REVIEW: J. Edgar

MOVIE
J. Edgar

CAST
Leonardo Dicaprio,
Armie Hammer

RATING
R

RELEASE
November 9, 2011 (LIMITED)
November 11, 2011 (WIDE)

DIRECTOR
Clint Eastwood

STUDIO
Warner Bros. Pictures

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 17 minutes





STARS
***










REVIEW:

Looks like Leo has switched sides in terms of the FBI with his new film 'J. Edgar,' the biopic of controversial FBI director J. Edgar Hoover directed by Clint Eastwood. The film kept switching time periods from the 1920's/1930's when Hoover was at the top of his game and possibly had a secret affair with a Mr. Clyde Tolson, and the 1970's when Hoover is writing his autobiography. Even before a trailer was released a month and a half ago, buzz for this movie has been incredibly strong with the thought on everyone's mind that this was surefire Oscar bait. While the film is well acted and is intriguing throughout, 'J. Edgar' suffers from poor editing, awful makeup work when the three leads Leonardo, Armie, and Naomi Watts are shown in their old stages, and being just a disappointing film overall. Still though, Leonardo is a surefire Oscar nominee, Eastwood has a strong resume, and many audiences will love it. While it may not be Best Picture material at the Oscars, 'J. Edgar' is a good enough movie for me to recommend, just don't go in expecting a lot, and expect your butt numb and exhausted by the time the film ends.

The movie is supposed to look and feel like an old school crime movie, though it only succeeds at looking that way. I think Eastwood purposely shot the movie to have the look of a black and white movie, because there is barely any color in this film at all outside of the skin. I may be one of the few who thought that Eastwood's 'Invictus' was one of 2009's best movies, which shocks me because Eastwood is the same guy who has directed such Oscar winning films as 'Million Dollar Baby.' However, this is also coming from the guy who never got to see 'Hereafter,' which was panned by many. I respect Eastwood as a skilled director and hope that one day soon he will get his legendary touch back, hopefully very soon.

One of the good features of the movie was the acting. Everyone plays their part well, which is expected from this type of film. DiCaprio shines as J. Edgar, with his performance witty, narcissistic, and powerful. Throughout the film you see him both heavily devoted to his line of work and struggling with his sexuality. The chemistry Hoover has with all of the characters, including Mr. Tolson and his mother are all the best scenes in this movie. Definitely look out for some heavy Oscar buzz for DiCaprio, but don't expect him to win the gold this year, because he wasn't excellent; he was just good, mainly because his voice and personality never change in the 50 year jumps when Hoover's old and when he's young. Another strong character in the film is Hoover's right hand man Clyde Tolson. The actor who plays Mr. Tolson is Armie Hammer, who only last year was playing two versions of himself as The Winkelvoss Twins in 'The Social Network.' Hammer is the only guy in this movie to actually compete with DiCaprio's Hoover, and he does it flawlessly. While the Oscars are probably not in his cards quite yet, Hammer is on the fast track to becoming one of Hollywood's best actors.

The other two supporting characters, Helen Gandy and Anne Marie, are played by the always fantastic Naomi Watts and Dame Judi Dench. Talk about girl power, because these lovely ladies are simply brilliant in their parts, Watts in particular. In my opinion, she was the most realistic character in the film, which means that you could believe that the original Gandy acted that way. Dench was also a very interesting character, because she plays Hoover's homophobic mother, whom. You don't find this out until about an hour or so into the film, but it's expected because half of this movie took place in the 30's, and it's somewhat implied in the trailer. The entire cast was very good, but it's probably going to be DiCaprio in the end that gets the Oscar talks, despite strong performances from all who played.

Visual flaws are clearly seen in all movies, which can somewhat take away from believing a certain scene or just distract you from what is going on. The makeup used to age the three main leads is some of the worst makeup I've seen in a movie in a long time. While Leo looks and acts the part of the 77 year old Edgar, I saw him looking more and more like Jon Voight after each scene, which makes you question why Voight wasn't cast for the old man part if the makeup department was trying to make DiCaprio look like Voight as the old Hoover. It's in some ways laughable to see Leo, such a great actor, looking like Angelina Jolie's father rather than the father of the FBI. If you think from what was just said that Leo was the worst looking old person in this movie, think again.

