On the one hand, this was a very interesting and entertaining movie. I knew next to nothing about Hoover before, and I found his relationships with his mother, Helen Gandy, and Clyde Tolson to be quite fascinating. The cast of the movie was out of this world. Of course Dame Judi Dench is one of my all time favorites, and her performance as Mrs. Hoover was very nuanced, I thought. Armie Hammer was pretty good, and Naomi Watts was spot on, as usual. I loved everyone playing small roles of big people, from Robert Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Dwight Eisenhower to Lucille Ball, Ginger Rogers, and Shirley Temple. They were all very well cast. Then of course there was Leonardo DiCaprio, probably the most talented actor of his generation, who just became Hoover. He nailed both the intimidating, intelligent public persona and the insecure, unsure inner man. I think poor Leo gets a bad rap just because of Titanic, but a) his acting was great in that movie, and b) I have never seen him give less than a brilliant performance in another movie, either. Just think about What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Gangs of New York, The Departed, even lighter movies like Catch Me If You Can. I don't really think he's attractive, but boy can he act.
Anyway, it obviously wasn't the acting that was underwhelming in this movie. I think it must have been the script. There were so many instances when I felt like a bit more dialogue or a more lingering camera shot could have added a lot more meaning to a moment. It also could have suffered because they were trying to cover so much of his life at once while picking the most important professional and personal moments and not having enough of either. That was pretty frustrating.
Another frustrating thing was the makeup. It was eery how well they did DiCaprio's makeup as he aged. I could have believed they shot the film over 50 years! For Watts, they did a good job of adding wrinkles and things and making her look much older than she is, but her character didn't seem to age nearly enough to match Hoover's aging. The worst job was on Hammer, who went from a young man to a sort of fake looking, spotty, clay-headed geriatric. He didn't even look like a real person in his elderly form. That was very off-putting.
The costumes and sets were also brilliantly done. The cinematography was dark, dark, dark, which served many functions. It made the movie feel historical. It emphasized the secretive nature of their work in the Bureau. And it served as a reminder of the parts of Hoover that were hidden from the public.
So this movie was good, but I just felt like it was missing something. I wanted a lot more from it than I got. However, it is certainly worth watching.
Rating: 3.5
Showing posts with label armie hammer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label armie hammer. Show all posts
Friday, March 2, 2012
J. Edgar (2011, U.S.)
Labels:
1920s,
1930s,
1940s,
1950s,
1960s,
1970s,
3.0,
3.5,
armie hammer,
biography,
clint eastwood,
crime,
fbi,
government,
historical,
judi dench,
leonardo dicaprio,
naomi watts
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The Social Network (2010, U.S.)

The acting was very strong. I think the only other movie that I've seen Jesse Eisenberg in was Adventureland, which I also loved him in. However, I think he was even better in this. From the very first, his witty, sarcastic, fast talking makes him the picture of the arrogant, insecure intellectual. He was definitely the sun around which all the other actors/characters orbited. Though none of them touched Eisenberg in terms of talent, most of the other actors were fairly strong. Even Justin Timberlake, who I was more than a little wary to watch, wasn't bad.
This is a dark film, both literally and figuratively. Perhaps the dark, mostly nighttime settings were symbolic. (Then again, maybe computer nerd types mostly work at night.) Even the brightest scene in the Facebook offices toward the end of the film didn't seem "light." It was a clinical, lonely sort of whiteness. It's also dark in that there are many betrayals and broken friendships. This has to be the unhappiest movie about a billionaire ever made. (Well, perhaps discounting Marie Antoinette and other non-modern billionaires.)
I can't even think of another movie I've ever seen about such modern history/pop culture, so it's hard to compare this to anything, but I will definitely say that it paints an interesting picture of the world we live in and the dark side of the birth of a company we take for granted daily. I would highly recommend this to anyone.
Rating: 4.0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)