J. Edgar: A Review

J. EDGAR

We All Know Hoover Sucks, But Not This Much...

Contrary to all the rumors, there is no definite evidence that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover either was a homosexual or a cross-dresser, or that his aide Clyde Tolson was his lover.  This hasn't stopped the speculation about the director's private life.  J. Edgar is neither a hagiography or a hatchet job, and the fact that it won't take a definitive position one way or the other is one of the many, many problems the film suffers from.

The film bounces with near-wild abandon back and forth in its telling: going from the late 1960's/early 1970's and back to the mid-1920's through the early 1960's and back again.  J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) is dictating a book about the Federal Bureau of Investigation that will portray the agency in a positive light.  His story is told to a series of agents, and we go through his early days working for Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer and the Palmer Raids tracking down Communist subversives, such as fiery radical Emma Goldman, his hiring to head the then-Bureau of Investigation, his determination to bring a scientific approach to investigating crimes, the Lindbergh kidnapping case, right down to his final days at the bureau.

Within this story we have his relationships with his mother Anna (Dame Judi Dench), his longtime secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), and of course, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) his right-hand man, who may have given new meaning to that term. 

As I watched J. Edgar, I finally gave up trying to follow the 'present' story since it never established when the 'present' actually was.  I speculated as to why screenwriter Dustin Lance  Black and director Clint Eastwood decided to make things more confusing by introducing us to one ghostwriting agent after another with no indication as to why one agent started where another one ended.

I decided this was an in-joke for Black: to have a cavalcade of chorus boys listen to Hoover talk about his exploits was his way of signaling how the old, almost decrepit Hoover was getting his kicks by seeing all these pretty young things come in and out of his office.

How else to explain why we started with Agent Smith (Ed Westwick) and ended with Agent Owens (Ary Katz) with nary an explanation as to why all these agents were waltzing in and out sans rhyme or reason.  If one had fallen asleep between the opening and closing of J. Edgar, a likely scenario, one would have wondered when did Chuck from Gossip Girl become black!

J. Edgar has no idea whether to make Hoover a hero or a villain.  It gives him credit for his foresight in understanding that investigative methods before his work at the bureau were clumsy and jumbled, but this isn't the focus of the movie.  In fact, whatever positive things Hoover may have done, such as turn the Bureau of Investigation into the Federal Bureau of Investigation due to his persistent efforts are almost immaterial to the story.

Oddly, Hoover's private life isn't the focus of J. Edgar either.  It hints at it, but never takes a position one way or another as to his true sexual inclinations.  For example, he appears romantically interested in Miss Gandy, but after he's rebuffed by her he apparently gives up having any feelings for her; the fact that we never got a reason as to why Gandy stayed loyal to Hoover made things more confusing.

Hoover then hesitates to accept the advances of Lela Rogers (Lea Thompson), mother of Ginger Roger (Jamie LaBarber) and a passionate conservative herself. The fact that J. Edgar suggests Hoover wanted nothing to do with the elder Rogers, especially sexually, is historically debatable given their open association.  Although there's no evidence of a sexual relationship, there's no evidence he ever turned her down either.  This moment,  along with a gentle hand-holding between Tolson and Hoover after the G-Men premiere, suggests Hoover is gay.

Then, however, we have one of the wildest scenes in J. Edgar though bizarrely, not the flat-out nuttiest.  Hoover did have a passion: for horse racing.  It's understood that he and Tolson went to the Del Mar Track regularly.  In the living room they share, Tolson tells Hoover "I love you", but in a way that suggests either Hoover doesn't get the romantic passion Tolson may have for him or that could be interpreted as a philos rather than eros love.

Hoover then asks his buddy what he thinks of Dorothy Lamour, best known as the beauty in various Road movies with Bing Crosby and Bob Hope.  He goes on to tell Tolson that he is thinking of marrying her and even more shocking to Tolson, that Hoover and Lamour have had 'physical relations'.

Perhaps it is my naivete, but I take that to mean they've had sex. 

This bit of news sends Tolson into a fury, shouting and smashing things all over the place.  It ends with Tolson lunging at a horrified Hoover and giving him a passionate kiss which appears almost psychotic, down to lip biting.  Tolson then tells Hoover he is never to discuss females to him again or he would leave.  Hoover is left both confused and regretful.

If we judge Hoover's true sexual inclination from this sequence, we could end up thinking he was at best bi-curious, as my friend Gabe, who saw J. Edgar with me, put it.  Since we never got to see him meet Lamour, let alone a love scene with her, we can only guess at to what his true feelings for Tolson were.  Near the end of J. Edgar, Hoover finally gives the old, stroke-impaired Tolson the only hints of affection: a kiss on the forehead and a handkerchief.

Tolson takes it gently, caressing it and taking whiffs of the scent with a quiet yearning.  I refer to that scene as the "Brokeback Handkerchief" Moment. 

By going back and forth on Hoover's true relationship with Tolson which will only be known by two people, both conveniently dead, we never can understand why they stayed together all those years.  In fact, the biggest blunder in J. Edgar is how the film just keeps going back and forth on everything: the relationship entre Tolson et Hoover in particular, but in terms of structure between the present day and the past.

The transitions between what is suppose to be the 1930' and the 1960's are incredibly, almost shockingly clumsy: having the elderly Tolson and Hoover get in an elevator and having them exit as the youthful Tolson and Hoover makes the transitions muddled.  Again and again, we had these transitions between the past and the present with no reason flow between them, leaving things terribly confusing as to what exactly is going on.

Take for example Hoover's rather bizarre relationship with Mama Hoover.  At one point, Mama Hoover is in bed, apparently dying.  Granted, we understand she is very much alive when she and Hoover, along with Tolson, go to the G-Men premiere, but when she comes back while Hoover dictates what has occurred after the Kennedy assassination, I was thrown off because I thought she was already dead.  Apparently not.

