“THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.” (2015) Review

 

“THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.” (2015) Review

The year 2015 seemed to be a big year for cinematic spies. At least three movies have been released about the world of espionage. And one is scheduled to be released some three months from now. One of the movies that was already released was Guy Ritchie’s big screen adaptation of the NBC 1964-1968 television series called “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.”.

The television series from the 1960s began with its two main characters – Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin – already working for the international intelligence agency called U.N.C.L.E. (United Network Command for Law and Enforcement). Ritchie’s film is basically an origin story and tells how Napoleon and Illya first became partners in the espionage business. Set in 1963, “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.” begins in East Berlin, where professional thief-turned-C.I.A. Agent Napoleon Solo is tasked with retrieving a young woman named Gaby Teller and escorting her to West Berlin. Gaby is the daughter of an alleged Nazi scientist-turned-U.S. collaborator, who has disappeared a year or two ago from the United States. Tasked with stopping Napoleon from achieving his goal is a highly skilled K.G.B. agent named Illya Kuryakin.

Although Napoleon’s mission is a success, he is ordered by his C.I.A. handler Saunders to work with Illya and Gaby to investigate a shipping company owned by Alexander and Victoria Vinciguerra, a wealthy couple of Nazi sympathizers. Due to the couple’s intent to create their own private nuclear weapon, the C.I.A. and K.G.B. have decided to make this operation a joint effort. Gaby becomes essential to the mission, since her uncle Rudi works for the Vinciguerras.

Mixed reviews greeted “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.” when it first hit the theaters. Well, according to Wikipedia, the movie achieved mixed reviews. Judging from box office results, the movie barely made a profit. It seemed a pity that not many moviegoers were willing to take a chance on this film. Then again, I am not that surprised. Warner Brothers Studios barely made any effort to publicize this movie. And this was a mistake in my eyes. Today’s generation of young moviegoers are not familiar with the 1960s television series. In fact, the series had not been seen on the television screen since TNT Channel aired a handful of episodes back in 1996. The studio could have stepped up its game in publicizing the film. They could have also used re-released box sets of the old series at a reasonable price as tie-ins. And some moviegoers old enough to remember Norman Felton’s series, complained that the movie was not an exact replica. I have nothing to say about that. Well, I do. But that will come later.

“THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.” is not perfect. Actually, what movie is? And I do have one or two minor complaints and a major one. Okay, minor complaints. I was not that impressed by Daniel Pemberton’s score for the movie’s second half. I found it overbearing to the point that it nearly distracted me from the plot. My second complaint revolved around James Herbert’s editing. Well, I was impressed with his editing in most of the film . . . especially the car chase in East Berlin and the sequence featuring Napoleon and Illya’s break-in of the Vinciguerras’s shipyard. But I was not impressed by Herbert’s editing in the final action sequence featuring Napoleon and Illya’s attempt to rescue Gaby from a fleeing Alexander Vinciguerra. I found it slightly confusing and thought it had too many close ups. In fact, the sequence reminded me – in a negative way – of Paul Greengrass’ direction of the second and third “BOURNE” movies.

However, my main beef with “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.” proved to be Joanna Johnston’s costume designs. The movie is supposed to be set in 1963. The costumes DID NOT reflect the fashions of that year. I kid you not. The following image is an example of women’s fashion in 1963:

Look at the images of Alicia Vikander and Elizabeth Debecki:

I cannot deny that Joanna Johnston’s designs are both original and gorgeous to look at. But . . . they are not a reflection of the movie’s 1963 setting. Judging from Vikander and Debecki’s costumes, I would say that the movie was actually set some time between 1968 and 1970 or 1971. And in the end, the movie’s costumes only reminded me of the costume mistakes featured in the 2011 movie, “X-MEN: FIRST-CLASS”.

