Sinister: A comparative scorecard

Sinister advertising brags that this is another movie from the same guys who brought us box-office horror hits Paranormal Activity and Insidious. What this really means is that Jason Blum is the producer and if you liked those movies, you should buy a ticket for this one. So I did (with very high expectations). And on that invitation to compare, here we go.

IDEA	B	A	A
EXECUTION	A	A	B-
ORIGINALITY	B-	A	B
SCARINESS	A	A	C
SCORE	What score?	A+	A-
VILLAIN	B+	A	B
ACTING	C	B+	A-
COMMENTS	This film is an example of a tired idea with skilled, yet simple, execution. What also makes it work is the way it plays off of the fear of the unknown. However, the "demonic haunting" parts could have been played up a whole lot more.	The first thing you notice about this film is its brilliant score, reminiscent of horror classics. It's also got near-flawless sci-fi logic and a monster we still fear when he is revealed. It's become one of my favourites.	What saves this film is stellar acting from Ethan Hawke in the lead. However, while the villain's mythology intrigues, the more we know, the less we're afraid. This film's execution unfortunately dampens a clever idea.
FINAL GRADE	B	A	B

While Sinister wasn't nearly as terrifying as I hoped and expected it to be, it was still a well-crafted horror movie (well, except for the crucial element of genuine scares). Lesson learned: I'll try not to set the bar too high next time. But it's kinda tough when Blum's next film, Area 51, is about one of my greatest fears of all.

Bully

 

Photo: Lee Hirsch/The Weinstein Company

Bullying is the hottest topic in education and parenting today, and for good reasons. As the documentary Bully shows us, bullying is prevalent and hugely damaging, and we can’t really understand what it’s like to be on the receiving end of it unless (or until) we actually have been.

Bully is a portrait of five victims of bullying, two of whom killed themselves. It is so sad. These children are beautiful, lovely and innocent. They don’t deserve the treatment they are getting—they’re only children. It’s completely heart-wrenching to see. I cried a lot watching this film, feeling so lucky that I was never bullied growing up.

As much as Bully is a portrait of victims, it is also a portrait of how parents and education administrators are failing these victims. It makes it clear that we can’t fathom what these children are going through. Some of the victims’ parents just tell them to buck up, administrators force victims to shake hands with their victimizers and nothing really changes for these kids. Bully offers us a compassionate look into what it is like to be a victim of bullying, and how good people who love their kids and their students screw up and make things worse, or at least, don’t help matters.

It’s hard to understand why bullying happens, why some kids are targeted and others are not. Unfortunately, Bully does nothing to help us understand why bullies bully. The closest we come to any answers on this question is the story of one of the victims, Ja’Maya, who snaps and brings a gun on board her school bus, and a friend of another victim who committed suicide who says he used to be a bully but he stopped because he realized how bad it is to hurt others.

It does come through in some instances, though, where these kids might have learned how to be cruel and violent. Their words, the threats they use, the descriptions of what they’ll do to their victims—all are influenced by a culture of violence that continues to become more graphic and prevalent, and in which those who win are the cruellest. For me, Bully would have been far more compelling if it had managed to find some bullies who were willing to talk about their motives and their feelings.

The most positive part of the movie is the end, where anti-bullying rallies run by parents of bullying victims who have killed themselves are held, inspiring kids to hold hands and make commitments to stand up for kids who are being bullied. I’m not holding my breath that things will change overnight, but it’s nice to see these kids try to learn some compassion for their fellows.

All in all, Bully is less a documentary than a call to action and empathy. I think I’m better for having seen it. A- 


Directed by Lee Hirsch. 159 minutes. PG

By: Jennifer Simpson

Favourite (non-existent) section of the video store: Women Talking to Other Women About Things Other Than Men

The Cabin in the Woods

Photo: Diyah Pera / Lionsgate

Generally, when horror fans hear the phrase “cabin in the woods,” they either get psyched, prepping themselves for a fun, forested fuck n’ filet fest orchestrated by a hack-happy maniac/ill-explained demonic force/crew of inbred bastards, or roll their eyes in absolute abhorrence. Joss Whedon (Buffy, Firefly, the new Avengers) and Drew Goddard (Cloverfield) may have finally found a way to forge a disturbing peace between the two camps with their new film, The Cabin in the Woods.

The “Oversexed kids go on a weekend getaway to get off, but end up getting offed!” genre has be hacked to pieces over the last 30 years, thanks to bad sequels (paging Mrs. Voorhees and son!), remakes (see: the new Evil Dead reboot) and low budget/high gore indies (Hatchet). If you take The Cabin in the Woods for its spoiler-free plot summary—a group of college students (Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchinson, Jesse Williams, Fran Kranz and Thor himself, Chris Hemsworth) head to a you-know-what for the weekend and killer chaos ensures!—it sounds like yet another stale addition to the genre. In truth, it’s a substantial, subversively sexy smoochie to those who know those films like Billy Loomis got to know Casey’s insides.

The Cabin the Woods feels like a cool cousin to the Scream series. It targets our expectations of it
(and all other films like it), like flesh-eating disease, embodying them only to slaughter them (lovingly) from within. I won’t get too specific—no twist reveals here!—but this includes playfully eschewing the genre “rules” (who says virgins have to live?) and shucking off the scary for the howlingly hilarious in under two seconds.

I’m sure Cabin will turn off Whedonverse virgins and horror comedy haters, those came for blood and boobs and no brains. They may be drawn in by the purposely broad characters, though. Kranz is infinitely likeable as Marty, the Shaggy-Xander hybrid of this doomed Scooby gang, Unfortunately, he loses too much screen time to Connolly’s supposed survivor girl and Velma-Willow, Dana. Aside from Richard Jenkins (Let Me In) and Bradley Whitford (TV’s The West Wing), who play a pair possible villains, the acting in the film isn’t anything to write home on Crystal Lake stationary about. But that may have been intentional...

What Cabin ought to be applauded for is its script, a product of well-researched originality, genuine passion and fanboyish wit which picks up where Buffy left off (at times, it even seems like the alternate ending for Season 4). The quippy dialogue and clever twists cut like a freshly-sharpened butcher knife, gnawing away at the best and worst parts of the current horror climate and hitting bones struck (but not severed) by last year’s Scream 4.