It's here at this particular moment that J. Edgar officially went off the rails with the nuttiest scene in the whole film.  After Mama Hoover dies, a devastated J. Edgar goes to her room, whereupon he in a fit of mourning madness he slips on her dress to cope with her death.  I know that some people believe "a boy's best friend is his mother", but I asked myself when did J. Edgar turn into Psycho IV: The Beginning?

I really think this particular moment was thrown in to get the FBI Director to slip into a dress and if not validate the rumors of cross-dressing, at least give those who believe the rumors a chance to indulge in their fantasies of the bitter Hoover getting his Glen or Glenda groove on. 



Even worse, the film doesn't have a focus.  The bulk of J. Edgar involves the infamous Lindbergh kidnapping case, but here, we see both Eastwood's direction and Black's screenplay go all over the place.  We start with the kidnapping, where a remarkably restrained Charles Lindbergh (Josh Lucas) doesn't trust the authorities to help find his son.  However, we meander in and out of the Lindbergh case throughout J. Edgar, almost as if Black and Eastwood wanted to put in information about Hoover's love life or fits of transvestism before going back to Lindbergh.  In fact, there so many long stretches in J. Edgar that we forget all about Lucky Lindy before the investigation is thrown back at us.

Here's how it works: there's the kidnapping, then we go to Hoover and Tolson's "date" at the G-Men premiere and the rebuffing of the hot-to-trot Mama Rogers, then back to Lindbergh, then to Hoover listening in on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. getting his freak on, then to Tolson's almost rape of Hoover, then we end up back to Lindbergh's case, this time trying to find the kidnapper.  Structurally, J. Edgar is such a mess one doesn't know which way to turn.

Again and again, there is just no focus in J. Edgar, and the lack of focus, the way the script meanders almost lackadaisically throughout his life damns this film to a convoluted, chaotic mess that never tells us anything about the main character himself: his motivations, his fears, his aspirations, his being. 

J. Edgar also violated a rule I have, perhaps not a Golden Rule but a rule nonetheless: You Cannot Repeat The Same Trick Twice & Expect the Same Results.

Dustin Lance Black is trying the repeat the same method he used with Milk: basically a flashback, with Harvey Milk dictating his last will and testament.  In J. Edgar, another biopic, it's Hoover dictating his story with flashbacks.  However, the difference between Milk and J. Edgar show how two directors working with basically the same screenwriting method can make radically different films (one good, one bad).

Milk is a monologue, with the City Supervisor dictating his will to a tape recorder.  He didn't have the distractions of having others listen to him; it was just Milk and Milk alone.  J. Edgar has a litany of nubile boys to take down his words, so pretty soon we become lost as to why we have this parade of chorus boys taking down the words of this man.  Milk kept the story flowing in a straight line with minimal reminders that we were coming to the last days of Harvey Milk's life: even after we know he's dead, his voice still rings out to us without it becoming odd.

With J. Edgar, we flow and meander so often we can never be grounded as to exactly when our story is taking place.

In short, Black's J. Edgar screenplay is trying to repeat the structure he gave to the screenplay for Milk: biopics told with the subject narrating his story and flashbacks to his life.  However, while Milk stayed mostly in the past with occasional reminders that he is dictating his story, J. Edgar ambles lazily back and forth between the present and past, and even throws in a flashback within a flashback which only ends up confusing and frustrating the structure as a whole.

If that weren't enough, J. Edgar does one thing in film that I'm finding more prevalent and which drives me absolutely bonkers: that damn voiceover method of filmmaking. I keep hearing so much narration I might as well be listening to an audiobook.

Let me discuss the make-up work, which has become quite controversial.  DiCaprio's make-up as Hoover was by no means brilliant but serviceable.  It was only when I saw Hammer's make-up as Tolson that I gasped in horror at how simply ghastly it was.  I not only literally gasped at the sight of Hammer's horrific make-up but started covering my eyes to shield myself from how simply unforgivable the simply horrible and hideous old-age make-up looked on him.

Gabe said the make-up made Armie Hammer look like Johnny Knoxville in a Jackass skit, and I completely agree.  It was simply the worst make-up I have ever seen in any film: thoroughly unconvincing to the point of being laughable and amateurish. 

The performers did the best they could with the lousy material they were handed.  DiCaprio is someone who has willed himself into being one of the best actors of his generation, and even though, technically, DiCaprio is far too tall to have played the tiny Hoover, he is determined to be Hoover.  Granted, we never quite followed as to who Hoover was at heart (or if he had one), but that isn't DiCaprio's fault.

Matching him was Hammer as Tolson.  He presents himself as a man who at the very least stays loyal to Hoover while advising him about how far he can go, legally.  The only flaw with Hammer and DiCaprio is that neither could ever communicate what one saw in the other.

Less successful were Watts, who was also hampered by lousy make-up.  We never saw why she would stay with someone like Hoover, and her shifts between being professional (calling him Mr. Hoover) and the personal (occasionally calling him Edgar) never showed whether she saw herself as a keeper of the gate or a disinterested secretary.  Dench had nothing to do except look creepy and look on creepily as Norma Bates clone Anna Hoover.

I digress to say that even in his one to two scenes in J. Edgar, Westwick doesn't appear to understand acting involves more than just pouting his lips.  All I kept thinking of was why was trying to bring Chuck from Gossip Girl to Washington. 

Maybe the biggest flaw in J. Edgar is that it takes itself so seriously.  It thinks it has something to say about the Director, admired in some circles, despised in others.  By being so ponderous, it only succeeds in drawing attention to just how silly it all is: the horrifying make-up, the rambling story, the lack of insight into any of the characters. 

J. Edgar is not a disaster but it is a mess.  Oddly, this was the same analysis I gave Green Lantern, and that is a bad sign.  The former is suppose to be a serious film by a serious filmmaker, an effort to get Oscar consideration for an 'important' film.  The latter is suppose to be a start to an action/fantasy franchise to be enjoyed with popcorn.

How people can make a mess out of what could have been an interesting story of the corruption power inflicts on a man, I simply cannot understand.


1895-1972

Even HE deserved better than this.