The worst looking person in the 1970's stage of the film is Armie Hammer's character Clyde Tolson. I have no idea what the makeup department was trying to create, but Tolson looked as if a fat, unrecognizable mask was put on his face the width of two bars of soap, with barely any resemblance to the younger version we see throughout the other half of the film. The only convincing makeup for a character is for Naomi Watts' Helen Gandy. She as an old lady looks deeply convincing and not as plastic as the two male leads and their rubber glory. Still though, that does not take away the fact that the terrible makeup only adds to the disappointment of the film.

The screenwriter of 'J. Edgar' is Dustin Lance Black, who directed the award crazy 2008 movie 'Milk,' which also happened to have a gay romance between the main character and a supporting character. 'Milk' just so happens to have been Black's last screenplay and only screenplay before this, so it seems that Black likes to write about homosexuals and the controversy between them during certain time periods. Black is openly gay in real life, which makes me question if he can only write movies about homosexuals. I assure you that I am not a homophobic, but I just believe that he should try to be more diverse when he's writing his movies.

The movie is not as mediocre as early reviews said, yet it's not as great as we all hoped it would be. The cast is good enough, and the script isn't bad despite its almost central focus on the gay aspect of Hoover's possibly secret life with Mr. Tolson. However the makeup is some of the worst use of makeup ever used in a movie, the editing is very choppy despite a solid final 10 minutes where we find out that almost everything accomplished by Edgar in real life might not have actually happened the way his memoir says, and the music sometimes doesn't make a lot of sense. Audiences will be split on this film, some praising it and some will walk out about an hour and a half in. I myself am split in the middle of these people, but more on the positive side than negative. If you want to see an interesting biopic despite some major flaws, then you should check this out. However if you're expecting a full blown Oscar tour de force, then forget about it! Outside of acting, this movie will not get nominated for any awards at all. Overall 'J. Edgar' is a good movie with a good cast, though don't go into this over 2 hour flick (and sometimes slow) expecting a fantastic film.

GUEST REVIEW: Immortals (2D Test Screening)

MOVIE
Immortals

CAST
Henry Cavill, Stephen Dorff

RATING
R

RELEASE
November 11, 2011

DIRECTOR
Tarsem Singh

STUDIO
Relativity Media

RUNNING TIME
approx. 2 hours 10 minutes




STARS
**1/2










REVIEW:

Way back in mid May of this year, there was an early test screening of this weekend's new release, 'Immortals,' starring Mickey Rourke. I was unable to attend, mainly because the projected MPAA rating even then was R. So I passed my passes along to a fellow movie screening fanatic named Cheryl, and I asked her to write a review on what she saw. Here are her thoughts on the film, though I can tell you that she did not see it in 3D, because of how early her cut of the film was. Without further ado, here is Cheryl's review of 'Immortals.'

King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) is pissed off with the world in Ancient Greece. So he decides he will disfigure a lot of men, put masks on them and wage a war like Humanity has never seen. But to do this, he must find the Epirus Bow, which can shoot arrows of tremendous power and, more importantly, free the titans. Now the Titans had been entombed in the walls of Mt. Tartaros since the Gods had defeated them many years ago. King Hyperion knew they wanted revenge and freeing them would not only cause destruction on Earth, but in the Heavens as well.

All the while the Gods know this, and due to some ancient laws that forbid them to interfere with earthly conflicts, they are helpless to stop this madness. However, Zeus (Luke Evans) had an ace up his sleeve, a peasant by the name of Theseus (Henry Cavill), whom he had been grooming since he was a child to lead the world in case of emergency. And Theseus, having watched his mother get her throat slit by one of King Hyperion’s men, accepted the challenge readily, even though he did not know that Zeus was actually his puppet master. And this is where the story ends and the movie begins.

Immortals relies too heavily on its blood, gore and fight scenes. Visually, the throat cutting and gratuitous killing and self mutilation seem all too real and times, and for some may be a bit too much. However, without it, there wouldn’t be much movie left. The dialogue is weak to non existent. Theseus does make one long winded speech during the Epic Battle fight scene, but we knew he would didn’t we? There is also a sub plot where Theseus, is told he must protect the Virgin Oracle Phaedra and he does so after her and her maidens save him. And while protecting her, he sleeps with her. (Really?)