For that alone, this Cabin deserves a spot next to the underrated straight-to-DVD masterpiece Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon in the modern slasher satire trophy case. Or at least one visit. A

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchinson, Fran Kranz, Jesse Williams, Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford. Directed by Drew Goddard. 96 minutes. 18A

Casa de mi Padre

It’s all in the details with Matt Piedmont’s mock-telenovela, Casa de mi Padre. A handy glass of liquor in an all-out gun fight. A sudden cut to set of miniature toy cars. A decked-out mannequin in the back of a wedding party.

They’re easy to miss. But if you miss them, you kind of miss the point.

Will Ferrell stars as Armando Alvarez in this all-Spanish spoof, the son of Mexican ranch owner Miguel (Pedro Armendáriz Jr.) and brother to the brighter and more successful Raul (Diego Luna). Things go south when it’s revealed that Raul has entered the drug-trafficking business and brings home a new fiancée. Soon to follow are crooked cops, DEA agents, and a hilarious Gael García Bernal as Raul’s two-cigarettes-at-a-time, drug rival Onza.

Add in continuity errors, terrible effects, dramatic zoom shots and a host of gags you’d find in a typical SNL skit, and you’ve got the perfect, outlandish spoof. Except that this one wasn’t. You can’t blame a film for not being as stupid as you thought it might be. Not to say Casa de mi Padre was smart. But for a movie meant to be ridiculous, there weren’t too many laugh-out-loud moments. Several smirks and a few chuckles into it, I was glad the film was only 84 minutes long.

Ferrell takes his Spanish seriously, and Bernal and Luna’s characters are left to do most of the comedic heavy-lifting. Genesis Rodriguez holds her own among the boys and shines on screen as Sonia, the beautiful niece of Onza. (Seriously, she made me want to go buy bronzer right away.) But the stars of the film really were small tidbits in the background. Problem was there weren’t enough of them. Let’s just say I was muy happy my ticket was free courtesy of my Scene card. B-

Directed by Matt Piedmont. Starring Will Ferrell, Diego Luna, Gael García Bernal, Genesis Rodriguez, Pedro Armendáriz Jr. 84 minutes. 14A

By Jelena Djurkic
Dream cast: Helen Hunt, Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster and David Duchovny (but only if he gets to yell out "Scully!")

The Hunger Games

Photo: Murray Close / Alliance Films

In the film Winter's Bone, Jennifer Lawrence’s Ree hunts and skins a squirrel alive, hoping to feed her malnourished brothers and sisters. The traditional selfish desires of a teenager are no match for her undying desire to keep her kin safe. In The Hunger Games, Lawrence’s character, the much beloved heroine of Suzanne Collins' novels, Katniss Everdeen, faces an eerily similar struggle, but with even more fearless aplomb.

Like Ree, Katniss is a Destiny's Child-approved leading lady—she's an independent young woman and a survivor. She’ll do anything to keep herself, her sister, Prim (Willow Shields) and her mother alive, including illegally snaring and sautéing forest critters and fighting to the death against 23 other teenagers (a.k.a. tributes) as a part of the Hunger Games—an annual, publicly broadcasted event hosted by her corrupt government and its unusually cruel regulation system.

As many other critics have pointed out to near-obnoxiousness, we've already seen kids hack at each other on screen in Battle Royale. But there's a reason why the hit YA book series that inspired this film has such a rabid, age-defying following. This particular treatment of the concept, with its endearing, strong-willed and anti-Bella Swan lead, ironically colourful and allegorical backdrop and spots of purposefully unresolved, unrequited romanticism (Team Peeta? Team Gale? More like Team Katniss!), aims for and hits an emotional bullseye.

Garry Ross manages to recapture the intently moving and philosophically challenging quality of original text and its characters...for the most part. The script, partially penned by Collins, stays fairly true to form, although a few fiddles could prove harmful later in the series. (Katniss’ mockingjay pin—a huge symbol, especially in the third novel, Mockingjay—is hardly explored). The sets are simply spot-on, especially the forested arena. The costumes are spectacular, albeit occasionally overshadowed by poor CGI. The soundtrack is a fine-tuned folksy fancy (T. Swift, The Civil Wars, Once’s Glen Hansard), but is poorly underused (just the credits—really?) And, of course, the casting is exceptional.

Many of the main actors are worth mentioning—Lenny Kravitz wears Cinna’s gold eyeliner with quiet pride, Woody Harrelson is Katniss’ boozy mentor Haymitch, and Josh Hutcherson bakes extra charm into his Peeta, Katniss’ competitor and doomed suitor. But the winner here is, suitably, Lawrence. She takes to Katniss and her weathered braid as Katniss does to a bow and arrow—with precision and well-earned ease. Katniss’ inner narration  is absent and Lawrence embraces the silence, letting her eyes and mannerisms tell us what we need to know.

You could say The Hunger Games is Lawrence's Hunger Games. That her short-yet-sweet film career (Winter’s Bone, X-Men: First Class) has just been training for playing this rebel with a heart and a pin of gold. For her true breakthrough—the performance we’ll remember and salute with three fingers and a kiss to the sky. B+

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson. Directed by Gary Ross. 142 minutes. PG



Silent House

There are a few horrors on my must-see list. Scratch that. Every horror is on my must-see list, there are just some that I absolutely must see at the soonest possible moment. So, I catch them at noon on the Fridays they're out. I did this with The Woman in Black and I did it again with Silent House (and you can probably bet I'll do it for The Cabin in the Woods). Needless to say, I've got very high expectations of these movies, but it's not impossible to impress me; The Woman in Black blew me away. I wish I could say the same for Silent House.

The movie is set in a lakeside cottage, where cell phone service does not reach and furthermore, the electricity and phone lines have been disconnected because Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) and her dad are packing up to sell the family vacation home. The windows are also all boarded up, so this means that in broad daylight, Sarah still needs to navigate the home with a lantern. All seems fine as the two collect their things, until Sarah's dad is nowhere to be found. It's all made worse when she starts to hear unexplained noises in the house. I won't spoil what happens as things begin to escalate because that's all part of the fun. Is it supernatural? An intruder? Something worse?

Casting Elizabeth Olsen as the lead guiding us through the terror was absolutely the best decision made for this film. She's a brilliant actress (see: Martha Marcy May Marlene and even Peace, Love, & Misunderstanding), undoubtedly Oscar-bound, and she proves her horror chops here. Horror seems a tough genre for acting to me. Either that or it's so undervalued that not enough great actors try out for roles and we're left with over-dramatic shrieking women who seem to have barely memorized their lines. Of course, that's totally a generalization. Olsen is completely convincing. Her sheer tear-inducing terror will get you shaking your boots (or at least have you in fearful, agonizing anticipation of what's about to happen next). The horror of this movie also stems from the dark house in its utter seclusion, where lanterns cast deep unknown shadows within and creaks are amplified.