DECISION: D-

Gangster's Paradise. Martin Scorsese: The Great Directors Retrospective

Born 1942

MARTIN SCORSESE

It is accurate to say that Martin Scorsese is both one of film's Great Directors as well as one of its greatest fans.  He loves movies to where having a conversation with him is like, to coin a phrase, quoting Scripture to a nun.  One gets the sense that he could tell you everything about something as obscure as Doctor Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine or as out of the mainstream as The Saddest Music in the World. 

His fascination for film, his love of film, has earned him a rare credit: a filmmaker embraced by both the intellectual and the Average Joe.  Regardless of your status or education, everyone has at least one Martin Scorsese film they love.  I think he is able to do so because he is first, a master craftsman.  Every shot serves the story while still having a great visual flair.  This pleases the intelligentsia.  His stories, for the most part, are about the netherworld of criminals, those operating on the margins of society.  Here, a regular guy can gain a passion for the stories he tells. 

He had a great eye, starting from his youth.  Asthma kept him within the confines of his Little Italy home, where Marty started observing the people in his neighborhood.  His eye was trained to observe, to note what worked and didn't work in movies.  His parents took him to see films as a way to get him out of the house, and within the spectacles of DeMille, the neo-realism/fantasy of Fellini, and directors as varied as Billy Wilder and William Wyler, Scorsese could observe a wide world of cinema.

His career as an editor also was of great service.  He knew how to pace a story, keep things moving and keep a structure in the story.  Once he went into directing, he told his stories, and those usually involved the seedy side of the Italian-American experience.

Scorsese didn't popularize the modern gangster/mobster film, but starting from Mean Streets right on down to The Departed, Scorsese specializes in the depiction of the criminal world, where loyalty comes into conflict with legality.  Goodfellas I think is the best example of this quandary.

You have Henry Hill, who is really a despicable person: unapologetic about being a criminal, so much so that he tells us that being a 'ganster' has been his life's goal.  However, Hill has a love for the people he's surrounded himself with, until his paranoia gets the better of him even if it is warranted.  By the time he, shall I say, goes rogue, we end up caring about his plight but also thinking he's a sleazy character.

Curiously, one of the things I dislike about film, the reliance of voiceover, works in Goodfellas, primarily because it provides us with more than one voiceover without being overbearing.  That, and because Scorsese never made it an easy way to tell us the story.  He actually used the visuals, particularly the way he thrusts the camera at us, to give us the information we need.

Again and again, Scorsese brings us people we should dislike, but his mastery of storytelling is such that we cannot help but at least be mesmerized by them.  Take Jake LaMotta from Raging Bull.  Just in the opening, where we see Robert DeNiro shadow-boxing in slow-motion while Pietro Mascagni's intermezzo from Cavalleria Rusticana played, we see the beauty of boxing married to the violence of the sport; the stark black-and-white cinematography only enhanced the beauty as well as the seamy nature of LaMotta's life story. 

Again, we have another story of someone we shouldn't like and probably wouldn't if we had to be around him for long, but by the end, when we see this once-great fighter reduced to being this fat pseudo-comic at a sleazy club, we end up feeling great sorrow and sadness for this guy.

While Scorsese is most identified with the mobster/gangster film, he isn't above trying new genres.  Who would have thought the man behind Taxi Driver (a great film that I still cannot bring myself to watch again simply because it freaked me out so) would tackle something as dainty as Edith Wharton's The Age of Innocence?  Let's face it: innocence itself isn't something one associates with Scorsese, let alone costume dramas from the Gilded Age.  It would be like watching a Merchant/Ivory production of Underboss: Sammy the Bull Gravano. However, Scorsese is not a filmmaker to be sidelined to one genre. 

One thing that is a constant in Scorsese's films are how he uses music.  He has a passion for the Rolling Stones' Gimme Shelter, but if one sees a Scorsese film like Goodfellas, note just how songs set the mood for the scene without overpowering the scene or making the song gratuitous. 

Every song appears to not just fit into the scene but be perfectly natural to it, from Henry's aspirations being underscored with Tony Bennett's Rags to Riches, through The Crystals' Then He Kissed Me in that amazing tracking shot of Henry and Karen going to the Copacabana right on through Eric Clapton's Layla feeding Henry's "triumph" in the Witness Protection Plan (the finale shot I though I nice nod to the ending of The Great Train Robbery). 

He has had the desire to explore more stories, from the spiritualism of Kundun, a biopic on the Dalai Lama, to Howard Hughes' various manias in The Aviator.  Now, he's going to go into 3-D with Hugo, based on the book The Invention of Hugo Cabret.  Throughout all his work, he has remained a stalwart in film preservation, knowing that what influenced him will influence future filmmakers and the desperate need to save our historic film heritage. 

One story I can tell about a Scorsese movie I haven't seen involves perhaps his most controversial film: The Last Temptation of Christ.  When it came out, the film was highly controversial, and the priest railed and thundered so passionately against The Last Temptation of Christ that I was completely scared away from seeing it.  In fact, I'm still a bit scared to see it.  Therefore, I'm in no position to say whether it's good or bad, but I can say that I don't know I would see it: the idea of our Savior having sex, even in a fantasy sequence, may be far too much for my Evangelical heart to take. 

I also wasn't thrilled by Shutter Island.  I was frustrated with it and while I recognize I'm in the minority on this, I stand by my view that the story was so obvious (and Leonard DiCaprio's accent so fake) that I could never get into it. 

Still,  nothing takes away from Martin Scorsese being a true genius.  Perhaps his Best Director Oscar for The Departed was a way to honor his body of work, but he was long overdue.

Martin Scorsese loves film.  It's been a passionate affair between Marty and the camera, and like all Scorsese films, it's been an amazing thing to behold.

With that, I wish a Happy Birthday to Martin Scorsese, and welcome him among the Great Directors.

Immortals (2011): A Review

IMMORTALS

Ares of Judgment...