Immortals is going to be considered an epic film by some. Others will think of it as a glorified bloodbath, with scenes stolen from the film “300.” As Director Taresm Singh did both 300 and Immortals, you have to wonder if the rehashed scenes were because he ran out of ideas or because he knew Immortals wasn’t a very good movie and 300 was. In any event, if you liked 300, you will probably like Immortals. It won’t blow you away, but if you love to see extreme battles with lots of blood and no script you’ll enjoy the film. We can only give it 2 ½ stars out of 4 due to the lack of originality and script. At 2 hrs and 10 minutes, we should have gotten more.

REWIND REVIEW: Water for Elephants

MOVIE

Water For Elephants

CAST

Robert Pattinson,

Reese Witherspoon

RATING

PG-13

RELEASE
April 22, 2011

DIRECTOR

Francis Lawrence

STUDIO
20th Century Fox

RUNNING TIME
2 hours



STARS
****









REVIEW:

Whether you're afraid of clowns or are really claustrophobic for the matter, you cannot deny that going to the Circus is quite a magical experience. I'm not talking about something like 'The Ringling Bros.' where they have their shows in big stadiums. The real type of circus is the one where you enter a tent, sit on a bleacher, and just enjoy the show. But have you ever wondered what goes on before and after the tent is set up? Well that question, possibly for the circus' of 1931, is answered in 'Water for Elephants,' a movie that has just come onto home video release. In case you missed the movie back in April (like how I did) or don't know what the book's about, the story is about a boy who has just lost both of his parents and has decided to jump on a train belonging to the fictional circus group The Benzini Brothers. On this train he, along with the audience, meets drunken clowns, horny showgirls, and a villainous ringmaster whose wife is the star attraction. Let it be hold that in the predictable scheme of things, homeless boy falls in love with star girl, and a 'Titanic' like romance ensues. While at first glance it would be just another romance film, 'Water for Elephants' does something special in combining romance, drama, and intensity into a fantastic two hour film. If you are a hopeless romantic or enjoy the movie 'Titanic' a lot, then 'Water for Elephants' is your perfect movie. No wonder readers fell in love with the story, because it is simply fantastic.  If I had read the book before seeing this, I might have had a different take on the film.  But with the mind of a guy who doesn't read a lot of books, I can honestly say that 'Water for Elephants' is a spellbinding, wonderful film.


Despite having a solid future ahead of him, Robert Pattinson has always been a mixed bag. In case you have been living under a rock for the past three years, Pattinson is Edward, the sparkling vampire guy from the 'Twilight' movies. Recently though, he has been starring in much more serious movies like the intense drama 'Remember Me.' Seeing him in this movie only makes me believe that Pattinson has a very strong career ahead of him. While he isn't as great in this as he was in 'Remember Me,' Pattinson shows how much he's grown from being a loving sparkling vampire, despite shooting the last one as we speak. I cannot wait until Pattinson is considered to be an Award worthy star, which might be very soon if he keeps heading on this smart career move. Reese Witherspoon is also in this movie, and she is surprisingly better than I expected. Having only seen her be in stupid romantic comedies, I never expected Witherspoon to actually act in something. Sure she won an Oscar for 'Walk the Line' back in 2005, but I never saw that so this is my first glimpse at the Award version of Witherspoon. Even though Pattinson and Witherspoon are the headliners of this flick, they in no way whatsoever outshine the best thing about this movie: Christolph Waltz.

Ever since he won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as a Nazi Hunter in 'Inglorious Bastards,' Christolph Waltz has been all over the place, most recently in corny 3D movies like 'The Green Hornet' and 'The Three Musketeers.' It seemed that Waltz was only relying on these corny 3D flicks in order to get a paycheck, so many wondered if he was just throwing his acting abilities away. Luckily he presents a role that's very devious, menacing, and dark for the matter. No comparison to 'Bastards' can be made because yours truly has not seen 'Bastards' yet. Christolph Waltz was in fact the best thing about this movie. If this film is recognized at all by the Academy, Waltz should at least be considered for a supporting actor nomination.