The directing is also interesting. It plays with depth of field throughout, which you might love, might hate or might be unaffected by, though you'll definitely notice it.

Great casting, perfect setting and creative directing, but why is it so incomparable to The Woman in Black? The story. I'll try not to spoil it, but here's fair warning that you'll know more soon than you know right now. I feel completely cheated by the ending. Throughout, the story is told fairly well and you become invested in the outcome. There were several ways it could have all unfolded and I feel they've chosen the laziest way of all. I hope that if you do see this movie, you'll disagree, because the ending aside, it could have been a whole lot better. B-

Starring Elizabeth Olsen. Directed by Chris Kentis and Laura Lau. 85 minutes. 14A

Monsieur Lazhar

Monsieur Lazhar opens with a shocking, incomprehensible tragedy: an elementary school teacher hangs herself in her classroom. The rest of the movie takes us on a journey through healing after loss steals our sense of reason and reality. It does this in a quiet, pensive, delicate way, as the characters place blame on themselves and one another, and try to forgive themselves, their friends and colleagues, and especially, the suicide victim herself.

After the suicide, the students need a new teacher, but the school principal has trouble finding someone to come under these circumstances. Enter: Bachir Lazhar (Fellag), an Algerian refugee who we come to discover has lost his entire family to political terrorism in his home country. In desperation, the principal hires him. Bachir’s methods are old-fashioned, both in the classroom and with his colleagues, but his heart is well-intentioned. The school has called in a psychologist to talk with the class and help them come to terms with the loss of their teacher. The administration and other teachers are made so uncomfortable about the woman’s suicide that they insist on keeping quiet about it, not speaking of her death, especially not with her students.

Monsieur Lazhar, however, has other ideas about how best to help the children heal. He sees them coping in their own, immature ways with their senses of blame and guilt, their horror at having discovered the hanging body, their desire to move on and their guilt around that. One student explains that they, the children, aren’t the ones who are upset: it’s the adults who are so distressed by the suicide. Of course, this isn’t exactly true, and perhaps because Bachir also grieving the loss of his family, he is more comfortable than the other teachers and principal with talking about death and grief. He sees the value in expressions of grief, and gives the children space to do that. The parallel stories of the students’ grief and Bachir’s grief intertwine beautifully.

Monsieur Lazhar is a beautifully acted movie, full of tender and sometimes aching performances, primarily from the children. One boy is ostracized after the teacher’s suicide, because he had complained to the principal about her not long before she died, for inappropriate student-teacher contact. In one heartbreaking scene, the boy insists that he was right to complain because he hated it when she had hugged him. He was the first to discover her body, and he imagines that the teacher was punishing him because she knew he would be the first one in the classroom that morning. He both blames himself, and does not want his classmates to blame him.

In all, Monsieur Lazhar is a lovely little study of grief and loss that both breaks and warms your heart, and leaves you with a vague sense of hope: that it is possible to come out of the confusion of tragedy and back into the light of day once more. A

Directed by Phillippe Falardeau. Starring Fellag, Sophie Nélisse, Danielle Proulx, Émilien Néron, Jules Philip. 94 minutes. PG-13

By: Jennifer Simpson

Films I love: Breakfast at Tiffany's, Fargo, Being John Malkovich, Melancholia, Volver, Juno

Wanderlust

Starring Jennifer Aniston, Paul Rudd, Justin Theroux, Malin Akerman, Ken Marino and Mikaela Watkins. Directed by David Wain. 98 minutes. 14A

Fourteen years ago, Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston awkwardly tried to play friends with weird, sexually obtuse benefits in the mainly mediocre rom com, The Object of Affection. Then they just played good friends (or, I suppose friends-in-law) on Friends. In Wanderlust, they play an amalgamation of the two, pretending to be both best friends and husband and wife.

America's swingy-haired sweetheart and the Apatow era's most earnest everyman headline David Wain's latest quirky comedy concoction, a light-hearted and occasionally hilarious commentary on finding yourself despite the deep, dark hole that is the recession. The duo play Linda and George, New Yorkers who have to leave their newly purchased studio apartment behind when they both lose their jobs. On their way to move in with his brother (Ken Marino, Party Down) and perpetually prescription-stoned wife (Mikaela Watkins, SNL), the pair happen upon a free lovey dovey community dubbed Elysium, and fall for its welcoming, toke-sharing inhabitants.

With that effortlessly wavy hair and revolving door way with men, it's not hard to believe that Aniston might become a closeted hippie. Especially if that hippie was a part of semi-cult led by her current boyfriend (Justin Theroux, stealthily walking the fine line between goofy and loosey goosey sexy in a Russell Brand wig). The role is no stretch for her, and as a result, she doesn't particularly shine. The exception is her solo scenes with Rudd. Their long-developing relationship is finally paying off ... in spot-on, erratic road trip montages.

Rudd will make you spit out your popcorn at certain moments, especially when he struggles to come up with filthy come-ons in front of Elysium's shared bathroom mirror. His enunciation is strained and stunted, and thus, very true to his fish-out-of-clean-water character. The uncomfortable voice he comes up with must be a first cousin of the one he used to "slap da bass" in I Love You, Man.

This gag, clearly scripted by Rudd on the fly, is highly reminiscent of the scene in Wain's underappreciated, star-studded opus, Wet Hot American Summer, in which Janeane Garafalo reads a list of names she clearly just made up. In fact, much of the movie plays seems to pay homage to that summer camp-set film, or at least its actors. With Marino and Rudd in major roles and Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter and Joe La Truglio popping up for short lewd cameos, it's the makeshift reunion event you haven't been waiting for (unless you're awesomely informed).  It's too bad Wain forgot to invite Wet Hot American Summer's fearless wit to the party.

Many of Wanderlust's jokes are a little too safe (Linda has a high-flying hallucination), making the purposefully in-your-face ones (La Truglio's penis gets a lot of play) seem out of place. But that's not to say you won't giggle profusely. As the name suggests, Wanderlust is a half-decent little escape flick for those whose sense of humour is slightly off the oft-beaten path. B

We Need to Talk About Kevin

Directed by Lynne Ramsay. Starring Tilda Swinton, John C. Reilly, Ezra Miller, Jasper Newell. 112 minutes. R

We need to talk about We Need to Talk About Kevin.