Normally, one doesn't need to know much about Greek mythology to enjoy a film like Immortals, let alone follow the story.  However, Immortals I figure assumes you know a great deal about the Greek gods and heroes, otherwise we would have had proper introductions.

Borrowing heavily from films like 300 and Clash of the Titans, Immortals doesn't attempt to actually tell a story as to drown an audience with grand visuals, all courtesy of director Tarsem Singh, known simply as Tarsem. 

A voiceover explains it all: there was a War in the Heavens.  The victors declared themselves gods, the vanquished were called Titans and imprisoned within the bowels of Mount Tartarus.  However, a mortal, Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) has got it into his head that the gods either do not exist or do not care about his plight, so in vengeance he attacks and lays waste to their shrines.  Now, he also goes to the temple to capture the True Virgin Oracle, who has the power of prophesy and can help him gain the Epirius Bow.  With this mythic bow he can conquer the earth although given what we see in Immortals, ain't doing so bad without it.

Hyperion and his army pillage all of Greece, coming close to the village of  Theseus (Henry Cavill) lives with his mother.  Here, he is watched over by an Old Man (John Hurt), but this is no mere Old Man.  It is none other than Zeus himself (Luke Evans).  Zeus has been watching over Theseus for a long time, knowing that this mortal will be a great warrior for humanity and divinities alike. 

In short order, Lysander (Joseph Morgan) has turned traitor, going to Hyperion.  Hyperion's men capture the True Virgin Oracle and her fellow priestesses although no one knows which one of the four is the True Virgin Oracle except the women themselves.  The true Virgin Oracle is Phaedra (Freida Pinto), who sees a vision where Theseus will 'embrace' Hyperion but will have the Bow.

With the aid of an Oracle Quartet Danse Erotique, Phaedra escapes, as does Theseus and another captive, a professional thief named Stavros (Stephen Dorff).  Now, the gods themselves are forbidden to interfere directly in this war, although it doesn't stop Poseidon (Kellan Lutz) from bringing a convenient sea storm or Ares (Daniel Sharman) and Athena (Isabel Lucas) from jumping into the fracas (although Ares' direct intervention does get him killed, which does make the title Immortals a bit odd).  While Theseus does discover the Bow of Epirius, Hyperion has taken it, and now, a climatic battle between Hyperion's forces and those at Tartarus. 

Oh, and did I mention the True Virgin Oracle in all this became a virgin-no-more?  If that's a surprise to you, then you really have little imagination.  As it is, Hyperion is defeated, but with high costs to the divine beings, yet no worries: Zeus, a wounded Athena, and Theseus himself are spirited away to I figure Mt. Olympus, and in a closing scene, Thesus' son has a vision of a massive war in the heavens, while the Old Man watches over him.

Immortals is a hodgepodge of Greek mythology and grandiose visuals Tarsem is well-known for, such as his video for R.E.M.'s Losing My Religion.  What the film isn't is engaging.  Tarsem is so obsessed with the visual opulence in Immortals that he doesn't appear all that interested in either the story or the actual performances. 

It's interesting that Charles and Vlas Parlapanides' screenplay never bothers to stop and tell the audience exactly who was whom.  After leaving the theater, I stayed on and eavesdropped on a few conversations.  Even among the people who enjoyed the visuals in Immortals, there was great confusion as to the characters. 

One woman asked her husband, "Now, was that Athena or Aphrodite?"  Another group argued over whether Apollo was in there at all; apparently, he was: Corey Sevier is credited as such. 

In this case, I will side with the audience: we hardly ever heard character's names being used, so trying to figure out exactly who was whom and attempting to sort out where they all fit into this was perplexing to say the least. 

In the story, Theseus is the product of rape.  However, is it possible that the reason Zeus looks over him and trains him so is that Theseus himself is semi-divine?  While the temptation is there, the subject of Theseus' father is never addressed one way or another.  At the end of the battle at Mt. Tartarus, Theseus becomes a light that flies up to the heavens.  Why?  Again, this point never has an answer.

Another issue is with the sex scene between Theseus and Phaedra.  While seeing Freida Pinto's buttocks splashed on a giant screen is a sight to behold, perhaps even better in 3-D, the scene was remarkably perfunctory.  I can't call it a 'love scene' because there was never anything romantic communicated between Phaedra and Theseus.  In fact, given Pinto's dialogue, it looked like Phaedra got it on with Theseus because she didn't want her gift of prophesy, and the only way to get rid of it was to no longer be a True Virgin, a bit like Solitaire in Live and Let Die. 

It's pretty obvious that a character constantly referred to as "the True Virgin Oracle" is not going to be a virgin when the credits roll. It reminds me of both Dragnet and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, both of which involved the virginal statuses of characters constantly referenced.  Of course, those were comedies, while Immortals is just an unintentional one. 

Granted, both Pinto and Cavill are exceptionally beautiful people, and few would object to seeing them in various states of undress, but that scene just serves as exposure as opposed to exposition.  I figure that in a film like Immortals, Tarsem and Company are trying to get across a hybrid of gory, almost video game-like violence and homoerotic imagery with all those bare-chested men heaving about.

In a case of unintended consequences, knowing that Evans, playing the younger version of Hurt, was in Clash of the Titans as Apollo only makes things slightly more complex. 

Moreover, in terms of actual performances, Tarsem doesn't give them anything to work with.  It's as if they are left to their own devices.  All the 'gods' really have nothing to do but strike poses as they talk about not interfering which they do anyway.  Kellan Lutz, a former model who has shown no range in the Twilight series, again shows off his body but no actual acting ability. I will give him some points for having to wear the silliest headpiece in Immortals: something that looks like he has a couple of buns baking on each side of his head.  I know Lutz is suppose to be Poseidon because he has a trident and controls the sea, but as for the other gods?  Well, are we suppose to care?

The mortals in Immortals don't fare better.  Pinto is blank throughout, and given how blank she was in Rise of Planet of the Apes I wonder if Slumdog Millionaire was a one-hit wonder.  I sense that Cavill did as much as he could with such a blank character as Theseus, who fluctuated between anger in the Leonidas mode and mere confusion. 

