Monthly Archives: November 2011

Review: The Descendants

Standard
After watching The Descendants I had the feeling like I do when I’ve eaten something that is palatable but seems to be missing a key ingredient, an ingredient that I can’t quite place. The film is well directed, intelligently written, and superbly acted, and perhaps best of all has a profound sense of place, but, as the annoying guy in the movie line said of the latest Fellini film in Annie Hall, it didn’t hit me on a gut level.

I’m a big fan of writer/director Alexander Payne–Election and Sideways are two of my favorite films of the last fifteen years. The Descendants is more in line with the film of his I liked least, About Schmidt, in that it leans toward the sentimental. Payne does better when he casts a gimlet eye on his protagonist.

Here the protagonist is Matt King, played by George Clooney. He is directly descended from Hawaiian royalty and one of the first white families to inhabit the islands. A successful attorney, he is the trustee in charge of a large parcel of oceanfront land that the whole family has decided to sell to the high bidder, who will turn it into a resort community.

That is Clooney’s less pressing concern, though. His wife is in a coma from a boating accident. He is dealing with a troubled 10-year-old daughter (Amara Miller), and a 17-year-old daughter in a private school (Shailene Woodley) who had some sort of beef with her mother. Early on Clooney finds out the disagreement was over his now comatose wife’s philandering.

Most of the film deals with Clooney tracking down the man who was sleeping with his wife. He turns out to be Matthew Lillard, who I remember mostly for playing the obnoxious kid in a series of bad teen films. Here he’s a real estate agent, and has a connection with the land sale. Will Clooney exact his revenge by blocking the sale?

I have a feeling that what appealed most to Payne about this project, which is adapted from a novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings (the script was co-written by Payne with Nat Faxon and Jim Rash) is the sense of place. Hawaii is certainly a distinct place in America, which few of us have visited for more than a week at a time. The opening scenes, of poverty and despair on the streets of Hawaii, include a voiceover by Clooney wondering at the sanity of people who tell him he lives in paradise. From the film you can get the sense of how life goes a little slower there–shoes are optional, and baseball caps and flowered shirts are formal wear. As Clooney says, “Very important people look like bums and stunt men.”

Beyond that, The Descendants also has a keen sense of betrayal, as Clooney and Woodley are both forced to be angry with a woman who can not defend herself. Clooney calls himself the “backup parent,” and seems at a loss how to deal with his kids. Woodley, who is sensational as a teenager burning with rage, bonds with her father over finding Lillard, as if they were on some kind of father-daughter scavenger hunt. The family that sleuths together, stays together, I guess.

But other parts of The Descendants fell flat for me. I didn’t understand the presence of Woodley’s boyfriend, Nick Krause, who seems to be channeling Spiccoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. A subplot involving Robert Forster as Clooney’s tough father-in-law also didn’t work. I did like a late appearance by Judy Greer, who gives the film a lift.

On the face of it, The Descendants is a good movie, it just isn’t great. I think I was supposed to care more about these people than I did. Clooney, who shows more vulnerability than he ever has before, and may pick up an Oscar for his effortm (have we ever seen Clooney cry before?) is riveting, but I couldn’t feel myself in his shoes. Maybe that’s because he’s hardly ever wearing them.

My grade for The Descendants: B+

HAGEBOC ’11 Week 3

Standard

Predict the #1 film for the weekend of December 2-4, 2011. The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points. Bonus questions are worth half a point each.

Bonus questions:

1. Will the drop off of The Muppets and Arthur Christmas add up to over 100%?

2. Will The Descendants crack the top seven?

The deadline is on Thursday at midnight, EST.

Standings:

Jeanine: 5.5
Filmman: 4.5
Nick: 3
Joe: 2,5
James: 1
Juan: 1
Rob: .5
Jackrabbit Slim: .5
Marco: o

Opening in Chicago, Weekend of 11/25

Standard

Arthur Christmas (trailer)
Director: Sarah Smith
Personal Interest Factor: 5
I’m not too interested in kids movies for the most part, but this doesn’t look too harmless. If I was going to take a chance on something, I’d take a chance on something from Aardman. Speaking of whom, I’d love to see another movie from Nick Park, whose two feature films have both been terrific. This has gotten decent reviews, but I imagine this will happen like Flushed AWay, the last non-Park Aardman, which I skipped.
Metacritic: 68

Hugo (trailer)
Director: Martin Scorsese (Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed, Shutter Island)
Personal Interest Factor: 9
After initial skepticism, I’ve now convinced myself that this is something I really have to see. I’ll see it in 2-D, of course, but I’m actually excited about it now. I’m not even sure why I was so skeptical, since even lesser Scorsese (like The Aviator, probably the least of the 4 I listed) is still worth seeing and has good things to offer.
Metacritic: 85

The Muppets (trailer)
Director: James Bobin
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Somewhat torn on this, since I’ve never been a big Muppet fan. On the other hand, it’s not like I’m anti-Muppet, either, and whether or not this movie is any good or not, it sure looks like a good-faith effort to do a new Muppet movie and not a mindless franchise money grab.
Metacritic: 76