First of all, Tilda Swinton is a genius. Her emotional range is phenomenal, her intellect shines through every moment she is on screen, and her incredible talent is simply breathtaking. She should have been nominated for an Academy Award for this performance. If she had, I might have chosen her over Meryl to win this year. She is a force of nature.

Secondly, this movie turns the nature vs. nurture debate on its head, following a somewhat reluctant mother (Swinton) whose child is a psychopath. From the moment he is born, Kevin (Ezra Miller) seems to despise his mother, Eva. He screams all day, until his father (John C. Reilly) comes home, and then coos and giggles like an angel. Kevin’s will to torment Eva continues throughout his entire childhood: he refuses to speak until about four, he stays in diapers until six or seven, and he tries to drive Eva crazy while simultaneously making himself into a model child. His father works outside the home, and has no idea what Eva goes through. He continually undermines Eva’s intuition/feelings around raising this little hellion, telling her that “He’s just a sweet little boy” and that she’s paranoid, making everything Kevin does into a personal vendetta. He never once thinks that Kevin’s behaviour might actually be just that.

We also see Eva doing things that no child should experience. In a moment of frustration/provocation, she physically assaults Kevin. At one point she tells him, “Mommy was happy before Kevin came along.” She suffers from post-partum depression, sleep deprivation, and nervous exhaustion after Kevin is born, and cannot quite bring herself to love him. At one point, Kevin says, “Just because you’re used to something doesn’t mean you like it. You’re used to me…” Eva also lets Kevin get away with behaviour that likely contributes to his psychopathic development, seemingly because reprimanding him would require too much effort.

The questions Kevin raises about nature vs. nurture are complex--I’m not sure we can point to one or the other for answers. However, I am deeply bothered by the implication that if a mother doesn’t cuddle her kid enough, he might turn out to be a psychopath. That is a hell of a lot of responsibility to lay on mothers. Sometimes, kids are just horrible, and do horrible things.

The movie takes place in two intertwining time periods. In one, Eva lives alone and is heavily medicated, reviled by her community, and completely falling apart. In the other, Eva is raising her family. Something has clearly happened, but it isn’t until the very end that we discover what that was. The movie is full of moments that are confusing, tense, dark, and shocking. Its emotional pitch is always high, but is an undercurrent, leaving us guessing and uncomfortable. Kevin is one of the most disturbing, eerie movies I’ve seen in a long time. A

By: Jennifer Simpson

Films I love: Breakfast at Tiffany's, Fargo, Being John Malkovich, Melancholia, Volver, Juno

The Vow

Directed by Michael Sucsy. Starring Rachel McAdams, Channing Tatum, Scott Speedman, Sam Neill and Jessica Lange. 120 minutes. 14A

I saw this movie on Valentine's Day (hold your judgement) and on a discount Tuesday, so needless to say, there was a line wrapping around the movie's entrance. And while I can't say it was completely worth the wait, it wasn't entirely regrettable. Actually, I can't say I hold any firm stance on this movie at all.

I love romances. But that being said, I'm extremely picking about the romances I see. I'm not really into rom-coms, unless it stars Drew Barrymore, though I've seen nearly all the Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Lopez and Kate Hudson ones, plus more. I'm into what I feel is a representation of true, honest, passionate love, ie. the likes of Moulin Rouge!, Cold Mountain and such. Truthfully, I probably wouldn't have seen The Vow if not for some convincing from my own real life love (and when else better to be lovey dovey than on Valentine's Day). Turns out, it's watchable. Though that's about it.

The story follows young married couple Paige (Rachel McAdams) and Leo (Channing Tatum) who are truly, madly, deeply (cue the Savage Garden song) in love, until she smashes her head through the wind shield in a car accident and forgets who he is.

Full disclosure: I became a Channing Tatum un-fan just prior to seeing this movie. For me, and I'd think most, hosting SNL the weekend before this movie came out probably hurt it more than promoted it because he was so utterly unfunny. I fell asleep after I could take no more of the stripper jokes. Had The Vow actually been really good, I might have been convinced that I was wrong about him, but instead, I've discovered that he's neither good at comedy nor romance. I'm not betting on drama or anything else really.

McAdams was cute and charming as usual, though that wasn't enough to make it through bad writing. The movie a much sadder concept than its execution. I could get teary just thinking about it. I didn't feel for these characters, yet I felt for the real-life couple whose actual story I never really knew. Meanwhile, Jessica Lange could use more screen time (as she always could).

Admittedly, it wasn't as corny as I'd expected. It had potential. It just wasn't executed well. I have an idea! Let's rewrite it! Ryan Gosling can star as the lead, it'll be set in the 1940s in South Carolina and they will share a very passionate kiss in the pouring rain. Ah, much better. B-

Weekend

Directed by Andrew Haigh. Starring Tom Cullen and Chris New. 96 minutes

We meet Russell and Glen. Both late 20s gay men living in England and trying to work out what they want in life. They meet Friday night and sleep together. Instead of ending it there they decide to see each other again later that day and realize they are really enjoying their time together, until Glen reveals he’s leaving for art school on Sunday. This is a sad reality for everyone of their (and my!) generation: expiry dates. There is always somewhere to go and something to do. It isn’t an issue for the two guys at first as they just spend time together and get to know each other. They’ve made an unlikely and real connection, even though they are very different and about to be separated.

I had heard that this movie was “the best gay movie ever” and it turned out to be one of the most accurate and genuine movies about my generation I've seen as well as a real step forward for queer cinema. I’m going to ignore the “Queer Cinema” aspect of this film for a second. The movie is about two young people doing what two different trendy young people do. One hangs out with old friends, works a steady job, bikes to work, dresses comfortably, quiet and reserved, lives alone with Value Village type kitchen wear. The other is a career-driven, art school student, outspoken and restless, lives with a trendy roommate, has a trendy job that’s “just for now,” and is constantly waiting/planning to leave. These two characters are everyone my age, in one sense or another. There’s a general sense of dissatisfaction and restlessness, and on the other hand, there is a back to basics, down to earth need.