Dorff is the only one who appears to understand the whole project is going to end up being cheesy and not to be taken seriously; as such, he's having a grand time and doesn't try to make such awful lines as "I am a thief, my lady.  If not for these chains, I'd steal your heart", sound like anything other than cringe-inducing over-the-top dialogue.  Rourke, on the other hand, might not have received the memo: his deep growl appears to show he's trying to play it straight but somehow still ending up on the wrong side of camp.

I'll go on to say that when I saw John Hurt in all this, all I could keep wondering was, "What's John Hurt doing in all this?"  Given, however, how he already embarrassed himself in Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the man who gave a shocking and brilliant performance as Caligula in I, Claudius doesn't seem to mind being in a piece of junk like Immortals. 

Give Immortals credit in this respect: it knows what it's trying to be.  The outlandish costumes  by Eiko Ishioka  hows she's not afraid to go all-out in creating a totally fantastic and unapologetically unreal world (at least whenever an actor or actress is not showing off their physique).  Same for the production design, from the darkness of the Temple to the oddity of the tower/oasis in the middle of the desert and the Titan's cube-like prison.  Brendan Galvin's cinematography captured the unreal, highly exaggerated world of both the god's domain and the human world, with this chiaroscuro motif that was dominant throughout Immortals.

All of Immortals' flaws: the silly almost non-existent story, the questionable acting consisting of striking poses while saying odd or dumb things, the reliance on the physical beauty of the cast as opposed to creating any actual characters, could be forgiven. Immortals could have been a dumb, albeit enjoyable, good time if one didn't think while watching. It's entertaining if you just want to revel in the physical beauty of Cavill, Lutz, Pinto, and even Dorff.

If not for some odd suggestion of a sequel, I'd probably rate it higher. 

On the whole, Immortals is junk, albeit at times beautiful looking junk, but junk nonetheless.  It should know it has no story, it has no reason for being, and it is highly disposable.  If it knew that, it should have been a bit lighter and not taken itself so seriously.  If if didn't know that, it has wildly overrated its worth as a film or even as dumb entertainment. 

In short, this Immortals will not be beloved.

DECISION: C-

Doctor Who Story 032: The Underwater Menace

STORY 032:
THE UNDERWATER MENACE

Still Waters...

As this is the first surviving episode from the Second Doctor's era, The Underwater Menace gives us a glimpse into how Patrick Troughton was taking the role of The Doctor and putting his own light touch on it.  His debut story, The Power of the Daleks, is sadly lost*, as is his follow-up story, the historic adventure The Highlanders.  Out of his third story, this one, it is only Episode Three that is still with us.

I find it curious that the first known surviving sighting of the Second Doctor has him dressed as a Gypsy, with the bandanna and playing his recorder.  Somehow though, it seems fitting that one of our quirkier Doctors appears to us for the first time dressed in such a nutty garb.  As for the story itself, it gets an A for inventiveness, even if the execution didn't quite go as well as it could have.

The Doctor (Patrick Troughton) along with his Companions Polly (Anneke Wills), Ben (Michael Craze) and newest member Jamie McCrimmon (Fraser Hines) have arrived in the lost underwater city of Atlantis.  Evil things, however, are afoot.  A mad scientist named Zaroff (Joseph Furst) has persuaded the King to raise Atlantis from the sea.  By doing that, he will cause Earth's destruction, and it's up to the Doctor to stop him. 

He is aided by a priest of the Atlantian goddess Ando named Ramo (Tom Watson).  When we get to our episode, Zaroff is now completely mad with power.  Ramo and the Doctor manage to escape execution thanks to Ben & Polly masquerading as Ando's voice.  The Doctor comes up with a plan: get shipwrecked seamen Jacko (Paul Alin) and Sean (P.G. Stephens) to convince the Fish People, creatures who can live underwater, to go on strike.  Without the Fish People collecting the food for the Atlantians, Zaroff loses credibility because the food quickly spoils, thus the Fish People must constantly be working.

However, after kidnapping Zaroff he manages to escape, killing Ramo and taking Polly hostage.  Zaroff manages to return to Court, but by now the King is alarmed that the Doctor was right.  Zaroff then launches a coup d'etat, killing the King and declaring that nothing will stop him now.

The Underwater Menace, from my understanding, isn't well-liked by Doctor Who fans, but the surviving episode to my mind was quite daring in many ways.  First, director Julia Smith attempted to create as real an underwater world as budget and technology of 1967 would allow.  Jack Robinson's sets, in particular Ando's Temple, along with Sandra Reid's costumes always indicated a fantastical world, as if everything required for life in Atlantis truly came from the sea. 

Now, I grant that some of the costumes, the Gypsy garb or some of the Atlantian children's wardrobe, was a touch exaggerated.  However, to my mind it shows that there was a great deal of ambition behind The Underwater Menace.

Also, it's interesting that Geoffrey Orme's script touched on the idea of unions being a good thing.  This may be subtle, but how else to interpret that the success of the Doctor's plan turns on having the Fish People join in a union and go on strike against their cruel overlords, who keep them working constantly with no benefit to themselves?  I can't say that this was Orme's specific intention, but one can easily draw that conclusion based on the story.

Finally, let's move on to one of the best features of The Underwater Menace: the Fish People.  Here, the costumes and sets did what they could to create this truly underwater world, and the effects of having the Fish People "float" underwater were on the whole rather impressive for 1967.   True, you can see the wires holding the Fish People up, but for the most part, given that it was just the visuals and the music creating the mood of revolution in their sequences, on the whole I thought it was inventive and original for the series.

Here, I have some criticism for The Underwater Menace: Dudley Simpson's incidental score.  While the music for the temple scenes was alright, the music for the bazaar scene was rather loud and overbearing.  Another point of contention is some of the acting.  Furst's Zaroff, who reminded me of Paul Lukas both in look and accent, by the end of Episode Three was in full overacting mode: going wild in his madness and power-lust. 