My Week with Marilyn (trailer)
Director: Simon Curtis
Personal Interest Factor: 5
I think Michelle Williams is one of the very finest actresses in movies today, but … my lord does this ever look like a chore to sit through. Typical Weinstein awards grab, complete with Judi Dench offering old-lady pearls of wisdom – “first love is such sweet despair.” Yeah, OK, whatever. Meanwhile, if there’s any sophistication in the way this movie views Marilyn Monroe, it’s not evident in the trailer. Instead, it looks like we get to see her through the eyes of some guy who loved her. Novel!
Metacritic: 66

Also this week:
Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey (trailer) – doc about Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash
El Bulli: Cooking in Progress (trailer) – doc about chef Ferran Adrià
The Heir Apparent: Largo Winch (trailer) – French attempt at action franchise
The Last Rites of Joe May (trailer) – indie starring Dennis Farina
Rid of Me (trailer) – indie quirk set in Portland, Oregon

Review: Margin Call

Standard
With the Occupy Wall Street movement dominating the news, it’s easy to see Margin Call, written and directed by J.C. Chandor, as timely. But this film is really more elemental than current events. Though set on Wall Street, with the prospect of economic collapse as the force driving the plot, the film is better seen as a character study of men (and one woman) compartmentalizing themselves and losing their souls in the process.

The film begins with a focus on two junior employees in the risk management department, Zachary Quinto and Penn Badgley. They witness a massive layoff on their floor that includes their boss, Stanley Tucci. Following him to the elevators, Quinto is emotional, but Tucci shrugs him off and instead gives him a thumb-drive with a project he’d been working on. Quinto investigates into the night and discovers something that imperils the firm’s existence.

Quinto calls back Badgley and their superior, Paul Bettany. For the rest of the night Quinto’s discovery is kicked up the chain, to Kevin Spacey, head of sales, to Demi Moore, head of risk management, then Simon Baker, head of securities. The import of what’s happening is so great that something needs to be done before the market opens, so the firm’s CEO, Jeremy Irons, arrives like some god in a helicopter.

As to what the crisis is, Chandor takes great pains to try to explain it. In fact, three times characters ask to have it explained to them in “English.” Irons, finally, asks Quinto to explain it to him as if he “were a small child, or a golden retriever.” Basically, the firm has included, in bundled securities, assets that exceed their volatility measures. If the stock drops by a certain amount, the firm is so leveraged that the loss will exceed the capital value of the company. I’m not even sure of what I’ve just written, but I don’t think it’s important to understand the nuts and bolts of it. What’s important to know is that the firm is in danger of complete destruction.

Irons’ solution is to sell off the toxic asset in a fire sale, even at a loss, knowing that he will endanger the firm’s trustworthiness and throw the market into turmoil. His only concern is getting out with his skin, unconcerned with what it does to the little guy. Spacey, who has worked for the firm for 34 years, has reservations, but Irons responds with a speech that one-ups Michael Douglas’ “greed” speech in Wall Street. “It’s just money, it’s all made up, it’s pieces of paper with pictures on them, so we can get something to eat without killing each other.” Irons says that ups and downs in the economy are part of some sort of natural cycle, and if people are put out of business, oh well.

This is an astonishingly self-assured debut by Chandor. In some ways it reminded me of Glengarry Glen Ross, in that is has a stagey quality (it could have been, with some minor tweaks, a play) but also because of it’s “lift the rock” look at the way things work in America. These are the people who control our lives, but they are people, and they make mistakes.

The acting is uniformly excellent. Badgley and Quinto are both very good (Quinto is one of the producers). Badgeley is the guy who wonders how much money everyone is making, while Quinto is literally a rocket science who has been wooed by the promise of big money. Bettany is a survivor, cogniscent of his own flaws (he pointedly chews Nicoret through most of the film), and Spacey is remarkable as the conscience of the film. Spacey has been coasting since his best work of the ’90s, usually being the Christmas ham in any film he’s in, and usually playing some kind of villain, best exemplified by his recent role in Horrible Bosses. But here he plays a fully rounded character, toning down his knowledge of his own wonderfulness as an actor.

Chandor also shows a good eye for images. I was particularly impressed with a scene between Baker and Moore in an elevator. In between them stands a diminutive cleaning woman, but they are largely oblivious of her and she of them, sort of like how these Wall Street folks don’t care that what they do affects the little guy. The cleaning crew, in fact, are the only appearances that “regular” people make in the film. When Quinto, Badgley, and Bettany go to the roof of the building to look out over the city, they don’t see the people down below, just the lights. The film ends with a character literally digging a hole, and as the screen goes black and the credits roll, the digging can still be heard.

One thing that did not ring true: Tucci is escorted out of the building by security after his layoff, his computer and cell phone shut off. There’s no way he would be able to hand a thumb-drive to Quinto without security confiscating it. Of course, without that, there’s no movie.

My grade for Margin Call: A-.

HAGEBOC ’11 Week 2

Standard

Predict the #1 film for the weekend of November 25-27, 2011. The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points. Bonus questions are worth half a point each. Note: we are only concerning ourselves with Friday-Sunday grosses.