This movie still falls under the category of “Queer Cinema” and when looking at niche film markets there will always be some really bad films. Whether they are ground breaking or very significant to the genre, they’re just bad. This film on the other hand is everything “queer cinema” has been needing. A lot of queer cinema over the years has been overly campy, overly sexual, lacking in plot, lacking in complex characters and too preachy. It’s so nice to see a film that is clearly about young gay men and about modern gay culture in England, but also about a real relationship and realistic characters. There are for sure some political issues being addressed during their time together (for example, the pair argue about gay marriage and showing affection in public) and there are sex scenes but they are all just backdrop to the connection these two men are feeling. The real thing that makes this film unique from other queer films is the details. The details are true to the characters and the story, not to the niche market.

What really makes this movie are the two players and the director, that sounds obvious but I really mean it! Andrew Haigh is a fairly new director (this the first film I've seen by him) and its obvious he knows what he wants to say. This whole film looks like iPhone photos taken in a friends apartment. The (very limited) soundtrack is carefully chosen and the lighting is almost all natural. The scenes look natural and comfortable. If he's trying it doesn't look it. The two actors (Tom Cullen and Chris New) are like comfortable old slippers; all their dialogue feel improvised, they are easy to watch, they have completely absorbed their characters. This movie is just an honest love story with all the inevitable bummers of a present day setting. I'm obviously thoroughly impressed by this film but I also just really liked it. A

By Isa Montagnese

Dream cast: Gene Wilder. That's it.

The Woman in Black

Directed by James Watkins. Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds and Janet McTeer. 120 minutes. 14A

I don't read horror movie reviews and I don't believe horror movie hype. Good or bad, they make me sceptical. Unless it's coming from a horror buff, I don't feel horror is taken seriously enough. The capabilities of the genre, the storytelling, the styling, the characterisation... It's all often ignored when it's got the "horror" label on it.

This movie's been generating hype since it was announced, though largely thanks to Potterheads-turned-Radcliffe-fans, but also because the general public was interested to see if he had acting chops beyond the 8-part epic series. And although I avoid the reviews, once the film was out, it was tough to shield myself from hearing that it was being received pretty decently (for horror), so I was, as usual, sceptical. Compounded by the fact that this was the horror movie I'd most been looking forward to all year, heading the theatres was a nervous venture. But it ended up being more than I expected.

Set at the turn of the 20th century (as much good horror lit is), the story follows widower and lawyer Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) as he works on the case of Alice Drablow's estate, Eel Marsh, a creepy mansion on a hill surrounded entirely by water when the tides rise. He travels ahead while his son and nanny plan to meet him in a few days. However, when he arrives in in the new town to begin his work, he's greeted by folklore, that a woman in black haunts Eel Marsh and has plagued the entire town with a curse.

In a one-word review, this movie is creepy. It's possibly the creepiest movie I've ever seen. And if you think the trailer is any indication of the creepiness in this movie, think again, because it gets even creepier. Much of this creepiness owes to the time and setting: old musical toys, a creaky and withered house, frail hand-written letters, tattered black and white photos. But it's also the genuine horror of it all: quick glimpses of darkened faces, silently nearing of shadows, shattering screeches. It's all gorgeously styled to give you goosebumps.

The cast is small and nothing without Radcliffe, who proves to be much more than a boy wizard. Although it is tough to picture him as a father, and the distant relationship doesn't help, a reminder of movie's era lets it pass (a time when parenting itself seemed distanced).

With a great, chilling back story from the legend's incarnation to the havok wreaked on the townspeople for years, combined with its creepiness and beautiful styling, The Woman in Black makes for what I'm sure will be on the best horrors of the year. A

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Directed by David Fincher. Starring Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Robin Wright and Christopher Plummer. 158 minutes. R

I didn’t want to like this movie. Mostly because it’s so irritating that American audiences need an English-language version of a series of films that have already been made quite wonderfully in Sweden (disclaimer: I have seen all three Swedesh films in the Millennium series, but have not read any of the books), where the story is set, where the actors speak the language because they are from there, and where the author wrote the book and envisioned the story taking place, in response to that particular culture and its social mores. Also, the long-time domestic partner of the author (Stieg Larsson) is getting totally screwed over by his family right now. Under Swedish family and estate law unmarried couples without children have no legal rights with respect to their relationship, and thus cannot inherit from one another (read a review of Eva Gabrielsson’s memoir here).

That being said, the story of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is compelling, and I was curious how Fincher would adapt and interpret the narrative I had become familiar with. I was also drawn in by Daniel Craig, a perfect, spot-on choice for Mikael Blomkvist, and intrigued by the casting of Rooney Mara, a relative unknown, in a role that has become so iconic (Lisbeth Salander), and was performed so brilliantly by Noomi Rapace in the original Swedish-language films. So, I went. And despite myself, I really liked this movie.

Young Adult

Photo: Paramount Pictures

Starring Charlize Theron, Patton Oswalt, Patrick Wilson and Elisabeth Reaser. Directed by Jason Reitman. 94 minutes. 14A

Last time Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody teamed up, for the dividing 2007 Sunny D-elight Juno, they introduced us to a hipster girl (Ellen Page) who was pushed into early adulthood after being knocked up by her gawkward track team BFF (Michael Cera). Now, with the Cody-penned, Reitman-directed Young Adult, the dynamic duo are telling the opposite story, one that's not being retold repeatedly via MTV reality shows, but is not all that uncommon either. Here, lies the tale of an modern day, Marc Jacobs-wearing J.M. Barrie character, a selfish thirtysomething woman who refuses to grow up. 

Whether you like to look back at the photographic evidence of your Sketchers obsession, take your favourite mix tape out for another spin, trying, try on your old Mathlete uniform or simply attempt to forget that awful nickname your Regina Georges thrust upon you, everyone hearkens back to their high school days now and again. That's why YA fiction, films and movies remain remarkably popular with the post-post-secondary set. There's something strangely addictive about revisiting and rethinking that troubling transitional period and figuring out how much you've grown since then.

But what if your mind never caught up with your much-improved, matured bod? What if you couldn't get past your so-called glory days, when you didn't have any responsibility except passing algebra and making sure you closed your window after sneaking back in from that bitchin' bush party? That's the problem facing Young Adult's heroine, if you can even call her that, Mavis.

Mavis, played with party monstrous zeal by a raccoon-eyed, Diet Coke-head Charlize Theron, is a teen novelist who keeps boxes of her first boyfriend's stuff in her dirty clothes-covered, Cheetos wrapper home of a one bedroom apartment. She seems totally satisfied with her undeveloped life until she gets two equally crushing e-mails: one from said former beau (Patrick Wilson) and his current wife (Elizabeth Reaser) announcing the birth of their new baby, and another, from her publisher, stating that she's only got one book left to write before her deal is up.