Conversely, the Atlantian High Priest Lolem (Peter Stephens) was one of the most fey characters in Doctor Who (certainly in Episode Three of The Underwater Menace).  The word 'camp' does not do full justice to Stephens' performance. 

Finally, poor Polly again has to be relegated to being the 'damsel in distress', keeping the tradition of being the Who Girl who can do nothing but scream and scream again.  Well, a sign of the times, I imagine.

On the whole, I think The Underwater Menace has gotten a bad rap.  Yes, some of the acting is overdone, and some of the comedy bits are a bit over-the-top: the Doctor as the King of the Gypsies, though what Gypsies are doing in Atlantis we don't know. 

However, The Underwater Menace shows the Doctor Who crew were trying to be inventive, get away from outer-space and history to try something unique and original.   Some of the sets and costumes were among the most beautiful and creative in  the Second Doctor's era.  The best I can say is that I wanted to see what happens in the next episode, and that is a hallmark of a good story.  I would like to see all of The Underwater Menace, and now with animation, we might get an even better story. 

In short, I give The Underwater Menace high marks for inventiveness and originality, if not execution.  I think The Underwater Menace is a good story to soak in.

*February 2018 Update: Since the original publishing of this review, The Power of The Daleks has been reconstructed using animation and the surviving audio tracks; it will be reviewed at a later date. Also, a second episode of The Underwater Menace has been discovered and the full story has been released on DVD, albeit with photographs to 'complete' the story.  Another review will revisit The Underwater Menace, but for now, I'll leave the original review up.

6/10

Next Available Story: The Moonbase

James Bond Retrospective: An Introduction

Some Bonds Are Hard To Break...

I don't know what it is about British characters that allow a wide variety of actors to play the same role. Going all the way back to Shakespeare, the British have had a knack of creating theatrical roles that can be played by various actors without diminishing their predecessors.

As of this writing, six actors have played 007 in the 22 official Bond films, not counting the quasi-official spoof Casino Royale and in the most curious case, the original James Bond actor in the non-canonical Never Say Never Again.

We move on to the largest retrospective we've ever attempted: every James Bond film from Dr. No through Skyfall.  Out of the 23, as of this writing I haven't seen ten of them.  However, my memory is a bit vague on some of the ones I have seen. 

I should point out that for review purposes, I am counting the quasi-Bond film Never Say Never Again in this retrospective but not the 1967 Casino Royale*. 

I will go in chronological order, starting from Dr. No right up to Skyfall.  Therefore, they will be:

Dr. No
From Russia With Love
Goldfinger
Thunderball
You Only Live Twice
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Diamonds Are Forever
Live And Let Die
The Man With The Golden Gun
The Spy Who Loved Me
Moonraker
For Your Eyes Only
Octopussy
Never Say Never Again
A View To A Kill
The Living Daylights
Licence to Kill
GoldenEye
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World Is Not Enough
Die Another Day
Casino Royale
Quantum of Solace
Skyfall

This retrospective won't just cover and rank the Bond films themselves.  I will also tackle the serious subject of ranking the Bond Girls and the Bond Theme Songs.  I am also thinking of ranking Bond villains, but that is not for certain.

*February 2018 Update: I will review and include the original Casino Royale at a later date.  I also did indeed have a Bond Villains Ranking, as well as one for Bond Henchmen. 

Here is The James Bond Retrospective Site.

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop: A Review

CONAN O'BRIEN CAN'T STOP

Cuckoo For Coco...

Conan O'Brien got me through college.  Whenever I stayed up late writing a term paper due the next day, I would watch Late Night With Conan O'Brien.  It wasn't long before I became a fan.  O'Brien is an incredibly talented performer and host, with a quick and sharp wit and an array of outrageous characters.  In 2010, the world witnessed one the strangest, saddest, most bizarre and most idiotic debacles in television history. 

That year, Jay Leno, host of The Tonight Show, handed the reigns of the program to O'Brien, who left Late Night to take the hosting duties of this institution.  In return, Leno would host The Jay Leno Show with O'Brien following him.  This was done to keep both Leno and O'Brien at NBC, and both agreed to the arrangement.  However, things quickly went disastrously wrong. 

The ratings for The Jay Leno Show were abysmal, and O'Brien was similarly struggling with his audience.  O'Brien's brand of humor appealed to college-age/educated kids, but didn't play over well with the main audience of The Tonight Show: middle-aged couples.  The higher-ups at NBC decided what was best to do was to move The Jay Leno Show to 11:35 p.m., forcing O'Brien to the past midnight, which was unprecedented for The Tonight Show.  O'Brien and his fans were in an uproar over him getting pushed aside, and the situation soon became a public fiasco.

In short, O'Brien agreed to leave The Tonight Show in exchange for a reported $45 million and to not be on television, radio, or Internet for six months after his final episode.  Jay Leno got The Tonight Show back, and contrary to what O'Brien says, Coco got shafted.

The ensuing scandal over the Leno/O'Brien brouhaha was poorly thought out, poorly executed, and poorly handled from beginning to end, making it one of the most notorious disasters in television history.

All this is background information for Conan O'Brien Can't Stop, the Rodman Flender documentary chronicling the behind-the-scenes activities of O'Brien and his Late Night/Tonight Show staff and band's Legally Prohibited From Being Funny on Television Tour during O'Brien's forced exile from television.

What we don't see is the actual Legally Prohibited Tour save for some clips, more often than not the closing song and dance O'Brien and his backup dancers do.  Instead, Conan O'Brien Can't Stop is more about O'Brien's conflict of emotions while on the tour: outwardly frivolous but with a hard edge to his dealings with nearly everyone save his children.

The film goes from the beginning of the Legally Prohibited Tour, where he and his writers start coming up with ideas for performances, right through the rigors of the road as he hits 44 stops in the U.S. and Canada to rapturous audiences.  Along the way, he meets his many fans many times, and as the Legally Prohibited Tour goes on, O'Brien is starting to become more and more irritated by these meet-and-greets.  I got the sense that after the Universal City, California shows, he wanted to go up to tour producer Jeff Ross and say,"I want to be alone".