Bonus questions:

1. Which movie will earn a higher per-screen average: Hugo (1,200 screens) or The Muppets (3,300)?

2. Will My Week With Marilyn earn more than 2 million?

Because of Wednesday openings, deadline is on Tuesday at midnight, EST.

Standings:

Filmman: 4.5
Joe: 2
James: 1
Juan: 1
Rob: .5
Nick: .5
Jeanine: .5
Jackrabbit Slim: 0
Marco: o

Also, feel free to chime in on your favorite banner. There’s still a few hours for someone to submit another one, but my choice so far is for Filmman’s. Thanks for everyone who entered!

Black and White Films

Standard

I picked up the September/October issue of Film Comment, which was still available at my local Barnes and Noble, and found inside an intriguing list: the Best Black and White Films Since 1970, presumably chosen by the Film Comment staff. Herewith:

1. The Mother and the Whore, Jean Eustacio (1973)
2. Eraserhead, David Lynch (1977)
3. Raging Bull, Martin Scorsese (1980)
4. Satantango, Bela Tarr (1994)
5. Dead Man, Jim Jarmusch (1995)
6. Killer of Sheep, Charles Burnett (1977)
7. Veronika Voss, Rainer Werner Fassbender (1982)
8. Sicilia! Daniele Huiller & Jean-Marie Straub (1999)
9. Stranger Than Paradise, Jim Jarmusch (1984)
10. Ed Wood, Tim Burton (1994)
11. Regular Lovers, Philippe Garrel (2005)
12. The Wild Child, Francois Truffaut (1970)
13. The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting (1979)
14. in girum imus nocte et consummimur igni, Guy Debord (1978)
15. Effi Briest, Rainer Werner Fassbender (1974)
16. La Commune (Paris, 1871) Peter Watkins (2000)
17. Manhattan, Woody Allen (1979)
18. Khroustaliov, My Car! Alexis German (1998)
19. Je tu il elle, Chantal Akerman (1976)
20. The Man Who Left His Will on Film, Nagisa Oshima (1970)

I have seen six of these films, numbers 3, 6, 7 (I think–I saw a lot of Fassbender in college and am pretty sure this was one of them), 9, 10 and 17. I haven’t heard of half of these films.

The most significant exclusion is what I’m guessing is the highest-grossing black and white film that fits the time period, Schindler’s List. Interesting.

Any other comments or gripes? As you might expect I would consider more Woody Allen, with Stardust Memories, Zelig, or Broadway Danny Rose (not Shadows and Fog).

Review – The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (Part I)

Standard

In Breaking Dawn, Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) get married, go on their honeymoon and piss off the Werewolves when Bella gets pregnant on her wedding night.  I have so many problems with this film and it’s only salvation is that the last half of the movie is mildly interesting.

Before the wedding Edward confesses that he used to kill people for their blood.  Bella isn’t remotely fazed by this news and shakes it off because he was killing murderers (“You probably saved more lives than you took.”)  So Bella is pro-vigilante/capital punishment.  On their wedding night, Bella and Edward have violent sex that leaves Bella severely bruised all over her body.  But she doesn’t seem to care because she thought the sex was amazing.  I’m not going to judge if she likes it rough, but I had a problem with it.  I think domestic abuse is a serious problem and by rationalizing the bruises by saying “it’s okay because I know he really loves me” is not a healthy or appropriate response.

One last complaint, and I’ll move on.  Abortion.  (Quite a heavy topic for a movie/book aimed at pre-teens).  After discovering that surprise – a vampire can apparently get a human pregnant, there is a great debate about whether or not the “fetus” should live.  It’s a demon, it could kill Bella, etc etc are all reasons why Edward and others want Bella to abort the baby.  But no, Bella feels a “connection” to the baby and would die for it.  Oy vey.

It’s probably hard to make a movie when the source material is bad.  I thought Stewart and Pattinson were okay, but I could never stand Lautner (it only took 5 seconds into the movie for him to take his shirt off).  The wedding and honeymoon scenes were corny and underwhelming, but I really thought the last half was fairly interesting.  A lot of good things happened at the end, and some of the characters who used to be bumps on a log stepped up and actually did something.  Overall, I’ll be glad when this series is over.

Grade: D

 

Opening in Chicago, 11/18

Standard

The Descendants (trailer)
Director: Alexander Payne (Citizen Ruth, Election, About Schmidt, Sideways)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
I’ve made my feelings about this known already – I’m not a big Payne fan – but I know he’s very respected and I don’t need to beat a dead horse, at least until I actually see the movie. So instead, I’ll say that I can’t believe Sideways is seven years old already. Or more precisely, I was trying to remember the other day what his last movie was, and I couldn’t come up with anything between this and Sideways. It doesn’t seem like he’s been out of the game for that long, but all he’s got in the meantime is a segment from Paris , je t’aime and a handful of producing credits. Time flies, I guess.
Metacritic: 84