Instead of nose diving into a traditional, black tear-filled threesome with Ben and Jerry, Mavis decides this is her signal to head back to her childhood town and get her ex - and the perfect life that should have been hers - back. What follows is a highly discomforting, funny only to those that can't handle it, series of unfortunate events.

Mavis meets up with Buddy and not-so-subtly throws herself at him, assuming he returns the feelings and wants an escape from his lady, who may just be the nicest woman in the world. She also starts a strange relationship with former classmate Matt (Patton Oswalt, Cody's United States of Tara), a action figure obsessed nerd and victim of a heinous high school hate crime. 

Mavis' relationships with both men are cringe-worthy, as she desperately seeks some hint of the attention she got as a jail bait princess and never quite finds it. They are also extremely well-acted. Theron is the best she's been since she won the Oscar for Monster, bearing this woman's ugly, make-up-masked soul again and again (we literally play Rear Window to the murder of her natural beauty by way of lip waxes and good wigs several times). This is especially obvious in her scenes with Oswalt.

The comedian, who was praised, but not rewarded for his equally hard-to-watch role in Big Fan, brings out the best and worst in Theron, and remarkably, comes out even stronger. He sucks you in with his droopy eyes, which carry his bullied, garage boozing baggage around day in and day out, and keeps you hanging on until the way-bitter end. If this movie gets one Oscar nomination, it should go to him.

Fans of Cody's other work, including Juno and the highly misjudged Jennifer's Body, may be disappointed by the lack of  snappy catchphrases and unexplained pop culture references in this film. But this script, ironically her most mature yet, fits the material - not to mention the style of Reitman's more recent projects - like a tailored Letterman jacket.  It comes across almost like a waste case lady friend of Up in the Air, exploring the life of another person who masks their sadness in clear obsession and, even when confronted with the root of their issues, may never be ready to move on. 

The dialogue of Young Adult feel ripped out the girl's diary no one would have bothered reading, even if it was left open at a house party. It's simple really, but bleeds harsh truths (Mavis tries to tell her parents that she "might be an alcoholic" and they pretend like they just heard the lunch bell), which could make it difficult for those who have never bit their tongue (or conversely gnawed their foot to the bone) to gulp down. (Especially if they're using a Breaking Dawn commemorative cupped Mountain Dew chaser to do so).  But if these things didn't burn a little, the film wouldn't have the lasting effect Cody intended.

Many reviewers have found fault in the film simply due to Mavis' off-putting personality. I found much fascination in it. Sure, her surly demeanor and bad intentions may make you want to cover your eyes on occasion, but as one of my favourite flawed YA heroines use to allude to, often times the most spectacular people are those that hurt the most to look at. A-

The Devil Inside

Photo: Toni Salabasev

Directed by William Brent Bell. Starring Fernanda Andrade, Simon Quarterman, Suzan Crowley and Evan Helmuth. 90 minutes. 18A

I'm not a huge fan of exorcism movies. They're too formulaic and rely on a mythology that's often too unbelievable. I couldn't even remember this movie's trailer before going into it. But after the lack of horror movies last year, I was going into withdrawl.

The Devil Inside follows Isabella Rossi (Fernanda Andrade) as she goes on her own investigation into what happened to her mother, Maria (Suzan Crowley), twenty years ago when she confessed to murdering three people during an exorcism. Maria's now in a Catholic psychiatric hospital in Rome, after an unexplained transfer from the U.S. Isabella is convinced her mother is possessed and begins exploring exorcisms with the help of two priests (Simon Quarterman and Evan Helmuth). I can't say what happens next because unlike the trailer (which I thankfully didn't remember at the time), I'm not going to spoil anything for you.

Whatever your expectations are about this movie, you're probably right. This movie is exactly what you think it will be. If you love exorcism movies, you'll probably love this one. If you hate them, then you'll probably hate this one.

As far as scares go, it's marginally above what you might expect. There are a few good moments, like when Maria unexpectedly bursts into a deafening screech during her daughter's first visit to the hospital. Fear and suspense slowly escalates into jolting final scene. It's clear that the film was trying to bring something new to the typical exorcism horror, which is commendable, but still, scares throughout could have a been amped even more.

Acting was also surprisingly somewhat convincing, particularly from priest Ben (Simon Quarterman) when things get tense. But nothing that you'll remember for times to come.

If you're considering seeing this one, skip the trailer. Instead, ask yourself what you think of exorcism movies. That'll be your answer. C+

Café de Flore

Directed by Jean-Marc Valleé. Starring Vanessa Paradis, Kevin Parent, Hélène Florent, and Evelyne Brochu. 120 minutes. 14A

I almost don’t want to tell you anything about this movie.

In a perfect world, you, dear reader, would simply trust me, and go and see this film based purely on me telling you to go and see this film. But, you don’t know me, at least not yet, and so I don’t blame you for the lack of trust between us, the doubt you might have at being told simply, this film is excellent, and you should see it.

So, if it helps at all, in case you have more trust in him than you do in me, which would make sense because you probably know him and you probably don’t know me, George Stroumboulopoulos named this film as one of his top 5 of 2011. Since George is my boyfriend, as he has been telling me each weeknight for several years now, I know him, and I trust him as an arbiter of taste (which I think is George’s greatest talent), and based purely on this film’s appearance on George’s top 5 list, I decided to go and check it out. I knew practically nothing about it going in, except that it is a Canadian French-language film, and that it stars Vanessa Paradis, partner to hunky pirate impersonator Johnny Depp.

And, dear reader, that is the kind of experience I want for you to have with this film. I want for you to discover it in the same way I did, not having expectations that can either be met or not met. It was such a beautiful experience to encounter this film in the way I encountered it, that I wish the same kind of experience for you.

So, if you feel adventurous, stop reading here, and go buy your tickets.

For the skeptics among us, here’s a bit more information. Beware, however: I’m still going to tell you as little about it as possible for a film critic to tell you in a review.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

 Photo: Warner Bros.

Directed by Guy Ritchie. Starring Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry, Rachel McAdams, and Noomi Rapace. 129 minutes. PG-13.

