenticity that we feel like Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones are really falling for each other. The camera work has a visceral, voyeuristic quality that further elevates Like Crazy into a realm all its own. It's easy to see how Like Crazy swept Sundance off it's feet, because quite literally it floored me.

DETAILED REVIEW: Like Crazy was Sundance's critical darling. By the festival's end, it had amassed huge crowds and was merited with the Grand Jury Prize for Best Picture. Though it rose to meteoric levels, I didn't have it on my Sundance radar, because Martha Marcy May Marlene (the one where the Olsen twins' sister starred as a cult escapee) looked so good as to render other festival fare futile. It wasn't until Amanda Mitchell (BFF and former University Journal Editor-in-Chief) sent me the Like Crazy trailer on Facebook. Viewing the trailer was the nail in my coffin. I simply HAD to see this movie.

Starring Anton Yelchin of Star Trek and Fright Night fame, as well as newcomer Felicity Jones, Like Crazy is about the roller coaster we call love. Though the premise of two people falling madly for each other seems rehashed and stale--it isn't. Instead, Like Crazy is a breath of fresh air accented by performances that are captivating. Further both the camera work and cinematography flow seamlessly. It's the first love story I've ever described as 'hypnotic,' which in and of itself is an odd, but intriguing label.

Anna (Jones), with her crooked toothed smile, beams with the blossoming seed of love. Yet, Anna has to return to Britain because her visa has expired. Instead of doing the logical thing, Anna stays to be with Jacob (Yelchin). Certainly love this genuine is powerful enough to conquer any foreign affair? The answer to that question is, "No!" as Anna is barred from returning to America because of the visa violation. What is a poor couple to do? Think about each other, miss each other, and of course love each other--like crazy. The problem is that because of their distance they find that its too hard to keep the relationship going, even when Jacob comes to Britain to visit. "It's hard to stop and start again," Anna surmises.

Against all previous inclinations, they find other love but can't seem to get over each other no matter how attractive their new partners are. Jennifer Lawrence is Sam, Jacob's American lover while Anna's beau is Simon (Charlie Brewely). There's a lot of heartbreak for most of the second and third acts. Indeed, the film seeks to show that love is as much heartbreak as it is anything else.

Though the primary characters are extremely captivating, I couldn't help but be drawn to Anna and Jacob's forlorn, substitute lovers--Sam and Simon. What gets lost in Like Crazy is that for Sam and Simon, their passionate love is Anna and Jacob. Simon and Sam are the unrequited lovers, that so which they could be loved.

I'm not sure I've ever been in love--not the real love that Anna and Jacob have for each other. I do know however how Sam feels when her heart is broken and the words, "But I love you Jacob," fall on deaf ears while the sinking reality sets in. I KNOW that feeling--a feeling that quite frankly sucks.

Though its unclear whether any of these characters deserves a happy ending, it matters little, because Like Crazy is not about the destination, but rather the journey as love's natural course ebbs and flows. Truly, love is obsession, passion, something you can't quite live without. You grasp to it, which in the end is all Anna and Jacob have for each other--the love. To borrow a famous quote from Meet Joe Black, "If you haven't loved--you haven't lived." In the end Like Crazy is about exactly that; living and loving, as well as all the emotions both bad and good in between.

If you love Nicholas Sparks films, you'll probably hate this movie, which is exactly the reason Like Crazy is a film not to be missed.

GRADE: A-

And yes... you'll probably cry.



(Though I of course only teared up...) ;)

Tree of Life (Review)


Okay, so Tree of Life was released forever ago, but managed to never find a home in Utah theatres. It finally found its way to DVD and in my hands via Redbox. My review of Terrance Mallick's towering film follows...

BRIEFLY: Both Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain execute near perfect performances through very little dialogue but cleverly nuanced performances. Indeed, they say more by not saying anything at all. Though the film aspires to be a cosmic melting pot of everyday life and the towering power of nature, it struggles to find a foothold at least initially. After that, Mallick's film is a stunning work which literally connects us to the cosmos through visuals that scream to be seen. At nearly 3 hours, the film is a little overlong, but Mallick overall does a fine job encapsulating the ultimate human condition--life itself. One warning though, If your favorite TV show is Keeping the Kardashians or you actually read Twilight, you'll without doubt HATE this movie. Bottom line: Tree of Life is not a film for the motion picture illiterate crowd.

DEATILED REVIEW: What is so breathtaking about Tree of Life is its deeply moving cinematography. Quite possibly never before has light and darkness, shadow and substance, said so much by also managing to show so little. If the cinematography doesn't win an Oscar hell will have had to froze over, because its like a poet has shot this film (And of course I mean that in a GOOD way).

The film covers a lot of ground from the primeval beginnings of Earth to the nostalgic 1950's of Texas. All the while Mallick reminds us of both how big and small we are in relation to the grandiose scale of the universe. Its an interesting dichotomy between nature and grace (life) that Mallick weaves together through the images. In fact aside from whispering voice overs, Tree of Life has very little dialogue, instead relying again on the image as well as its subsequent relation to both the image that precedes it and follows it. It's complicated to explain and far more effective to see for yourself.