I certainly had no problem with the movie’s plot written by Guy Ritchie and Lionel Wigram. In fact, I rather enjoyed it. I have always wondered how Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin first met and started working for U.N.C.L.E. The television series never revealed this history, considering it began with the pair already working for the agency. And Rictchie and Wigram’s plot more than satisfied my curiosity. They made some changes from the television series. One, Napoleon became a former thief whom the C.I.A. blackmailed into working for them in exchange for avoiding prison. In some ways, this newly imagined Napoleon Solo reminded me of the Alexander Mundy character from the 1968-1970 television series, “IT TAKES A THIEF”. The Illya Kuryakin character underwent a few changes as well. He remained a somewhat stoic anduber professional agent, with a penchant for the occasional sardonic humor. But Ritchie and Wigram gave him a fearsome temper that was usually triggered by anything relating to his father, who had been dishonored by a scandal during World War II.

Ritchie and Wigram’s script not only utilized a bit of “IT TAKES A THIEF”, but also some characters from the TV version of “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.” It seemed obvious to me that the Victoria and Alexander Vinciguerra were based on the Gervaise Ravel and Harold Bufferton characters that were portrayed by Anne Francis and John Van Dreelan in two Season One episodes. And fighting neo-Nazis is a theme that has permeated many spy movies and television shows throughout the years. Especially neo-Nazis with nuclear weapons. In fact, I just saw a Season One episode of the 60s’ series called (1.05) “The Deadly Games Affair” in which a former Nazi who tried to kick start a crazy plot to bring back the former glory of Hitler’s party. For “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.”, I thought Ritchie and Wigram created an interesting twist on theme, by incorporating the Swinging Sixties scene in Europe . . . especially through characters like Victoria Vinciguerra and Gaby’s Uncle Rudi. As for the movie’s dialogue . . . well, I just adored it. I especially adored the interaction between Napoleon and Illya – especially in one scene in which they argued over the right wardrobe for Gaby to wear during their mission.

Speaking of performances, I tried to recall a performance that seemed . . . well, off kilter or just plain bad. Perhaps other critics came across such performances. I did not. Armie Hammer had an interesting task in his portrayal of K.G.B. agent Illya Kuryakin. He had the difficult task of conveying many aspects of Illya’s personality – his no-nonsense attitude, ruthlessness, emotional streak and barely controllable temper. And he did it . . . with great skill. I cannot recall if David McCallum ever had to deal with such an array of personality traits and blend them so seamlessly. Henry Cavill made an extremely charming Napoleon Solo. More importantly, he did an excellent job in conveying the character’s talent for manipulation and judge of character. I realize that his Napoleon Solo seemed more like an adaptation of the Alexander Mundy character. But watching his performance made me realize how much he reminded me of Robert Vaughn’s performance in the NBC series. Alicia Vikander, who portrayed Gaby Teller, proved to be such a surprise for me. One must understand that I have never seen “A ROYAL AFFAIR”. And I honestly do not recall her performance in “THE FIFTH ESTATE”. But I was very impressed by her performance as East German defector Gaby Teller, who turned out to be vital to Napoleon and Illya’s mission. Vikander connected very well with both of her leading men, especially Hammer. And she did a great job in conveying Gaby’s intelligence, toughness and strong will.

Hugh Grant pretty much took me by surprise with his performance as Alexander Waverly, the head of U.N.C.L.E. He was charming and witty, as usual. Of course, as usual. He is Hugh Grant. But he was also effective and projected a strong presence as U.N.C.L.E.’s pragmatic leader, who is ruthless enough to make some tough choices. When I first saw Elizabeth Debicki in “THE GREAT GATSBY”, I was very impressed by her performance. I was even more impressed by her portrayal of the villainous Victoria Vinciguerra. She conveyed a great deal of charm, style and wit in her performance. I also thought Debicki made a scary villain. Hell, she was one of the scariest villains of the Summer 2015 season. I was surprised to see Sylvester Groth, who played Gaby’s Fascist uncle. The last time I saw him, he portrayed Nazi Joseph Goebbels in 2009’s “INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS”. And he was funnier. He was a bit more scary as Gaby’s snobbish, yet sadistic Uncle Rudi. But he was also very funny . . . especially in his last scene in the movie. The movie also featured Jared Harris, whose take on a C.I.A. station chief seemed more like a spoof on American authority figures, along with solid performances from Luca Calvani, Simona Caparrini and Christian Berkel (who also appeared in “INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS”.

“THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.” had a few flaws. This is to be expected for just about any movie. And yes, I realize that it is not an exact replica of the NBC 1964-1968 series. Mind you, I could care less, for I believe originality is more important than repetition. And that is what I liked about “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.” Director Guy Ritchie and co-writer Lionel Wigram took an old television series and put their own original spin on it. And they were ably supported by a first-rate cast led by Armie Hammer and Henry Cavill.

The Celebration of Mediocrity and Unoriginality in “STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS”

 

“THE CELEBRATION OF MEDIOCRITY AND UNORIGINALITY IN “STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS”

Look … I liked the new “STAR WARS” movie, “THE FORCE AWAKENS”.  I honestly do.  Heck, I feel it is better than J.J. Abrams’ two “STAR TREK” films.  But I am astounded that this film has garnered so much acclaim.  It has won the AFI Award for Best Picture.  It has been nominated by the Critics Choice Award for Best Picture.

“THE FORCE AWAKENS”???  Really?  It did not take long for certain fans to point out that the movie’s plot bore a strong resemblance to the first “STAR WARS” movie, “A NEW HOPE”.  In fact, I am beginning to suspect that J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan had more or less plagiarized the 1977 film, along with aspects from other movies in the franchise.  Worse, it has some plot holes that Abrams has managed to ineffectively explain to the media.  In other words, his explanations seemed like shit in the wind and the plot holes remained obvious.

Then I found myself thinking about “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.”, Guy Ritchie’s adaptation of the 1964-1968 television series.  I will not deny that the movie had some flaws.  Just about every movie I have seen throughout my life had some flaws.  But instead of attempting a carbon copy of the television series, Ritchie put his own, original spin of the show for his movie.  And personally, I had left the movie theater feeling impressed.  And entertained.  It is not that Ritchie had created a perfect movie.  But he did managed to create an original one, based upon an old source.  Now that was impressive.

But instead of having his movie appreciated, a good deal of the public stayed away in droves.  Warner Brothers barely publicized the film.  Worse, the studio released in August, the summer movie season’s graveyard.  And for those who did see the movie, the complained that it was not like the television show.  Ritchie had made changes for his film.  In other words, Ritchie was criticized for being original with a movie based upon an old television series.

This is incredibly pathetic.  One director is criticized giving an original spin to his movie adaptation.  Another director is hailed as the savior of a movie franchise for committing outright plagiarism.  This is what Western culture has devolved into, ladies and gentlemen.  We now live in a world in which the only movies that are box office hits are those that form part of a franchise.  We live in a society in which glossy and mediocre shows like “DOWNTON ABBEY” are celebrated.  We live in a world in which a crowd pleasing, yet standard movie biopic like “THE KING’S SPEECH”can receive more acclaim than an original film like “INCEPTION”.

In regard to culture or even pop culture, this society is rushing toward conformity, familiarity and mediocrity.  God help us.

 

“THE LONE RANGER” (2013) Review

 

“THE LONE RANGER” (2013) Review

My memories of the 1950s television series, “THE LONE RANGER”, is a bit sketchy. Actually, it is downright vague. I can recall Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels in their costumes – the latter wearing a mask. I can recall Moore bellowing “Hi ho Silver!” every once in a while. And I do recall that the series was shot in black-and-white. I have no memories of a particular episode or storyline. I never invested any genuine interest in the series during my childhood. 

When I learned that the Disney Studios and Jerry Bruckheimer planned to produce a movie about the Lone Ranger, I regarded the announcement with very little interest. Not even the news that Johnny Depp would portray Tonto could generate any excitement within me. Usually, I would have been excited by the news of another collaboration between Bruckheimer and Depp – especially since this collaboration marked the return of Gore Verbinski as director. But my lukewarm regard toward the old “THE LONE RANGER” made it impossible for me get excited. Instead, I merely adopted an attitude of “wait and see” and dismissed the news from my mind . . . until the release date for the movie finally approached.