I’ve loved Sherlock Holmes stories since I was a girl. My father read many of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Holmes stories, and I took up reading them from time to time when I was young. I was a voracious little reader, and although I couldn’t quite keep up with Holmes’ logical reasoning in solving crimes, I did find the tales thrilling. So when Guy Ritchie got into the Sherlock Holmes movie adaptation business, I was very eager to see what he might do with those beloved characters of British literature. The first movie, in 2009, did not disappoint, so I was eagerly anticipating the second film, released December 16th.

Ritchie and Downey’s interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, as a neurotic, childish, paranoid, bare-knuckle fighting (hollaback: Brad Pitt in Snatch), swashbuckling, semi-reclusive genius was fabulous the first time around. The second time, unfortunately, it’s lost a bit of its initial appeal. Holmes has been left to his own devices since the departure of his best friend and collaborator, Jude Law’s Dr. Watson, from their accommodations at 221B Baker Street in the first film. Holmes seems to have gone a bit further down the rabbit hole in Watson’s absence.

The shine has also worn off the relationship between Downey’s Holmes and Law’s Watson. In the first film, they were practically flirting with one another, which made for quite compelling viewing. In this film, the distance between the two men, due to Holmes’ jealousy over Watson’s impending marriage, is difficult for the two actors to bridge, and the movie suffers for it. They rely a bit too much on a shorthand that the characters haven’t quite earned in this film, a personal history that we as the audience are meant to understand exists because the characters and director say it does, but we don’t see so much of for ourselves. In this way, it helps to have seen the first movie and remember the connection between Law and Downey, because you don’t get much of that in this one.

This film sees the real introduction of the villainous Professor Moriarity (Jared Harris of Mad Men fame), Holmes’ arch-nemesis. Moriarity was only featured in two of Doyle’s stories (although he was mentioned in a handful of others). But his description as a criminal master-mind, as well as Holmes’ inability to catch him on the first try, have given him more prominence over the years as Holmes’ truest adversary. Harris does a great job playing the villain here, cold and calculating, always a step ahead. He seems to relish the role. Not to give away the ending, but if you’re familiar with the stories, you know how things turn out here. Some other liberties were taken here—Ritchie’s timeline is all screwed up with respect to global politics and Moriarity is basically a megalomaniac seeking world economic domination. But you know, whatever.

The cinematography is excellent in A Game of Shadows. The grimy, gritty, and grey London of the first movie continues here with great effect, and there is a fantastic scene in the woods (set along the French-German border). A carry-over from the first movie is Holmes’ ability to visualize, in slow-motion and with great predictive acumen, a fight sequence before it happens makes for good entertainment, and kind of makes you wish he could do the same with all his interactions, especially his interpersonal ones. Or maybe that you could.

A sore point for me is the use and presence of female characters in this film. Rachel McAdams, who I have always generally liked, is so great in the role of Irene Adler, Holmes’ elusive true love. She out-foxes Holmes at every turn, always maintains a bit of smug disinterest, and uses wit instead of wiles (ok, maybe in addition to wiles) to get ahead in a man’s world of crime and intrigue. I wanted to see more of her. Her role is, shall we say, limited in this film, and instead “the” female presence in the movie is taken over by Noomi Rapace, of the Swedish-language Millennium series films. Rapace is great here, what little we actually see of her, but she’s no match for Holmes. Guy Ritchie, why oh why can’t we just have two women in a movie? Must we really always use female characters to either mother or motivate male characters? Sigh.

Overall, A Game of Shadows is an enjoyable romp of a movie, with lots of action and some cleverness. It’s just not as good as the first. C+

By: Jennifer Simpson

Films I love: Breakfast at Tiffany's, Fargo, Being John Malkovich, Melancholia, Volver, Juno

My Week With Marilyn

Photo: Laurence Cendrowicz/ The Weinstein Company

 
Directed by Simon Curtis. Starring Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branagh, Eddie Redmayne, Judi Dench, Julia Ormond, and Emma Watson. 99 minutes. 14A. 

Let’s start with the obvious: Michelle Williams looks very little like Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn was a bombshell: glamourous, voluptuous, with an hourglass figure (although reports she wore a size 16 dress have been somewhat overstated), and a delicate, heart-shaped face. Michelle Williams is a waif: cute rather than gorgeous, stick-thin (the padding Williams wore holds no candle to Marilyn’s curves), with a full-cheeked round face. Physically speaking, the only thing the two women really seem to have in common is their blonde hair.
 

Luckily, Michelle Williams is extremely talented. After the initial inevitable physical comparison in her first scenes, we forget any doubt we may have had about Williams. In ways that go beyond physicality, Williams captures the spirit of Marilyn Monroe beautifully, and the physical dissimilarities fade away. Williams’ performance is mesmerizing. Which is a very good thing for this movie, since the protagonist is predictable and flat, and the excellent supporting cast is underutilized. Ultimately, though, we couldn’t care less about the protagonist, or the supporting characters. All we really care about is Marilyn.
 

My Week with Marilyn takes place in 1956, during the filming of The Prince and the Showgirl, in which Marilyn played opposite Sir Laurence Olivier (Branagh) in a role made famous onstage by Vivien Leigh (Ormond), of Gone With the Wind fame. Monroe was at the very height of her fame, newly married to playwright Arthur Miller (Dougray Scott), and very serious about being a serious actress, immersing herself in “the Method.” However, her emotional insecurities led to conflicts on set and in her personal life.
 

A major theme in the film is the divide between Marilyn the person, and Marilyn the persona. She laments, “All they see is Marilyn Monroe, and when they find out I’m not her, they leave.” Later on, before making an impromptu appearance to staff at Windsor Palace, she asks, “Shall I be her?” before launching into what can only be described as a “bit.” The Marilyn persona is where Williams truly sparkles, but playing that part seems to both depress and exhilarate Marilyn the person. This divide comes with a set of expectations and misunderstandings about who Marilyn Monroe really is that no one character in the film seems to truly avoid. The protagonist thinks he knows Marilyn better than the other characters, but he just projects his own expectations and desires onto her, as all the others do. He flatters himself to think that his desires are different than those of the others, more pure perhaps, but I’m not so sure about that.
 

One line about midway through really made me think. In an argument with Olivier about the character she is playing, in which she struggles to express why she doesn’t relate to or understand the character (a hallmark of “the Method”), Monroe says in exasperation, “She’s not real!” It struck me, once again, how difficult it is for me, as a woman, to connect with most of the female characters I see in films—they aren’t real. (This is why so many women critics, writers, and viewers were so excited about Bridesmaids this past summer—the characters and their portrayals felt genuine to us, like real women that we know.) It also struck me how difficult it must be for actors to portray these unreal female characters with any integrity for their craft. Female characters in film tend to be stereotypes and tropes, and their role in the story is so often to act as a vehicle for the personal development of the male characters.
 