3 (trailer)
Director: Tom Tykwer (The Princess and the Warrior, Heaven, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, The International)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
I used to think of Tykwer as an interesting voice of world cinema (or something), but lately I’m not so sure. Now he seems like a guy with impressive technical chops but prone to slipshod execution of his ideas. The US trailer for this is pretty good, though, even if it is cut to avoid betraying it as a foreign film. In this case, though, the absence of dialogue serves it well, and the use of Bowie’s “Space Oddity” over scenes of what look like a not-apparently-extraordinary love triangle is unexpected and compelling. Looks worth seeing even if it turns out to be not very good.
Metacritic: 55

Week End
Director: Jean-Luc Godard (Masculin féminin, Made in U.S.A, 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her, La chinoise)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
Another data point in exploring whether or not Godard made a film after 1965 that I can tolerate. This one’s from 1967. The four films I listed were the four he made before this one (and after 1965′s Pierrot le fou, which I do like), and I found all four rather tedious. Before Pierrot, there are many that I do like and none that I find tedious, at least of the ones I’ve seen. Hmmmm…
Metacritic: not listed

The World Is Big and Salvation Lurks Around the Corner
Director: Stephan Komandarev
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Well, I don’t know anything about this, except that it’s Bulgarian and has a title that sounds oddly like a Bono lyric. The synopsis does not sound promising, however; it’s apparently about an old man trying to cure his grandson’s amnesia by taking him on a cross-country tandem bicycle trip.
Metacritic: not listed

Also this week:
Happy Feet Two (trailer) – Couldn’t remember if I saw the first one. My records say no.
Raiders of the Lost Ark – 30th anniversary edition, digitally shown
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 (trailer) – Jeanine promises a review!

HAGEBOC 11 Week 1

Standard

Welcome back! There’s a new sheriff in town this holiday season, as James is busy changing diapers and wondering if he will ever sleep again.

Predict the #1 film for the weekend of November 18-20, 2011. The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points. As per previous years, grosses after midnight on Thursday DO count. Bonus questions are worth half a point each.

Bonus 1:
Will Happy Feet 2 earn more than the 41.5 that the first film made in its opening weekend five years ago? (not adjusted for inflation)

Bonus 2:
Will Immortals fall over 60%?

Bonus 3 Art Project:
Create a banner for the contest! Because I am old and can barely work a toaster I am clueless as to how to make graphics, so those youngsters who know how, please submit a banner. We’ll vote on the winner, who will receive two points.

Deadline is Thursday at 11:59 pm EST.


Review: Melancholia

Standard
After the abortion that was Antichrist, I was reluctant to see another Lars Von Trier film, but was encouraged enough by good reviews to take a chance on Melancholia. I had to remind myself that I greatly admired Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark, and found Dogville interesting if not pretentious. Melancholia is just short of his best work, a beautiful film to watch and listen to.

The film, after a prologue that is sort of a visual poem that foreshadows events that will take place later (and will chase impatient viewers out of the theater), is two films in one. The first half is a wedding reception for Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgard), held at the castle-like home (exteriors were shot at an actual castle in Sweden) of her sister (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and brother-in-law (Kiefer Sutherland). The sequence begins with the couple’s stretch limo trying to navigate the winding, one-lane road to the castle, a wonderful metaphor for marriage, and this makes them two hours later to their own reception.

The reception plays out like a black comedy. Dunst’s parents are the twinkly John Hurt and the sour Charlotte Rampling, who openly feud during the toasts–Rampling announces she doesn’t believe in marriage, and didn’t attend the church service. Dunst’s boss, the overbearing Stellan Skarsgard, is also Michael’s best man. She’s an advertising copywriter, and he pesters her for a tagline throughout the party, even assigning a lackey (Brady Corbet) to follow her around to get it. She ends up screwing Corbet in a sand trap of the estate’s 18-hole golf course.

All during the party Dunst suffers from depression, or, as it used to be called before the advent of modern psychology, melancholia. It was here that I had to stop listening to my “wait, but” voice, which grew increasing louder during the second, astronomical half of the film. There is no mention of Dunst being on any medication, and the characters are pretty rough on her when she has episodes, Sutherland going so far as to remind that he is spending a vast amount of money on the affair, so she should cheer the fuck up. Needless to say, the evening does not end well.

The second half of the film is more focused on Gainsbourg, and the sisters invert roles. A rogue planet, called Melancholia, is on a close path to Earth. Sutherland, an amateur astronomer, is excited about seeing the event, and assures Gainsbourg that there is no danger, but Gainsbourg goes online and sees reports that the planet has a slingshot orbit that will indeed cause it and Earth to collide.

Astrophysicists will no doubt roll their eyes at this–first of all, heavenly bodies are named after mythological figures, not mood disorders. Sutherland tells Gainsbourg that with “calculations this large, there has to be a margin for error.” Um, no. But to get bogged down into details in like this is to miss Von Trier’s point. He has made the castle to be a world unto itself. Gainsbourg goes on the Internet, yes, but there is no television, no view of the world at large, which would undoubtedly be in mass hysteria. Von Trier’s end of the world isn’t like Roland Emmerich’s–he’s interested in the internal response, rather than the external.