Romances can be very predictable and stupid cash grabs when it comes to going to or renting a movie. 'Water for Elephants' may be a predictable film, it carries on with its drama, intensity, and amazing chemistry between all of the actors. Waltz steals the show, but Pattinson and Witherspoon show why they're considered actors in the first place. Director Francis Lawrence has made a movie that captures a powerful look at both the cruelty of the olden circus, as well as how far people can go to get the one they love. If you're expecting a 'Twilight' like romance with some bad acting and a plain story, just walk away and don't look back. Also if you don't like seeing humans and animals (yes, I said animals) being tortured by sadistic men, then stay away from this movie. Actually, here's a basic equation of what 'Water for Elephants' is: If 'Titanic,' 'Twilight,' (just for the main lead) and the circus conceived a baby together, then you get 'Water for Elephants.' Awards probably won't be in this film's future, but that doesn't stop it from being one of the year's most genuine and powerful films. It's out on DVD and On-Demand, so why wait to see it. You'll surely be missing out on a great movie. Now if only the circus was coming to town sometime soon...

FESTIVAL REVIEW: Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey

MOVIE
Being Elmo:
A Puppeteer's Journey

CAST
Kevin Clash / Elmo

RATING
PG
RELEASE
October 21, 2011 (LIMITED)
Expanding throughout Holidays!

DIRECTOR
Constance Marks

STUDIO
Submarine Deluxe

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 16 minutes




STARS
****








REVIEW:

It seems that most of the years best films have something to do with childhood.  For example, 'Super 8,' while a Spielberg homage and a sci-fi thriller, was a story of kids filming a low budget zombie flick and having a fun time at heart.  The final 'Harry Potter' film ended a decade long movie franchise that generations of children grew up on.  Now we have 'Being Elmo:' a documentary that captures the life of Kevin Clash, also known as the man behind the most lovable Sesame Street character of all time, Elmo.  Having grown up watching Elmo on TV and on VHS, I was very excited to see this documentary, which made a huge splash at Sundance earlier this year.  The Philly Film Festival decided to bring director Constance Marks and the man with the puppet into the City of Brotherly Love, so my family was THERE.  Luckily, this movie lived up to the Sundance hype as it was funny, heartwarming, and emotional as heck.  'Being Elmo' might have been the only movie at the festival where I was actually crying in it.  If you have a heart of any kind, 'Being Elmo' is the single must see movie of the year, and the most heartwarming movie to come out since 'Toy Story 3.'  Scratch that, this movie is better than 'Toy Story 3!' 

I almost guarantee that no other movie will tug at your heart strings while at the same time sweetening it up quite like 'Elmo does.  You see the hard side of a puppeteer's life, and the sacrifices Clash had to make throughout life, including working on Jim Henson's 'The Dark Crystal.'  People will be crying, and they should be.  Like 'Toy Story,' you get some nice laughs out of the film as well as a great story and lots of heart.  If you can't handle one of those three things, do you even have a soul?  The film's currently making its way around the country, so I'd suggest taking a look at this 76 minute documentary when it hits your area. I'd only say leave the kids home because the exposure of Clash as Elmo may be as shocking to them as Santa not being real. But whatever way you can, go find and check out the sweetest and most heartfelt movie of the year: 'Being Elmo.' There is no better entertainment anywhere out there right now that is so honest and sweet as this movie.










Director Constance Marks, Kevin Clash/Elmo, and other crew members at the Philly screening of 'Being Elmo.' (Sorry for the crappy shot)

REVIEW: Tower Heist

MOVIE
Tower Heist

CAST
Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
November 4, 2011

DIRECTOR
Brett Ratner

STUDIO
Universal Pictures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 44 minutes



STARS
***1/2












REVIEW:

