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 naomi watts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label naomi watts. 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, February 28, 2009
The International (2009, U.S.)
I have rarely been so disappointed with a film starring one of my favorite actors. Or by such a prestigious director. But The International just... wasn't good. I can't say that it was bad, necessarily, but nor was it worth the two hours spent watching it.It started out really promising, with a shockingly long closeup of Clive Owen's face, looking pensive. That one shot built up more tension than the rest of the movie combined, probably. Why is he just standing there? What's going on? And then a man he's working with dies in front of him, and you think he's about to be killed the same way. But really it was just his overactive imagination. And the suspense end there.
The rest of the film is just a confusing mess. Naomi Watts plays a New York ADA and Clive Owen plays an Interpol agent trying to expose a corrupt international bank. How an NY ADA is going to help with this is very unclear. I guess it was unclear to the screenwriters as well, because Watts' screen time was incredibly short, considering she was given top billing with Owen.
I just don't even have that much to say about this film. The acting was great, of course. Some of the cinematography was unbelievable, including a drawn-out gun fight that takes place in a museum with fascinating architecture. (It could be said, however, that the whole film depended too much on this scene, which was drawn out entirely too long.) I didn't even pay that much attention to the score, which was done by the same guys who did Run Lola Run. It should have been more memorable.
All in all, a huge disappointment.
Rating: 2.0
Labels:
2.0,
clive owen,
conspiracy,
crime,
europe,
interpol,
johnny klimek,
naomi watts,
reinhold heil,
suspense,
thriller,
tom tykwer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
