10 Word Reviews: Hanna, Like Crazy, Puss in Boots, Coriolanus

Though I'm happy to have finally banged out a few thoughts on J Edgar, I'm never going catch up without engaging in some quickies. So herewith some miniature takes on things I've recently seen that I haven't written up. (And at the end of the post, a bit more on J. Edgar because you were asking... )

CORIOLANUS
For Fiennes directorial debut he adapts one of Shakespeare's lesser tragedies
10WR: Swings with brutish fists, occasionally landing blows. Impactful locale choices. B 
Oscar? Supporting Actress. It will be all about beastly mama Redgrave chewing determinedly on her own anger. (Fiennes does the spitting for their amusingly Oedipal bond).

LIKE CRAZY
Crazy College Kids Cuddling Cross-Atlantic 
10WR: Intermittently endearing / annoying, sensitively made. Starter kit for promising careers. B-
Oscar? Unlikely despite early buzz to the contrary. Best Actress is too crowded and romantic dramas don't win kudos for their male leads. On that note, I feel it's worth trumpeting that Anton Yelchin is every bit as strong as Felicity Jones in detailing the first crushing moments of love and the romantic confusion that often follows. Bonus points for giving us the most authentic "drunk but horny, trying to stay awake" face the movies have ever seen.

NO STRINGS ATTACHED
Crazy Post-Collegiate Kids' "NO CUDDLING!" Coitus
10 WR: 100% predictable but funny. Authentically acted despite proud sitcom leanings. C+
Oscar? LOL. But no embarrassment for Portman as post-Oscar performances go -- which it could have been. She's far better here than in The Other Woman. No really.

PUSS IN BOOTS
Puss invades another fairy tale (Jack and the Beanstalk) for treasure and personal redemption.
10WR: Indulgent backstories / setpieces bore. Charms with character and recurring gags.  B 
Oscar? Seems likely for animated feature but then they did ignore the last two Shrek movies. 

HANNA
in which a teen killing machine is on the run from...  because of... with only .....
10 WR: Carnage-filled collision of fairytales/Catholocism. Ridiculous. Unique. Very watchable B
Oscar? Stylized teen driven genre pieces are not their thing so "No". But how about that Chemical Bros score, eh? Cinematography was compelling, too.

J EDGAR & OSCAR?
Already reviewed and interviewed but y'all kept asking about Oscar. I only have it predicted for two nominations right now, Best Makeup and Best Actor. The makeup is getting mostly bad reviews but bad reviews have rarely stopped them from honoring "Most Makeup" in the past. As for the Best Actor nomination for Leonardo DiCaprio, I agree with Mark who says in the review comments.

I don't want to live in a world where Leo is given out of some sense of obligation but Fassbender is snubbed for his miraculous turn in Shame.

... but we do live in that kind of world, even if this year happens to pan out differently.

Otherwise, I don't see a way the film can find much Oscar traction. The costumes and art direction aren't particularly showy (and it's a crowded year). The cinematography seems to be one of the more divisive elements and historically the cinematography branch isn't as enamored with Eastwood's filmography as other branches tend to be. Even when his films are Best Picture nominated they don't often show up. Unforgiven (Jack N. Green) is the only one of his four Best Picture nominees to receive a cinematography nomination and Changeling (Tom Stern) is the only other one of his pictures so honored.

What's next review wise?
More substantial takes coming on Melancholia and the Scandinavian Oscar submissions...

Box Office: Jack and Jill Went Up the Till...

Tarsem Singh's muscley superhero dieties may have topped the box office charts but you could say that the big stars of the weekend were Jack & Jill twice over. Perversely interpreted fairy tale "Jack & Jill" (as voiced by Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris) from Puss in Boots and twinned Jack and Jill as "acted" by Adam Sandler in Jack and Jill together grossed over $50 million. Jack & Jill is getting the maximum critical bile a movie can get but Sandler remains critic proof; his movies always open. 

Jack & Jack and Jill & Jill

Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar (reviewed) opened fairly well for a long obviously dour drama -- DiCaprio & Eastwood both being bankable draws -- but it's true test will be in the next few weeks. Can it stick a landing after the non-emphatic box office and confusing critical reception, the latter which could be likened to a shakycam... it's all over the place!