Indeed, the portrait of O'Brien in Conan O'Brien Can't Stop is of a man who keeps going because if he were to stop, he would die.  The entire Legally Prohibited Tour is partly a way to meet the fans, although at various points O'Brien complains about having to 'perform' for others before the shows and shows irritation if not downright anger at having to meet more people, but it also shows O'Brien as someone who less can't stop than won't stop. 

The best example of the disconnect between what O'Brien says and what O'Brien does is near the end of the tour.  He keeps bemoaning having no days off, but when the film points out that he has days off from the tour, where do find him? 

We find him at his Harvard 25th Reunion as part of their Talent Show.  At another 'day off', he does a 'secret show' in Nashville at White Stripes frontman's Jack White's studio.  Finally, after completing his set at the Bonnaroo Festival in Manchester, Tennessee, he finds he is booked into introducing the various musical acts, much to his displeasure, leading him to compare himself to of all people, Anne Frank. 

There is something wildly wrong with a multimillionaire, with passionate fans paying I imagine high prices to see him live, comparing himself to one of the most famous victims of the Holocaust.  While watching this particular sequence, I was aghast at his comparison.  Even his long-term assistant, used to his manner of being, was surprised, and said the same thing I was thinking, "You did not just compare yourself to Anne Frank". 

Regardless of how exhausted he was (and by the end, he must have been), or how frustrated he was (which again, he must have been), his situation is in no way close to anything the Franks or any other Holocaust victim/survivor endured. 

Again and again, O'Brien doth protests too much.  He keeps talking about how he doesn't want to introduce the acts at Bonnaroo, which he appears to have no idea who they are, but rather than say, 'thank you but I need to rest', he perhaps dutifully, perhaps gamely, does indeed, introduce the musical acts to a thrilled audience. 

Not that in this part, Conan O'Brien Can't Stop become unintentionally amusing. One can marvel how O'Brien and long-term sidekick Andy Richter appear to be puzzled over who the Bonnarro music performers actually are.  While I figure they are aware of Tenacious D because of their associations with Kyle Gass and Jack Black), when they talk about Damian Marley and rap star Nas, both are at a loss as to who either are or what their music is.  Richter tells his pal to just write "N-O-Z-Z" on his hand when he has to introduce him. 

In Conan O'Brien Can't Stop, the few times the film looks on Richter, he is the only one who appears to be enjoying himself.  Judging from the footage, it's because Richter is the only one in the Legally Prohibited Tour who keeps his cool and goes with the flow.  Unlike O'Brien, who understands that this show is a conduit to letting out his anger at his shabby treatment by NBC and to keep working, Richter appears in the film to be genuinely having a good time. 

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop is a chronicle of a man in transition.  While his outward persona is one of fun and frivolity, it really is a means of survival for the former Tonight Show host, who despite his protests still has an angry edge to the entire sordid episode.  It is how he deals with others: his writers, his staff, and even at one point, his wife, not with cruelty or violence but with a humorous remark that can also be interpreted as a put-down. 

While watching Conan O'Brien Can't Stop, O'Brien at times appeared to be a man under siege, mostly from himself.

There were one or two bizarre moments.  One was in the Bonnarro section, when he appears to be doing his best to avoid comedienne Margaret Cho, who is barely seen and looks more like a slightly confused and whacked-out fan than a fellow performer. 

When he mocks 30 Rock star Jack McBrayer and at one point appears to 'quietly' ask him if he has any cocaine, I began to wonder two things: one, is O'Brien being deliberately mean to McBrayer and two, are they performing for the camera, which would then put a lie to the 'documentary' aspect and turn it into a 'mockumentary'. 

It doesn't help that if you don't watch 30 Rock, you may not know who Jack McBrayer is, or another guest star in the Los Angeles-area show: Jon Hamm from Mad Men.  There are a few guests on the Legally Prohibited Tour, like Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart in New York, but what there isn't is a lot of the actual tour. 

Whether this is a minus depends on whether you would have preferred to have seen the Legally Prohibited From Being Funny on Television Tour or the behind-the-scenes of the tour.  If the former, you'll be wildly disappointed.  If the latter, well, you won't get much better. 

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop is a pretty accurate description of the man behind the Coco persona.  For the most part, O'Brien appears to be a professional, if not perfectionist, entertainer who is grateful (most of the time) for his fans; he also is at times desperate to have others validate a sense of self-worth, one damaged by the mishandling of the Leno/O'Brien disaster. 

For hard-core O'Brien fans, it might come as a surprise that he can be anything less than the quick-witted nice guy but a highly-driven, almost possessed man.  For those more interested in how surviving a major disaster can take a toll while still maintaining a sense of oneself, Conan O'Brien Can't Stop will show how behind the grin and wild red hair there is a slightly fearful, slightly but understandably angry individual. 

Questions about the film's veracity and a sometimes unflattering picture make Conan O'Brien Can't Stop a sometimes sad thing to watch.  It is worth the time for his fans, but I don't see many new converts made through this film.

DECISION: C-

The Conspirator (2011): A Review (Review #285)

THE CONSPIRATOR

The Plot Flattens...

The Conspirator isn't about the actual plot to assassinate the President or the trial that followed for those accused of being involved in the massive plot to kill the top three leaders of the Union.  Rather, it is director Robert Redford's efforts at allegory, using the death of Lincoln and the immediate aftermath to make his commentary on post-9/11 America, and take a metaphorical shot at former Vice President Dick Cheney.  That's fine if he wishes to do that, but this is where The Conspirator goes wrong.  By trying to make an effort in showing how an 'evil', powerful man uses a major tragedy to commit crimes himself, it takes the focus off what is a fascinating story and reduces it to a thin and dull history lesson.