Directed by Gore Verbinski, “THE LONE RANGER” was not only based upon the 1950s television show, but also the 1933 radio program. The movie is basically an origin tale of how a Commanche named Tonto met the man who became the Lone Ranger. It begins in San Francisco 1933, in which Will, a young boy and fan of the Lone Ranger myth, meets the elderly Tonto at a Wild West exhibition at a local fair. The story jumps back 64 years to 1869 in Colby, Texas; where a young attorney named John Reid is returning home by train to become an assistant district attorney. Also traveling on the train as prisoners is the notorious outlaw Butch Cavendish and Tonto. Cavendish is heading back to Colby to be hanged, following his capture by John’s older brother Dan and the other Texas Rangers in the area. However, Cavendish’s gang manages to rescue their leader and escape, leaving John, Tonto and other passengers aboard a runaway train. The latter eventually derails at a rail construction site for the unfinished Transcontinental Railroad and Tonto is arrested by the Reid brothers. Dan, who is married to John’s childhood love Rebecca Reid, deputizes his younger brother as a Texas Ranger before the whole group sets out to recapture Cavendish and his gang. Unfortunately for the Reid brothers and their fellow Rangers, there is a traitor amongst them who sets them up to be ambushed and killed by the Cavendish gang. Only John survives, due to the assistance of Tonto, who managed to escape jail. Seeking revenge, John sets out to find and capture Cavendish with Tonto’s help; unaware that the Commanche has his own vengeful agenda regarding Cavendish.

The question remains . . . did I enjoy “THE LONE RANGER”? I can honestly say that I did not like it as much as I had liked the three “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN” movies that Gore Verbinski had directed – “THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL”, “DEAD MAN’S CHEST” and “AT WORLD’S END”. I take some of that back. Perhaps I liked it as much as I did “AT WORLD’S END”. I certainly liked it more than the fourth “PIRATES” movie, “ON STRANGER TIDES”. However, “THE LONE RANGER” had its flaws. One, I found the 149 minutes running time a bit too long about the movie adaptation of an old radio/television character. This movie could have undergone a bit more trimming, leaving the movie slightly longer than 120 minutes. What could Verbinski, Bruckheimer and the three screenwriters have cut? I have no idea. Well . . . I would have cut the 1933 sequences. I really did not see the need of an aging Tonto recalling his first meeting with the Lone Ranger with some kid. Two, there were some minor aspects of the plot that could have been a bit more clear. For instance, who saved Rebecca and her son Danny Reid from Collins, the Texas Ranger who had betrayed her husband? The movie never explained. The movie also failed to explain how Tonto had escaped from the Colby jail in time to find a wounded John Reid and nurse him back to health. Three, I was not impressed by Hans Zimmer’s score. To be honest, I have no memories of it. And if there is one thing that can contribute to the quality of a movie, is a first-rate score. “THE LONE RANGER” simply did not have one. And finally, I could have done without the train wreck that Tonto and John survived near the movie’s beginning. I wish screenwriters Ted Elliot, Terry Rossio and Justin Haythe could have found a less over-the-top way for Cavendish to escape the hangman’s noose.