Box Office (U.S.) Top Ten -Estimates
01 IMMORTALS new $32 
02 JACK AND JILL new $26
03 PUSS IN BOOTS $25.5 (cum. $108.8)
04 TOWER HEIST $13.2 (cum. $43.9)
05 J EDGAR new $11.4 [review]
06 A VERY HAROLD & KUMAR 3D CHRISTMAS new $5.9 (cum $23.2)
07 IN TIME $4.1  (cum. $30.6)
08 PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 $3.6  (cum. $100.8)
09 FOOTLOOSE $2.7  (cum. $48.8)
10 REAL STEEL $2.0  (cum. $81.7)
11 MONEYBALL $1.1 (cum $71.8) [review]
12 COURAGEOUS $1 (cum $31.5)
13 THE IDES OF MARCH $.9 (cum $38.3)

Limited Release
Sundance darlings Martha Marcy May Marlene (which we've been obsessing over and riffing on) and Like Crazy both earned another ½ million each with sizeable expansions. The Brazilian Oscar submission Elite Squad the Enemy Within had the week's third highest per screen average.

The highest per screen average when to Lars von Trier's Melancholia which grossed a quarter of a million in its first real weekend though it's release strategy has been... bizarre (what with the Oscar qualifying -- we understand it had one? -- and then a VOD release preceeding this theatrical release. 

What did you see this weekend?

If you saw Jack and Jill did you feel unclean afterwards?

If you saw Immortals do tell... I didn't get around to it but am curious... given the visuals in Tarsem's The Fall. 

The Amazing Linker-Man

Vanity Fairy Paul Mazursky, who made one of my favorite pictures (Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice) recalls its critical reception and then starts his own film reviewing for VF:  J. Edgar and Melancholia.
Wall Street Journal  Baseball legend Yogi Berra sees Moneyball and reminisces about his own history with the movies. Fun piece.
Coming Soon Emma Stone's opening monologue on SNL last night. Andy Samberg's Spider-Man arrives to interrupt her with a new script. Love this bit.

Emma: Ok, Andy, aren't you just redoing the same monologue that Kirsten Dunst did like 10 years ago?
Andy: Uhhh, yeah. Aren't you just redoing the exact same Spider-Man movie from 10 years ago?

Hee.

Awards Daily on the unshakeable charms of The Artist.
Thelma Adams falls for Kirsten Dunst's beautiful bitterness in Melancholia.
Playlist multihyphante showbiz woman Rie Rasmussen is gaga for Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained which will "revolutionize Hollywood."
In Contention looks back at early Charlize Theron, pre Oscar Charlize in fact.
Funny or Die Ryan Gosling, the strong and very silent type. 
Serious Film on the makeup in J. Edgar
MNPP while looking at the new EW cover of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo this is what your eyes did.
Towleroad I had a brief chat with Dustin Lance Black about his screenwriting work on Milk and J. Edgar. 

stagey
NYT Hugh Jackman on Broadway review
La Daily Musto Hugh Jackman on Broadway review

Finally...
Let's end with this tribute to the title design of Saul Bass from Art of the Title...

The Title Design of Saul Bass from Ian Albinson on Vimeo.

There are few things we enjoy more than a good title sequence. Which have been your favorite this year? FYC me for those Film Bitch Awards which begin sooner than you think.

Review: "J. Edgar"

Disclaimer #1: This reviews briefly talks about the ending but... duh. It's history.
Disclaimer #2: Everyone has biases and the only people who tend to get in trouble about them are the ones that admit them like me. Generally speaking I think biopics are the dullest of film genres and it takes a strong artistic voice to overcome their persistent nagging limitations.  Generally speaking I do not love the work of Clint Eastwood. Though many critics feel duty bound to praise even his most obvious misfires, I've been accused of the exact opposite approach though I liked all four of his modern Best Picture grabs... (just not in the way Oscar did.)
Disclaimer #3: Clint Eastwood makes me sad because -- though this is not his fault -- he has ruined many famous film critics for me. My favorite living filmmaker is Pedro Almodóvar but I didn't try to pretend that Broken Embraces, Live Flesh, or The Skin I Live In were masterpieces. I don't trust anyone who can't see Eastwood's weaknesses as a filmmaker, his inability to vary up his visual ideas, the uneven "we did it in one take!" acting (it shows), and so on...