Dunst, who is by now so depressed she can’t even eat her favorite dish of meat loaf, assumes control in the face of crisis, and Gainsbourg becomes dependent on her. She says something a little mind-bending: “Earth is evil; no one will miss it,” which becomes even more enigmatic when she adds that she has always known that there is no other life in the universe except on Earth. She’s sort of channeling R.E.M.: It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

The film is sumptuous. The images are striking, especially of the oncoming planet and the nighttime shots across the grounds of the estate (more than once it’s mentioned that the golf course has 18 holes, but late in the film Gainsbourg carries her child across the putting green with a flag that reads “19″–discuss). The music is mostly Wagner’s prelude to “Tristan Und Isolde,” which is heavily romantic, and persuades us that Melancholia and Earth’s “dance of death” is as graceful as it is catastrophic.

The acting is all around terrific. Dunst has never been better, and is a good candidate for an Oscar nomination. Throughout the film she underplays, never acting “crazy.” She’s strong in both halves of the film. Frankly, before this film I had never taken Kiefer Sutherland very seriously as an actor, but he’s excellent.

The film isn’t perfect, which I think Von Trier would appreciate, as he said he doesn’t want to make polished films, and prefers them to have flaws. It’s pretty heavy-handed to make the obvious use of the word of the title. But I was caught up in the magic of the film–the drowsy, seemingly never-ending wedding reception, and the isolation of the characters in the second half. It is also periodically funny–when Gainsbourg realizes that the planets will collide, she grabs her son and tries to start the car. Dunst asks her, quite sensibly, “Where are you going?” When the world is about to end, there is no place to go. Calm acceptance is the only response.

My grade for Melancholia: A-

Review: J. Edgar

Standard
Clint Eastwood’s film J. Edgar is an attempt to explain a man who is fundamentally unexplainable. It’s full of dime-store psychology, and paints the first director of the FBI as a repressed homosexual and megalomaniac by dropping little clues for his behavior along the way (mostly by blaming his domineering mother). As I repeatedly checked my watch, I realized I would rather be watching an accurate documentary about the man, rather than a hackneyed personality profile.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as J. Edgar Hoover, the man some think was the most powerful American of the 20th century. The script, by Dustin Lance Black, (who wrote a much better biographical screenplay with Milk) has a hoary structure–it’s told in flashback, as Hoover dictates his memoirs. I found this structure unbelievably square, but felt a little embarrassed when Black turns the tables at the end of the film and we realize that Hoover is not a reliable narrator.

DiCaprio plays Hoover from the age of 24, when he assisted in organizing the Palmer raids, which struck back at anarchists after the bombing of the Attorney General’s home in 1919, through the wars with celebrity bank robbers and gangsters, to his gathering of secret files on people in power, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy (he is shown listening to a wiretap of an assignation with Kennedy and a woman when he hears of Kennedy’s assassination–fascinating if true).

We also see his relationship with his mother, Judi Dench, who tells him, perhaps suspiciously, that she would rather have a dead son than a “daffodil” for a son, and his long relationship with Clyde Tolson, who was the number two man at the FBI and Hoover’s good friend. The film is coy to a point about their relationship, as nothing has been proven as to their status as lovers, but a key scene that has Tolson erupting in fury at Hoover’s announcement that he plans to propose to a woman (Dorothy Lamour, another amazing fact I didn’t know), spells things out pretty clearly. The famed rumor that Hoover dressed in women’s clothes is addressed here, but in a totally different context than might have been guessed.

Eastwood and Black extend only a little sympathy to Hoover for having a ball-busting mother. Mostly they take a dim view of him, mostly for his vainglorious posturing. When it’s pointed out to him that he didn’t actually take part in the shooting of John Dillinger, he fires the man who did, Melvin Purvis. They also emphasize the nation’s chief law enforcer as a man who cares little about the law. More than once Tolson wrinkles his brow at Hoover’s plan of action and says, “Isn’t that illegal?” Hoover’s anti-communism so overwhelms him that he virtually ignores organized crime, and is so eager to restore his good name that he ignores the doubts over the guilt of Bruno Hauptmann in the Lindbergh kidnapping (this is a major plot line in the film and something I know a little bit about, since it happened just a few miles from where I live, and the full story is far more interesting).

The film is photographed by Tom Stern, and has the look that Eastwood favors, especially in his historical films–diffuse lighting and earth tones. The editing, Joel Cox and Gary D. Roach, effectively bounces back and forth through time. But the makeup is spotty. DiCaprio’s old age makeup–he plays the man up until his death at age 77, was better than I anticipated, but the makeup for Armie Hammer as Tolson makes him look embalmed.

As for DiCaprio, he sure works hard. He reminds me of a duck (stick with me) that looks so placid sailing across the surface of the water, while underneath the surface the bird’s feet are moving furiously. Unfortunately, we see DiCaprio’s feet moving furiously. I never forgot it was DiCaprio I was watching, hung up on his accent and facial expressions. Hammer is good, despite his old-age makeup. Naomi Watts, as Hoover’s long-time secretary (he proposes to her, but hires her instead) is largely wasted in a nothing role.

I think my favorite part of the film was learning that Hoover and Richard Nixon hated each other. When Hoover dies, Nixon gives a completely insincere tribute to him, even as he sends his men to raid Hoover’s files, hoping to find his secret stash.