Despite these flaws, I still managed to enjoy “THE LONG RANGER” very much. The screenwriters still managed to construct an interesting and entertaining tale about frontier politics, justice and revenge. In fact, the movie not only featured its usual staple of humor and action found in an Depp/Verbinski/Bruckheimer film, it also featured some pretty dark moments in its plot. Aware of moviegoers’ current dislike of summer films with a dark undertone – unless its a movie about some comic book hero or simply a drama – I was rather glad that the screenwriters and Verbinski managed to inject some darkness into the plot. The tragic circumstances surrounding the deaths of Dan Reid and his fellow Texas Rangers, along with the reasons behind Tonto’s desire for revenge against Cavendish, the deadly attack upon the Reids’ ranch, and the threat of railroad construction and the U.S. Army against Commanche lands made this story very interesting. Another fascinating aspect of the movie’s plot proved to be the relationship between Tonto and John aka the Lone Ranger. First of all, I liked how the screenwriters made Tonto responsible for the creation of the Lone Ranger myth. Two, the development of Tonto and John’s relationship proved to be an uphill and hard-won battle. The screenwriters did not make it easy for the pair. A fellow co-worker had complained of John’s reluctance to trust Tonto by following the latter’s advice. A part of me agreed with him. Another part of me understood John’s reluctance, considering that Tonto had failed to be completely honest with him. Although I was not impressed by Zimmer’s score, I must admit that I truly enjoyed how the composer used the old Lone Ranger theme – Gioachino Rossini’s“William Tell Overture” – to accompany the movie’s final action sequence. I found it so inspiring.

“THE LONE RANGER” also featured little moments that I found very interesting . . . and entertaining. One of those moments was a hilarious flash-forward that depicted the Lone Ranger and Tonto’s robbery of a local bank that contained an item used by the pair to defeat the villains. Another scene that I enjoyed centered on the pair’s efforts to escape from being trampled upon after being buried in the ground by Commanches. I also enjoyed Tonto’s rescue of John, who was nearly hanged by Cavendish and the U.S. Army. And I especially enjoyed the last action sequence in which the pair tried to prevent the transportation of silver stolen from the Commanche lands by Cavendish and his partner. But my favorite moment – and it is a small one – centered around the love triangle between the Reid brothers, the woman they both loved, Rebecca; and a blue silk handkerchief used in the most subtle and erotic manner.

As for the movie’s technical aspects, I must admit that I left the movie theater feeling very impressed by it. I found Bojan Bazelli’s photography of the locations in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Colorado very beautiful. There was another aspect of Bazelli’s photography that I found interesting. The movie’s color scheme started out as chrome gray as soon as the plot shifted to 1869 Texas. Yet, even the 19th century “flashbacks” eventually grew in color as the story unfolded and the relationship between Tonto and John strengthen. I also have to commend the film’s editing done by James Haygood and Craig Wood, especially in many of the film’s action sequences. And Jess Gonchor did a beautiful job in re-creating mid-19th century Texas through his production designs – especially in the Colby and railroad construction sequences. Three time BAFTA nominee Penny Rose, who had designed the costumes for the “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN”movies, collaborated with Bruckheimer and Verbinski again as costume designer for “THE LONE RANGER”. I could rave about Rose’s work and how she perfectly captured the style of frontier fashions at the end of the 1860s. By why bother, when all I have to do is point out her work in the image below:

I found the performances featured in “THE LONE RANGER” outstanding . . . aside from two. One of those exceptions proved to be Helena Bonham-Carter’s portrayal of Red Harrington, an ivory-legged brothel madam who assists Tonto and John. Actually, Bonham-Carter gave a colorful and earthy performance as the one-legged madam who also sought revenge against Cavendish. Unfortunately, the movie’s screenplay failed to do anything with her character, other than allow her to provide some information to the pair in the movie’s first half and assist them for a brief moment in the final action sequence. Elliot, Rossio and Haythe pretty much wasted her character and Bonham-Carter’s time. Barry Pepper gave a colorful performance as the xenophobic U.S. Army Captain Jay Fuller, who allowed himself to be corrupted by Cavendish and his partner. But as much as I enjoyed Pepper’s performance, I found myself a bit unsatisfied with how the screenwriters handled his character. Captain Fuller’s transformation from a determined Army officer to a corrupt one struck me as a bit rushed and clumsy. James Badge Dale fared a lot better as John Reid’s older brother, Texas Ranger Dan Reid. He gave an excellent performance as the professional lawman torn between his love for his younger brother and jealousy toward his wife’s continuing feelings for the latter. Remember my recall of the scene featuring the blue silk handkerchief? Badge Dale’s performance in that scene really made it particularly memorable for me. It has been a while since I last saw William Fitchner in a movie – over three years, as a matter of fact. The man has portrayed a vast array of interesting characters over the years. And I would definitely count the outlaw Butch Cavendish as one of those characters. Fitchner skillfully portrayed the outlaw as a walking horror story with an impish sense of humor.