If you've already tuned out I understand and forgive you. That's too many disclaimers but one must approach the ceaselessly idolized Clint Eastwood with caution. Extreme caution is also recommended when approaching J. Edgar Hoover, the infamous half century FBI overlord and mean SOB. "J. Edgar" who is played from sixteen (?) to death by L. DiCaprio is also, as it turns out, an unreliable narrator. J Edgar (2011) is fully aware of this though weirdly cagey about when to reveal it. Rather than encouraging us to look at the man and his actions with clinical wide eyes from the start, it encourages much sympathy with groaner on-the-button lines like 'no amount of admiration can fill the place where love should be.' In fact, it embraces the title man's point of view to such an extent that he narrates the entire movie -- that old groaner device of "telling his story for posterity." His point of view is the only point of view so even his life long "friend" Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) is first viewed only as a menacing shadow behind closed doors, something to be ashamed of. After two plus hours of sympathising and listening to apologies about his behavior (but his mommy hated the gays -- naturally he was fucked up!) he is clumsily retrofitted at the tail end as the movie's Keyser Soze of sorts, only less purely evil on account of all the sad little boy business. But yes, he's been lying all along... or fibbing, if you're still feeling sympathetic.

Though the screenplay needed another few drafts as badly as some of the minor performances needed additional takes, there are brief flashes of the movie it could have been. The Charles Lindbergh and John Dillinger storylines, for example, are enough to fill movies by themselves. We know this because they've made for better movies than J. Edgar. Despite decades of evidence warning filmmakers about this exact "EVERYTHING!" approach, J. Edgar falls for the typical bio-traps. Movies are shorter than novels and definitely shorter than entire human lives and must thus choose which elements are worth dramatizing. Instead J. Edgar, like so many bios before it, crams itself full with cliff notes instead of truly absorbing the text and breathing its ideas. J. Edgar clings to many of the famous storylines and its own suppositions about them as desperately as Hoover clings to Tolson. But it's not just their manly love that's unconsummated; this whole movie has blue balls. Just as you become invested in one chapter or detail, you've lept ahead or backwards and on to another. No one involved in the production ever seems to decided what they found interesting about the material other than "ALL OF IT!"

For their part, the actors do what they can with the unfocused material. Leonardo DiCaprio, ever fond of playing anguished men, gives it his all but doesn't reach the charismatic precision or depth of feeling that he can hit when the material is more focused on entertainment than on SERIOUS ACTING. (In short, we're losing DiCaprio the movie star to DiCaprio the 'Master Thespian' and this is a crying shame.) Armie Hammer is more than adept at the dreamy Ivy League gay catch he plays in the early scenes but loses his way once he's playing a character well beyond his own age. He's swathed in lbs and lbs of prosthetics (maybe he couldn't see his marks? Why do makeup artists think "old" means 130? Why does he look older than Judi Dench?) Naomi Watts, who needed anything but yet one more bleak movie on her resume, is barely consequential at all. Though she embodies "Loyalty" -- we know because J Edgar tells us just that in the constant narration -- you could leave her on the cutting room floor and not lose much. Finally, though she's in little of it, Judi Dench walks away with the whole thing with her devastatingly unsympathetic mother-son chitchat about "daffodils". It's obvious and cruel code for "don't be a fairy!" though she knows her boy already is one. 

"Is that legal?"In the end, though, what burdens the movie as heavily as the extreme prosthetics must have weighed on Hammer and DiCaprio is its utter joylessness. Again Clint Eastwood dully plinks away on the piano at key moments rather than hiring a composer who could have elevated this movie with something more robust and filled with different shades of feeling. The murky cinematography by Tom Stern, is just as monotonous in feeling in addition to being practically monochromatic. Another Eastwood picture all drained of color. Black and white movies are among the most beautiful movies ever made so if you want to make a black and white movie, have at it; consummate the love affair! But none of this "color is too flowery!" business.

Even the early most playful scenes wherein J. Edgar and Clyde are becoming intertwined lack the spark that you can only see in Armie Hammer's eyes. You could stretch and say that the film's entirely bleak aesthetic is meant to represent the joylessness of Hoover's life only if you've never seen a recent Clint Eastwood. That's just how they always look. The movie is an über-drag, long before J Edgar is softly whimpering in his mamma's dress.  D+

"L. DiCaprio" Will Do Anything...

"It's time the Academy learned the difference between giving me a nom and giving me a nod!"

L. DiCaprio (J. Edgar Parody) - watch more funny videos

So so funny. Wish I'd made it.