Hoover’s life may be far too interesting to be captured in a conventional movie like this one. The depth of the man’s hatred and lust for power is probably unfathomable, and while Eastwood’s film makes me want to read more about it, it’s unsatisfying.

My grade for J. Edgar: C

Opening in Chicago, 11/11

Standard

Immortals (trailer)
Director: Tarsem Singh (The Cell, The Fall)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Tarsem’s previous two films were both visually fascinating and somewhat perfunctory in their storytelling, although The Fall was still pretty good. This movie unfortunately looks much more ordinary than either one, and apparently adds post-converted 3D into the mix as well. I might go see it if I can in 2D, just because I’d be afraid I was missing something if I didn’t.
Metacritic: 43

Into the Abyss (trailer)
Director: Werner Herzog (The White Diamond, Grizzly Man, Encounters at the End of the World, Cave of Forgotten Dreams)
Personal Interest Factor: 9
The latest from the great Werner Herzog, who seems to pop up with a new film every few months these days. This one is a documentary about a death row inmate in Texas, and looks to be his most compelling doc since Grizzly Man.
Metacritic: 77

J. Edgar (trailer)
Director: Clint Eastwood (Changeling, Gran Torino, Invictus, Hereafter)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
I’ll go see this just because seeing stuff like this is what I do. But it really looks awful, and Eastwood’s last couple movies have not been good. Besides, I wonder how much there really is to say about Hoover these days. I’ve been thinking that in its own way, Michael Mann’s Public Enemies was a very effective J. Edgar Hoover portrayal. He wasn’t a major character in that movie, but he was a big presence nonetheless. And though it was early in his career, I think one can extrapolate the power he would accumulate and the abuses of power that would be so problematic from the way Mann and Billy Crudup portrayed him. Yes, the more I think about Public Enemies the more it gains in stature with me.
Metacritic: 59

Melancholia (trailer)
Director: Lars von Trier (Dogville, Manderlay, The Boss of It All, Antichrist)
Personal Interest Factor: 10
Yeah, I’m excited for this one. I’m glad to see Kirsten Dunst getting a really great role; I’ve always thought she was underappreciated as an actress. And from what I’ve heard, this treads similar thematic ground as Antichrist and advances LVT’s newly found and very bold visual aesthetic – who knew it was coming from Mr. Dogme? – but is more disciplined and maybe not as brutally confrontational.
Metacritic: 81

Red Desert
Director: Michelangelo Antonioni (L’avventura, Blowup, Zabriskie Point, The Passenger)
Personal Interest Factor: 9
Excited about this too. I’ve never really gotten into Antonioni, having only seen Blowup and The Passenger, which I both enjoyed. This movie was earlier than either of those two, and was his first color film. It’s playing in a new 35mm print this week. Great!
Metacritic: no score

Also this week:
Bobby Fischer Against the World – Bobby Fischer doc
Jack and Jill (trailer) – most repulsive-looking Sandler movie ever?
Revenge of the Electric Car (trailer) – followup to Who Killed the Electric Car? from a few years back
The Women on the 6th Floor (trailer) – French comedy about a new maid in a wealthy house

Review: Martha Marcy May Marlene

Standard
Elizabeth Olsen is getting all the buzz for her role in Martha Marcy May Marlene, and she is indeed very good. Without her performance, there would be little to recommend this film, which tries to create a haunting psychological thriller but instead succeeds mostly in creating murkiness.

Olsen is Martha, and as the film begins she sneaks away from a commune she lives in based in the Catskill Mountains. She calls her estranged sister (Sarah Paulson), who picks her up and takes her to her lakeside vacation home in Connecticut. The sisters haven’t spoken in two years, but Olsen reveals nothing of her stay at the commune, instead just saying she was with a boyfriend and broke up.

The film then intercuts between Olsen’s induction and indoctrination into the commune, which is led by the charismatic and just a bit scary John Hawkes. We’re not totally sure of what Hawkes is up to or what his game is, but he seems to snare Olsen by crafting a song about her. This despite her waking up one night to find Hawkes humping her from behind.

In the present, Olsen hangs out in her sister’s house, mostly sleeping, but also displaying that some communal habits die hard, like skinny-dipping in broad daylight or crawling into her sister’s bed while she’s having sex with her husband (Hugh Dancy). All the while she refuses to discuss what happened to her, which I imagine is an understandable psychological response, but also is a convenient plot mechanism.

Of course life on the commune isn’t as wholesome as Olsen imagines. It’s totally patriarchal, as the men are allowed to eat first, and the men seem to have free run sexually (at least Hawkes does). When Olsen realizes they are sort of Manson-Family-lite, she rethinks her position. What starts as burglaries ends in violence, which presumably kick-starts her decision to leave.

Though she does leave, her head still seems to be there. Dancy loses patience with her quickly, and when she accuses him of living his life “wrong” by valuing money and possessions, this while she sleeps under his roof and eats his food, he’s had enough. Olsen makes a critical mistake–she calls her commune, which lets them know where she is.