The biggest gripe with the film is that the movement is a little slow--but i guess isn't life in and of itself a slow process? the pacing at times is uneven and some of the images are too abstract when they should be more direct. Also the special effects are very well done with the lone exception being that of a scene involving dinosaurs. Why Mallick chose to make them less real than anything else in the film is any one's guess. I mean its 2011, dinosaurs should look real--they did in 1993 with Jurassic Park after all. Sean Penn also has very little to do with the film which seems to be an entirely big waste of his talent. In fact he might be on camera only about 10 or 15 minutes total in the 3 hour epic. (I could be wrong on his actual screen time, but he felt completely absent)

Overall, the film is a stunning example of the creative minds of filmmakers. Its ideas are at times challenging, but the attention to image as it relates to story is so well thought out to almost meticulously molecular levels that its hard both to look away and not be affected by them. Tree of Life might very well be our generations film equivalent to the literary War & Peace. Only time (and the primordial inevitability of nature) will tell...


Grade: B+

Now it's time for something decidedly "low-brow"...

Found it... :)

#GTL #teamsnooki

J. Edgar (Review)

I know I promised a cheesy "Best-War-Movie" list thing, but I really could only think of one truly "great" war movie--Saving Private Ryan. So, I kinda got over the whole make a list thing. Combine that with a bad day at work (Veteran's got FREE food at The OG and yet still didn't tip. That's both embarrassing and disrespectful--Thanks Soldiers) and I just had no real desire to get a list done. My solution? Go buy something. After heading to the new H&M and deciding the 3 hour line just to get in wasn't worth the wait, I decided a movie would be a good idea. Oscar season is just around the corner, and J. Edgar is looking to capitalize...

DISCLAIMER: With all my reviews I will include a brief short synopsis followed by a detailed review exploring the themes, acting, writing, direction, cinematography, etc. So, if you have the attention span of say Paris Hilton, all you'll have to read is the "Briefly" section. I'll try and keep it simple for you guys.

BRIEFLY: J. Edgar is a well acted film in which DiCaprio shines. Still, Eastwood's direction is so uneven, so fragmented, and so very dull both in it's execution and concept, that I'm left asking, "Huh?" Further, the Dustin Lance Black penned script is also a far cry from his deft work in Milk, as he manages to make J. Edgar feel more like a Citizen Kane-wannabe-groupie rather than a fresh revealing look into a very troubling and complex man. Eastwood seemingly has fallen a long way from Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino.

DETAILED REVIEW: What do you get when you take two of the most powerful men in Hollywood, throw in an up-and-coming screenwriter, while snagging a producer whose filmography reads like the selection at Blockbuster? (Are there even Blockbusters anymore? #fail) Apparently, you get J. Edgar. A film that feels like its trying too hard, for too long. It so yearns to be a biopic of supreme substance and entertainment, yet falls far short. We are never quite sure whether we are supposed to sympathize or passionately despise the titular character.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, J. Edgar is likely a product of a man/legend who simply thinks he knows what we want. When Eastwood is great, he is brilliant. (see Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, etc.) When Eastwood is bad, he is awful on a M. Night Shyamalan level. (see Hereafter, Invictus, and Changeling) Quite possibly his greatest folly is his love for nostalgia in J. Edgar which completely undermines every minute with awkward and uneven placement of political figures and celebrities a like (there's a scene with Shirley Temple that literally made me go "REALLYYYY?"). He wants us to feel something, but seems to force us into the plot rather than the character. Even Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman knows that's simply a "Big mistake. Big. Huge."

Herein lies the problem with a film such as this, is it a character study or is the plot, the formation of the FBI, the real story here. Estwood nor Dustin Lance Black seem to know what they want it to be, as the plot is organized in a very haphazardly schizophrenic way. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to its collinear organization other than to confuse the audience.

The film follows J. Edgar Hoover, played rathher adeptly by Leonardo DiCaprio. Hoover rises through the ranks to direct and organize the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Naomi Watts plays his loyal assistant while Armie Hammer is DiCaprio's right hand man, both in bed and in the boardroom. Hoover's mother played by "Oscar Queen" Judi Dench is the cold-hearted woman behind the equally cold Edgar. The acting as an ensemble is deserving of serious praise, yet bad make-up and lighting (most notably with Armie Hammer's older version of Tolson) makes the film feel far less authentic and far more like a scant high school theatre production. Still, credit DiCaprio for portraying Edgar. He brought his "A game," and deserves an Oscar nomination without a doubt.

In the end, it's hard to say who J. Edgar Hoover really was, which is quite possibly to biggest disservice the film does for it's audience. There is seemingly too much going on at too many different times. A narrative structure like this would better suit a drug addict diva--Lindsay Lohan perhaps? (Now there's an idea!). Regardless, it is worth at least a Redbox viewing as DiCaprio's performance is haunting and eerily captivating.

GRADE: C+


And please, please, please Clint.... Start making good movies again!

'Cause I be startin to lose some serious interest...

#entertainme #losingpatience