We start at the end of a particularly brutal Civil War battle circa 1863, given that the screen titles note the assassination takes place two years later: April 14, 1865.  Here, Major Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy) is desperately clinging to life, doing his best to keep his buddy Nicholas Baker (Justin Long) alive.  Now we go to the actual assassination date.  Aiken is courting Sarah Westin (Alexis Bledel) and is being mentored in the law by Maryland Senator Reverdy Johnson (Tom Wilkinson).

The actual assassination, along with the other plots to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward, rush by us on screen, almost as if they have to be shown because they are vital to the plot but not important enough to take much time on them.  Instantly, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (Kevin Kline) takes command.  He is convinced the conspirators are planning mass bombings, poisoning the waters and wants those responsible captured yesterday.  The actual capture of those involved moves amazingly quickly in The Conspirator, and now we arrive at the actual trial at the Old Penitentiary. 

Aiken has no interest in defending Mary Surratt (Robin Wright), the only female listed as a conspirator in the Lincoln assassination, because he knows she's guilty.  However, he's persuaded by Senator Johnson to do so.  Mrs. Surratt is a remarkably calm woman who professes her innocence about being party to killing Lincoln though she tells Aiken that she knew of an earlier plot to kidnap the President and hold him hostage in exchange for Southern prisoners.  The trial is a military one, despite all the defendants being civilians and the war being over.  As the trial goes on, Aiken is angered and disgusted by how Stanton is turning the trial into a virtual kangaroo court: the defense is never given enough time to prepare, and the judges, all military men, act more as counsel to the prosecutor (Danny Huston) than as impartial judges. 

The trial is placing its toll on Aiken's private life as well.  Society starts to shun him, and his fiancee worries that he cares more about Mrs. Surratt than about either her or the country.  The trial ends, with all eight defendants, including Mrs. Surratt, found guilty.  She, along with conspirators Lewis Payne (Norman Reedus), George Atzerodt (John Michael Weatherly), and David Harold (Marcus Hester) are sentenced to hang.  While Aiken does his best to get Mrs. Surratt spared hanging, Stanton won't rest until they are hung and hung good.  With that, she is the first woman executed by the United States government.

The Conspirator is the first film released by the American Film Company, whose lofty goal is to produce "engaging movies for grown-ups based on great American stories", historic stories I take it rather than American literature.  Certainly a noble goal, and one with a wealth of material.  There is a great story to be told first about the death of Lincoln and how Booth and his cohorts planned out their nefarious plan.  There is even a great story to be told about the trial of the plotters.

However, the big mistake The Conspirator makes is in trying to draw parallels between the assassination of Lincoln and September 11, 2001.  I imagine Redford didn't see a problem making comparisons between the Old Penitentiary and Guantanamo Bay. In terms of cinema, trying to relate something from the 19th Century to something from the 21st Century has the unfortunate effect of taking one out of the story being told on screen.

James Solomon's script from a story by Solomon and Gregory Bernstein, also makes another mistake.  It never allows us any real sense of suspense or even sympathy for the participants.  The Conspirator tries to be about both Frederick Aiken and Mary Surratt, but for long stretches of time we seem to forget that Aiken has a private life.  Normally, his personal situation wouldn't be important, but since the film introduces it early in the film, The Conspirator makes it important.  That being said, the jumps between his spirited defense of Mrs. Surratt and his banishment from his club because of it never seem to jell into one story.  Instead, they appear two stories placed in one film.

Judging from the film, Mrs. Surratt was nearly saintly in her innocence and bearing, and again, we have a problem.  The Conspirator may be based on actual court testimony, but the film almost takes it for granted that she was absolutely innocent.  Even after confessing to being an accessory before the fact in a plot to kidnap the President, the movie continues its efforts to make Mrs. Surratt a victim of the Dick Cheney stand-in Stanton's paranoia and thirst for revenge.  The film would have benefited by having the viewer question whether she was completely innocent or perhaps knew more than she let on.  By making her virtually virtuous, it can make one wonder whether all the defendants were likewise railroaded.


I digress to say that Dr. Samuel Mudd, one of the co-defendants in the military tribunal, is probably the one defendant who was caught up in the maelstrom of the assassination.  It may be that Mary Surratt was completely innocent, but to my knowledge, that has not been fully historically established.  The Conspirator makes the case that she was, mostly by questioning the reliability and truthfulness of witnesses such as her boarder Louis Weichman (Jonathan Groff) and tavern-keep John Lloyd (Stephen Root).  However, by taking it upon itself to make its position clear about her innocence and the evil that was Stanton, The Conspirator turned into a dull diatribe and dry history lesson rather than an exciting court drama. 

The Conspirator also made another curious turn.  In the film, Aiken asks to see Captain Cottingham (Shea Whigham), who may have something to bring to her defense.  At the trial, the good captain becomes a hostile witness, bringing evidence against rather than for.  The fact that we don't see how or why Cottingham turned against Aiken makes one wonder why it was introduced in the first place.

Again and again, The Conspirator failed to build interest or fill in much information.  It took for granted that the audience would know what was going on, especially in the beginning.  If I hadn't read early on about the plot, I wouldn't have known it was Payne who had attacked Secretary of State Steward in his bed, or that an iron brace around the Secretary's jaw, placed after a carriage accident, was the only thing that saved his life.  We get thrown into the mass murder plot really quickly, with no manner of filling in details.  To my mind, this was one of the biggest blunders in The Conspirator because it didn't allow for any suspense to be built. 

The performances come from an all-star cast.  That being the case, we did get solid performances. McAvoy continues to be one of the better actors of his generation, showing he can handle an American accent beautifully; Aiken becomes a man who changes his view of the judicial process as he becomes slowly angered by the antics of the tribunal but who until the end believes true justice will prevail.

I question the decision to have Wright be so quiet and gentle, again, almost saintly, throughout the film.  It does dehumanize her a bit in that she appears almost too above us.  Kline as the evil Chaney-like Stanton, is a villain not interested in justice but revenge (which I figure was the gist of the project).

Ultimately, one cannot know for certain whether Mrs. Surratt was innocent or not, but The Conspirator failed to make its case. 

Mary Surratt
Circa 1820-1865

DECISION: C-