Olsen is amazingly good, and her performance is mostly subtle. A good deal of it is reflected in her eyes, which express a constant bewilderment at being back in the upper-middle-class. Writer and director Sean Durkin has not given us too much backstory–we see nothing of Olsen before her first day at the commune–but Olsen fills in the gaps with her mannerisms, giving us a portrait of a lost woman.

Hawkes is also very good, despite also having to fill in cracks. I think I was influenced by his equally scary guy in Winter’s Bone. There’s a scene where, while teaching Olsen how to shoot, that we learn that he’s not exactly running a peaceful kibbutz. But I would have liked to see more about what he was up to. Did he have a guiding philosophy, or was he just a sexual predator and low-level criminal?

Much of Durkin’s fingerprints in this film are the frequent cuts between past and present, often done so that the situation is almost identical, whether it be the position Olsen is sitting in or the mood of a scene, such that it can take a moment for the viewer to realize what time period there are in. This can be clever, but ultimately becomes a tedious gimmick.

The ending of Martha Marcy May Marlene (the title refers to the different names Olsen is known by during the film, a suggestion that her identity is not her own) is abrupt and ambiguous. I’m pretty sure I understood what was going on, but as the lights came up I was surrounded by some confused patrons.

My grade for Martha Marcy May Marlene: C+

Film Noir: The Maltese Falcon

Standard
The Maltese Falcon is one of my top ten favorite movies. I’ve seen it at least 20 times, and had meant to write about it on its 70th anniversary, but I’m a little late, as that date was October 3rd. But I had the chance to watch the film again a few days ago, and better late than never.

John Huston’s directorial debut, the 1941 film was the third to be made from Dashiell Hammet’s novel. The first was in 1931, but was precode, and instead of rereleasing it, Warner Brothers decided it was too racy and made a remake instead. Then there was Satan Met a Lady, from 1936, which co-starred Bette Davis and was a light comedy. Both of those films were relegated to the ashes of history upon the release of Huston’s film, though, which became the definite private eye film, and many consider the first true film noir.

While watching it this time I focused on what it is I like so much about it. A person’s first few viewings may be required to figure out the elaborate plot (unlike some of Raymond Chandler’s works, The Maltese Falcon does tie up all loose ends; no murders are left unexplained). I think it mainly has to do with the dialogue, which is largely Hammet’s. There’s a story that Huston, who was also the screenwriter, had a secretary type up the dialogue from the novel, which somehow ended up in the studio’s hands. They thought it was great, though Huston had added or subtracted nothing.

For those who have the unfortunate distinction of never seeing the film, I’ll try to summarize. It’s a classic, much-parodied private eye template: a beautiful young woman (Mary Astor) pays a call on a private detective agency. She meets Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart). A chronic prevaricator, Astor tells him she’s looking for her sister, who’s been keeping company with a dangerous man, Floyd Thursby (one of the great never-seen characters in film history). Bogart’s partner, Miles Archer, tells her he will tail Thursby. He ends up getting shot. When Thursby is killed shortly thereafter, Bogart falls under suspicion by the police, especially when it comes to light that he was keeping time with Archer’s wife (Gladys George).

Soon more mysterious characters appear. An effeminate man of vague ethnicity, Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre), who smells of gardenia, visits Spade, thinking that Spade knows the whereabouts of a certain black bird. Bogart plays along, and in a fantastic scene he is held up by Lorre, knocks him out, and gains information from him. This leads to his meeting with the “Fat Man,” Casper Gutman (Sidney Greenstreet), a rotund antiques expert with dubious ethics. We learn that all the characters are in search of a centuries old statuette of a falcon, a tribute to the emperor of Spain by the Knights of Malta. Greenstreet has been searching for it for 17 years, and is hungry to get it.

There are numerous twists and turns in the story, and it can be difficult to keep up, but by now I know it by heart, and who killed whom. Another character is Greenstreet’s hired gun, Wilmer Cook (Elisha Cook, Jr.). who is also referred to as his “gunsel.” Bogart has great fun tormenting him, frequently besting him and making him look foolish. Cook is full of tough-guy cliches, and after one of them Bogart responds, “The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter.”

In a way, the delicious dialogue is somewhat meta–the characters almost realize that they are in private eye story. Bogart, especially, glides through the film with an almost preternatural knowledge. His Spade is honorable but not above looking out for himself–he didn’t particularly like Archer (he was sleeping with his wife) but ultimately he has to avenge him. But beyond that the action is tinged with a gleeful sense of comedy, like the wonderful first scene between Bogart and Greenstreet, which is largely exposition but is also laugh out loud funny. I won’t reproduce it here entirely, but Greenstreet’s overly formal syntax and Bogart’s cut-to-the-chase responses are like beautiful music. Greenstreet sums things up by saying, “I like talking to a man who likes to talk.”

The relationship between Bogart and Astor is also funny. You can sense they’re pretending to love each other, just to get what they want. He knows she’s a liar, and there’s a great scene when he asks her a question and she avoids it by standing, poking the fire, and straightening things. He asks her another question and he says, “Are you going to go around poking the fire and straightening things?” She’s consistently a phony, and when he catches her at it (which is always) he tells, “You’re good, you’re very good.”