Tom Wilkinson, whom one could always count on portraying interesting and complex characters, skillfully portrayed another one in the form of railroad tycoon, Latham Cole. Wilkinson did an excellent job in portraying Cole as a subtle and wily man whose desire for Rebecca Reid, power and wealth; along with the construction of the railroad makes him a potential enemy of both Tonto and the Lone Ranger. I was surprised to discover that British actress Ruth Wilson had been cast as Rebecca Reid, John’s sister-in-law and the love of his life. I have always felt that she was a top-notch actress and her portrayal of the spirited Rebecca did not prove me wrong. But I was very surprised by how she easily handled a Texas accent during her performance. If someone ever decides to do a remake of the 1965 movie, “THE GREAT RACE”, I would cast Armie Hammer in the role of Leslie Gallant aka the Great Leslie. Hammer did a beautiful job in conveying a similar uptight and annoyingly noble personality in his portrayal of John Reid aka the Lone Ranger. In a way, I could see why a good number of fans found John’s stubborn refusal to improvise in dealing with Cavendish rather annoying. And if they did, Hammer succeeded in his performance on many levels . . . and still managed to be likeable. At least to me. Some critics had complained that Depp’s portrayal of Tonto failed to become another Jack Sparrow. Others complained that his Tonto seemed too much like Tonto. I will admit that Depp, the screenwriters and Verbinski utilized a similar sense of humor in the portrayal of Tonto. But thanks to Depp’s performance, the latter proved to be a different kettle of fish. Not only did I find Depp’s portrayal of the wily and vengeful Commanche rather funny, but also sad, considering the character’s back story. This allowed the actor to inject a tragicomedic layer in his portrayal of Tonto that reminded me why he is considered one of the best actors in the film industry.

As I had stated earlier, “THE LONE RANGER” did not strike me as perfect. I certainly do not regard it as one of the best movies from the summer of 2013; due to a running time I found too long, a few problems with the script and the presence of two characters I believe were mishandled. On the other hand, it turned out to be a first-rate action Western with a plot that featured some surprising plot twists and a dark streak that I believe made the story even more interesting. It did help that I not only enjoyed the post-Civil War setting, but also the performances of an excellent cast led by Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer and a very entertaining direction by Gore Verbinski.

“J. EDGAR” (2011) Review

“J. EDGAR” (2011) Review

Actor/director Clint Eastwood directed his third – or possibly fourth – biopic film, during his career, with “J. EDGAR”, an examination of the career and private life of F.B.I. director, J. Edgar Hoover. The movie starred Leonard Di Caprio as the infamous lawman. 

“J. EDGAR” is a 137 minute movie that spanned Hoover’s career in a series of flashbacks. The movie begins in the early 1960s, when the famed F.B.I. director is recounting his forty-to-fifty years as a Federal lawman. Hoover’s recollections span from his participation in the Palmer Raids – a series of attempts by the U.S. Department of Justice to arrest and deport radical leftists, especially anarchists, from the United States, his appointment as director of the Bureau of Investigations in the 1920s, his “War on Crime” campaign in the 1930s, the Lindbergh Baby kidnapping during the same decade and his investigation of civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr.. The movie also focuses on his use of blackmail to retain his position with the F.B.I., and his relationships with both his mother and Clyde Tolson, his assistant director for the Bureau.

I do not think I would ever regard “J. EDGAR” as one of Eastwood’s best work. It had the potential to be a top-notch film. But a slightly incoherent script written by Dustin Lance Black prevented the movie from reaching its potential. One, the movie’s use of flashbacks started fine. But somewhere in the movie’s second half, this use fell flat. I suspect that my problem with the flashbacks was that Black’s script and Eastwood’s direction seemed inconsistent and slightly confusing.

