J. Edgar (2011, U.S.)

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

Inception (2010, U.S.)

I don't even know what to say about this one. I had to make a conscious effort to relax my brow at the end of the film because I was doing some intense thinking the entire time. It is one of the most confusing things I have ever watched. There were essentially four stories nested within each other, plus side plots as flashbacks and goodness knows what else.

The basic premise is that a team is going to make a lot of money by placing an idea into a man's head. To do this, they have to approach him in a dream within a dream, thereby penetrating his subconscious as much as possible. The lead, played by DiCaprio, is slightly broken—mentally because he's gone into the dream world one too many times and emotionally because of what happened to his wife. He's a great actor, and he's complimented by a lot of other great actors. Joseph Gordon Levitt is a personal favorite of mine, and the rest of the cast was strong.

Two of the most important parts of science fiction are the world building and convincing science, and both were wonderful. It's one of those things that has to be seen, not explained, however. In fact, I probably need to see it again so I can remind myself what happened.

There were a couple of inconsistencies, but if you like a good thinker, this is definitely one for you.

Rating: 4.0

Shutter Island (2010, U.S.)

Much better than the last film I saw that was based on a Dennis Lehane novel. DiCaprio plays Teddy Daniels, a U.S. Marshal who goes to a federal penitentiary for the mentally insane on a tiny island in Boston Harbor. With his partner, his mission is to find an escaped and highly dangerous prisoner. However, the doctors and administrators on the island are less than helpful, hurricane-type weather blows in, and Daniels is plagued by hallucinations/dreams of his deceased wife and experiences during World War II.

This is the kind of slowly building suspense that is all about creepy atmosphere and psychological drama, and it was very well executed. DiCaprio is a stellar actor, of course, and he definitely carried the movie. When it comes time for the big plot twist at the end and the memorable last line, he nails it.

Scorsese made a very interesting choice, and instead of having the film scored, he used a collection of instrumental classics. It worked perfectly. Some of the songs were beautiful, but the best one were creepy and frighteningly suspenseful. They did an especially effective job when Teddy and his partner first drive through the gates of the compound. It made me want to shout, "Turn around, don't go in there!"

You'd have to see this one to believe it. I just can't say much without giving away the ending. Which, I think, is a pretty good recommendation for the film.

Rating: 3.5

Revolutionary Road (2008, U.S.)

I have been dying to see this film, which took way too long to come into wide release (considering the number of times I've seen the preview at other movies). My friend Stefanie and I have tried to see it twice already, but complications arose both times. Needless to say, when we saw it today the anticipation was intense. It was a lot different than I imagined it would be; not disappointing, exactly, just different.

I loved that it was a character-driven film, and that very little about those two characters was explicitly defined. Instead, they relied on their actions (and reactions) to allow the viewer to interpret their characters. Sometimes one was the protagonist and the other the antagonist, and it would change again in an instant. I guess I don't need to say that Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio were both phenomenal. They both have such expressive faces (and especially expressive eyes), that I feel like I can read their thoughts like words written across the face.

The plot was intense. a married couple with two children suddenly realizes that the life they're living isn't the life they wanted, and they take out all of their anger on each other and themselves. They try to start a new life, making plans to move to Paris, where the husband thinks people are "more alive." Things start to look better until their plan starts unraveling, and they both go a little bit crazy. One of the taglines, which I love, is "How do you break free without breaking apart?" Even though this film takes place in the '50s, you can easily see it taking place today. There is some definite social commentary about how we live the lives society tells us we should instead of the lives we want. It's beautiful. Interestingly, the character who seems to really see the world as it is and who has the best grip on reality is the neighbor's insane son.

And as we watch Winslet and DiCaprio brilliantly tear each other apart and put each other back together, Thomas Newman's haunting (and somewhat repetitive—but in a good way) score echos them in the background. The score is simply executed, like the rest of the film.

This film is a good one, and I would recommend it. Just be prepared to feel some gut-wrenching despair and to reevaluate your life.

Rating: 4.0