Thus, the ending, (skip this if you’ve never seen it) when Bogart sends her over as the “fall guy,” gives the ending a kind of power. We last see Astor as she descends in an elevator, as if dropping down into the flames of Hell. There’s also a touch of Shakespeare, as a policeman, holding the falcon (which is what Hitchcock termed as a “McGuffin”) asks Spade what it is. “It’s the stuff dreams are made of,” Bogart paraphrases the Bard.

There existed some differences from the novel to the screen. Homosexuality was, of course, verboten in films of that era. Cairo is referred to as “queer” in the novel, but anyone with working gaydar can pick up that Lorre’s performance is made to make him gay in the film. Cook is also hinted at being Greenstreet’s boy-toy–”gunsel” was slang for a younger man in a relationship with an older man, and when Bogart suggests to Greenstreet that Cook be made the fall guy, and Greenstreet objects because he considers him like a son, you can see what’s going on. Also, there’s a scene in which Spade thinks that Astor’s character (Brigid O’Shaugnessy) has pilfered a thousand-dollar bill. In the movie, she denies it and he moves on. In the book, he takes her into the bathroom and has her strip. I read the book when I was about 14, so I remember that scene well.

As for the noir aspects, much of that is due to Arthur Edeson’s photography, which, like Gregg Toland’s in that year’s Citizen Kane, used deep focus and unusual angles, especially those from lower view, which exposed ceilings. A great example of this is when Cook awakens after being knocked out, his allies agreeing to selling him out to the police. He looks at each face, staring at him grimly. Bogart’s scene with Greenstreet is also deceptively complicated.

The Maltese Falcon made Bogart a star, and remains of his best performances. He had been playing heavies for years, after more years playing light comedy on Broadway (he originated the line, “Tennis, anyone?”) George Raft turned down the part (he would also turn down the lead role in Casablanca), and Bogart was happy to get a lead role that had moral ambiguity. He was a hero, but he also a man of conflicted emotions. Note how quickly after Archer’s death he has the sign on the windows and doors changed. But he doesn’t betray his bedrock principles, upon which the success of the film hangs.

Greenstreet made his film debut here, at the age of 61. He would end up playing pretty much the same part for the rest of his career. Also in the film is Huston’s father Walter, in a memorable cameo as Captain Jacoby of the La Paloma. His entire role is to stumble bullet-ridden into an office, holding the falcon wrapped in newspaper, and drop dead. Once I was playing the Silver Screen edition of Trivial Pursuit and got a question asking for the name of that character. My opponent, knowing how well I knew that answer, handed me the dice to roll again.

Opening in Chicago, 11/04

Standard

The Double (trailer)
Director: Michael Brandt
Personal Interest Factor: 5
This is a good time for my occasional “whatever happened to Topher Grace” inquiry. Was in some stuff a few years ago, looked like he might be a star, then disappeared. Now he’s back playing second fiddle to Richard Gere, which is a not a good place to be in.
Metacritic: 37

Le Havre (trailer)
Director: Aki Kaurismäki (Leningrad Cowboys Go America, The Match Factory Girl, The Man Without a Past, Lights in the Dusk)
Personal Interest Factor: 8
Definitely will need to go see this sometime this week. It’s a film from Finland that has been getting warm reviews since it premiered at Cannes, and it’s by a director who’s not well-known enough that I’ve seen any of his movies but is more than well-known enough that I ought to.
Metacritic: 82

Like Crazy (trailer)
Director: Drake Doremus (Spooner, Douchebag)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
Trailer is certainly earnest but it gets any emotional heft it has from the use of the song, a cover of “Can’t Help Falling in Love”. Reviews are surprisingly strong but I’m conditioned not to trust stuff like this, because it almost always turns out to be crap.
Metacritic: 71

The Son of No One (trailer)
Director: Dito Montiel (A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, Fighting)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
Here’s a fun game of “One of These Things Is Not Like the Other” using the cast list of this movie: Channing Tatum, Tracy Morgan, Katie Holmes, Ray Liotta, Juliette Binoche, Al Pacino. Actually, looking at it, a lot of those things is not like the other – I’m not sure one can look at that cast list by itself and have any idea what kind of movie it is, except that Ray Liotta only plays sleazy assholes these days. But the correct answer is Juliette Binoche, who is not someone I’d expect to show up in a gritty American indie cop movie.
Metacritic: 37

Tower Heist (trailer)
Director: Brett Ratner (Red Dragon, After the Sunset, X-Men: The Last Stand, Rush Hour 3)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
A few obvious problems here. One is Ratner; the only movie I’ve ever seen of his was his X-Men movie. I only went to see that because it was a continuation of the first two (good) X-Men movies, and it was by far the worst movie of the first three. Second is Murphy. Yes, I know that this is supposed to be a rebranding of sorts for Murphy, since apparently he’s washed his hands of the kids movies he’s been doing … but let’s be honest, Murphy hadn’t done much good for a long time even before he started his kids stuff. Third is Broderick. It’s a longstanding rule of mine that Matthew Broderick is simply not in good movies, and despite occasional rumors to the contrary, I’ve yet to verify a true exception to this rule.
Metacritic: 58

Also this week:
Urbanized – urban design doc
A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas (trailer) – never seen the first two