Another problem I had with “J. EDGAR” was its focus on the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case. It was simply too much. Hoover reached the heights of his fame as the Bureau’s director, because of the manhunt for Midwestern criminals such as John Dillinger, Alvin Karpis and Charles Floyd. I realize that this topic was also covered in Michael Mann’s 2009 crime drama,“PUBLIC ENEMIES”. But Eastwood and Black seemed determined to ignore the topic, aside from Hoover’s bouts of jealousy toward the agent that hunted down many of these criminals – Melvin Purvis. Instead, Eastwood and Black decided to focus a great deal on the Bureau’s participation in the Lindbergh case. Too much, if you want my opinion. The film never touched on the Bureau’s dealings or lack of with organized crime. I find this a pity, because one of the most memorable moments in Hoover’s career was his so-called “arrest” of gangster Louis “Lepke” Buchalter, a publicity stunt supported by columnist Walter Winchell.

Fortunately, “J. EDGAR” was not a complete loss. I must admit that despite its flaws, it was a solid and entertaining movie. Eastwood’s direction seemed to be at its best in scenes that featured anarchist Luigi Galleani’s attempted to assassinate Hoover’s boss, Mitchell Palmer with a mail bomb; Hoover’s meeting with Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf and Charles Lindbergh; a highly charged scene between Hoover and his mother regarding his sexual preference; and especially the scenes featuring Hoover’s relationship with Tolson. Most movie or television productions tend to portray the relationship between the two men with a slight tawdriness. Eastwood and Black’s portrayal of the Hoover-Tolson relationship struck me as surprisingly tasteful and compassionate – especially since other aspects of Hoover’s life and character was portrayed with less sympathy.

I must admit that Tom Stern’s cinematography was a solid piece of work, but it did not exactly blow my mind. And if I must be frank, I was not exactly enamored of the film’s slightly gray tone. I also felt slightly leery of the makeup created for Di Caprio, Arnie Hammer and Naomi Watts. The makeup did not seem effective in aging the three leads in the 1960s and 70s sequences. However, I was impressed by James J. Murakami’s production designs that conveyed the years between 1919 and 1972. I believe the re-creation of the early and mid 20th century would not have been complete without Deborah Hopper’s superb costume designs.

The biggest virtue of “J. EDGAR” turned out to be its cast. Once again, Leonardo Di Caprio rose to the occasion and gave a superb portrayal of a complex and some would say, difficult personality. As usual, Di Caprio managed to inject a good deal of sympathy and poignancy into a historical figure that has a negative reputation over the years. I had been impressed by Arnie Hammer’s solid portrayal of the Winklevoss twins in last year’s “THE SOCIAL NETWORK”. But he really outdid himself as Hoover’s right hand man, Clyde Tolson – especially in the scenes featuring the pair’s relationship. Judi Dench gave her usual solid performance as Hoover’s strong-willed mother, Anna Marie Hoover. But in the scene featuring Mrs. Hoover’s disapproval of her son’s sexual lifestyle, she was brilliant and slightly scary. Naomi Watts gave a solid and slightly melancholic performance as Hoover’s faithful secretary, Helen Gandy. “J. EDGAR” also featured solid support from the likes Josh Lucas as the introverted Charles Lindbergh, Dermot Mulroney as the ineffectual New Jersey State Police superintendent Herbert N. Schwarzkopf, Lea Thompson as Lela Rogers (Ginger’s mother) Geoff Pierson as the intense Mitchell Palmer and Jeffrey Donovan as Attorney General Robert Kennedy. However, I was a little confused by Donovan’s slightly exaggerated take on Kennedy’s Boston accent, considering that Donovan is also a native of Massachusetts.

I noticed that “J. EDGAR” did not earn enough to make a profit at the box office. In a way, I can see why. I feel that it was a solid movie that failed to live up to any potential it could have achieved – especially at the hands of a first-rate director like Clint Eastwood. But thanks to his direction, the movie’s production designs and a first-rate cast led by the superb Leonardo Di Caprio, “J. EDGAR” still proved to be a somewhat entertaining and solid film.