Have you ever been so ripped off by a wealthy businessman that you wanted to steal millions of dollars in order to square it even? Neither have I, but that’s exactly how the staff in 'Tower Heist' feel. They work in a building called “The Tower,” a luxury high-rise in New York. Arthur Shaw is the building’s richest resident, and he is in some serious trouble with the law. His punishment is house arrest, which might not exactly be a bad thing. The staff in The Tower, led by the head of The Tower’s staff Josh Kovacs, has learned that they’ve fallen victim to a Ponzi scheme run by Shaw. With the help of a recent ex-convict, the staff of The Tower devise a plan to rob Shaw of everything he has and get the money that was taken from them. 'Tower Heist' may sound like a full blown action thriller ala 'Oceans 11,' but surprisingly enough it is a comedy along the lines of 'Rush Hour.' With comedies you are supposed to laugh, and laughing is exactly what you’ll be doing when seeing this hilarious comedy. It's rare when my sister comes out of a movie and says "I want to buy this on DVD," so when I hear her coming out of a movie theater saying that I know that this movie will make anybody laugh their brains out. 'Tower Heist' is far from a perfect comedy, but it is most definitely one of the funniest movies of the year.
The last time we got a huge cast like the one in 'Tower Heist' was the ensemble comedy 'The Big Year,' and that one didn't quite live up to expectations. Eddie Murphy is one of the many comedians in this movie who were born from the humor of the 1980s. Murphy plays Slide, the criminal hired by the staff to help with the robbery. Murphy hasn’t made many PG-13 comedies in the past decade, so he returns onto the scene with full force as he provides many of the movie’s hilarious jokes. Sure the jokes are as stupid and immature as the 7th grader we once were, but it’s almost impossible not to laugh at anything that comes out of his mouth. The rest of the supporting cast, including Matthew Broderick in possibly his funniest role in recent memory, were all hysterical in their crazy roles. How can you not enjoy a movie with Academy Award nominee Gabourey Sidibe playing a kick ass maid? That's almost the equivalent of seeing Helen Mirren using a shot gun. However there was one weak link in the movie, which is very disappointing because he can be funny, and he is unfortunately the lead actor of the film. It pains me to say this ladies and gentlemen, but funnyman Ben Stiller is 'Tower Heist's' weak link.

Ben Stiller hasn't been in a creative live action comedy since 2004's 'Dodgeball,' where he was incredibly hilarious as the villainous White Goodman. Even in the 'Meet the Parents' movies, he's just that guy who seems to only know how to say "Yeah I, um, so uh, Yeah" as his lines of dialogue and get a paycheck for saying them. It's not only the "Yeah. Um's" we get from him, we also get his really fake argument voice when he's either trying to motivate someone in order to get the story started or argue at someone for some apparent reason. He also tries to act cool by breaking things (a Ferrari for example) and be his own "badass." To top that all off, Stiller dons a pretty bad Brooklyn accent, and I'd know because some of my family comes from Brooklyn. He may be the film's headliner, but Ben Stiller is the weakest actor 'Tower Heist' has to offer.

For those who don't know what foreshadowing is, it is a story technique where an author (or screenwriter in this case) purposely puts something small in their story only to show it's true importance towards the end. 'Tower Heist' uses foreshadowing in a very smart way, which many films haven't been able to do with perfection. 'Tower Heist' is funny, cool, and sleek, but is also one of the rare smart comedies to come out this year. The cast is hilarious and great, (except for Stiller) the story while not original is clever, and it's just one plain old fun time at the movies. This film was made purely for the laughs, and director Brett Ratner delivers the goods. This is Ratner's best movie since the original 'Rush Hour,' which also plays with insane jokes and a crime plot. Audiences everywhere will be laughing their asses off and just having a good time, which is the sole purpose of why a film should be made. Audiences may also see a strong resemblance to the Bernie Madoff story from a couple of years back, because the film takes some material from that case.

This weekend (November 4) also offers audiences the non-stop raunchy 3D comedy 'A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas,' which will appeal to some demographics. While I haven't seen any 'Harold and Kumar' movie, I still bet that this will be the better comedy to come out because it can appeal to everyone. I haven't seen my sister, a 10 year old, laugh so much in a movie all year, even though some of the jokes went over her head. If you want to check out a smart and hilarious comedy this weekend, don your terrible/fake Brooklyn accents, (if I offended anyone from brooklyn, I apologize) develop a stereotypical African American persona, (again, an apology to anyone who's offended) and go on a fun ride with 'Tower Heist.' I guarantee that audiences will be laughing about the film for many days after leaving the movie theater.