In that respect, My Week with Marilyn was not so different, as the protagonist was not Monroe but the young man who has a brief but life-changing romance with the most famous woman in the world. Thankfully, however, Williams had a truly interesting and complex character, with her individual set of motivations, emotions, and demons, to work with. And she played it—the role of a lifetime, really—beautifully.
 

All in all, My Week with Marilyn survives on its star performance, and its success as a period piece, with gorgeous replicas of famous outfits worn by Monroe and Olivier. (I will admit to darkening my eyebrows and sweeping my eyeliner outward just a little bit afterwards.) Go see it for Marilyn’s glamour, but stay for Michelle’s tremendous talent. I’m going out on a limb, on the record, and predicting she’ll win both a Golden Globe and an Oscar this year. A- (at least 3 letter grades of which come from Williams’ performance alone)

By: Jennifer Simpson

Films I love: Breakfast at Tiffany's, Fargo, Being John Malkovich, Melancholia, Volver, Juno

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1

(Dawn of the undead newlywed.)
 Photo: Summit Entertainment

Starring Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner. Directed by Bill Condon. PG. 117 minutes.

Like the first half of the book it's based on, Breaking Dawn, Part 1 doesn't totally suck. It's what every 17-year-old looking vampire should be: fun, sexy and, from the right angle, drop dead gorgeous. Even those who don't own a Team Edward or a Team Jacob baby tee may find themselves harbouring a Twihard-on by the badass end credits (seriously, they're really cool) of this easily entertaining film, arguably the best in supernaturally popular teen series. 

Unlike the previous three instalments, this, the fourth and second-to-last entry in the Twilight Saga, Breaking Dawn, Part 1 isn't an overly romantic, cheesy mess. Sure, the vamp make-up is still on the chalky side, and the wolf FX are as howl-worthy as ever (one particularly fuzzy were meet-up will have you over the moon ... with laughter), but the script is tidier, the editing is tighter and the action, both in the forest and between the sheets, is both fast-paced and tasteful. That is, if your taste leans towards the sullenly (or should I say, Cullenly?) sweet.

Haters can blame the new director, Dreamgirls' Bill Condon, for the new, not-so-bad-after-all vibe. He is working with the same sort of girly lines and Stephenie Meyer-penned sentiments screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg has tweaked yet again for the screen, but he makes them seem earnest as opposed to overwrought by not goofing around too much with stylized lighting, scenery and or the indie music soundtrack (see: Catherine Hardwicke's Twilight). Aside from one, PG-13 Magic School Bus-evoking innard swimming sequence, Condon keeps it simple, letting the admittedly over-the-top story speak for itself.

For those who haven't read the book, Breaking Dawn focuses in on Bella and Edward's marriage and honeymoon, and the effect both have on her human life and relationships, including of course, her connection to the other mythical man in her life, Taylor Lautner's Jacob. To avoid spoiling it for you, let's just say the vampire-human union gets bloody real fast, and not in the way your dirty, fang-girl mind might expect.

Breaking Dawn, Part 1 gives fans what they want - actual side booby love scenes and a mini bucket of gore - but it's nothing a 13-year-old couldn't handle. In fact, you could argue that the, ahem, climatic moments are almost too tame. The treatments make sense given the core demographic (teens and tweens) and current rating restrictions, but it would have been nice to see Condon push the limits a bit more, pleasing some of us oft-forgotten older fans.

Speaking of aging, Lautner has certainly grown up since the last film, the ill-fitting Stewart wig-filled disaster that was Eclipse.  The boy has facial hair now, which seems much more in character (not to mention 100 per cent less jailbaity), and bears his teeth this time around, and not just when he's wolfed-out. He's not overused either, which is a nice surprise given Jacob's heavy involvement in the book, where his first-person observations were given nearly as much time as Bella's.

As per usual, Pattinson and Stewart don't do much other than ogle each other awkwardly and make-out intensely as Edward and Bella. But come to really think about it, there's not much else to Mr. and Mrs. Cullen anyway. As Anna Kendrick's ever-sassy Jessica says at their wedding, who else actually gets married at 18 these days? Especially when there's not an MTV special in it for them.

The only thing that really bothered this one-time Team Edward leader about Breaking Dawn, Part 1 was its ending. It wasn't bad by any means. In fact, it was the perfect cut-off. But now I know what's left for Part 2. And if you've suffered through the last, out-of-control hundred pages of the book, you know what comes next bites the big sparkly cold one. Hard. B

J. Edgar

Photo: Keith Bernstein

Directed by Clint Eastwood. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts and Judi Dench. 137 minutes. PG

For a film about a man that tightly controlled his message, J. Edgar doesn’t really know what it’s trying to say.

Clint Eastwood’s latest directorial effort has us travelling back and forth through the life of J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), the controversial and mysterious former director of the FBI. The film spans 50 years, following his rise from a twenty-something Justice Department employee obsessed with Bolsheviks and bomb-loving radicals to his fastidious creation and dictatorship of the Bureau.

Hoover is both corrupt and honorable at the same time, suspicious of everyone and everything but his country, which he dedicates his life to protecting. He modernizes the bureau (think finger printing, databases and evidence analysis) and is consumed by his public image, spending money to develop comic books about the G-Man and staging arrests for the press.

But for all his successes, Hoover is a deeply insecure man. He stutters when uncomfortable, rages when threatened and spies his way through the terms of eight elected presidents.
He collects secrets, keeping confidential files on everyone from John F. Kennedy to Martin Luther King Jr., and ruthlessly blackmails those who pose a threat to him and his bureau—though they’re one and the same to him.

He places his trust in only three people: his loyal secretary, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts); his controlling yet doting mother, Annie Hoover (Judi Dench); and his rumoured love interest and life-long companion, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). It is around these three characters that Hoover rises to become of the most powerful and hated men in America.

Hoover’s legend is chock-full of rumours and potential plot lines: Cross-dressing. Homosexuality. Excessive paranoia.

The problem is that the film is so noncommittal to any of them that the audience doesn’t get a chance to commit to anything. Do we hate Hoover? Not really, he was an outsider who had the ego, power and smarts to protect himself against his enemies. But we don’t love him either. That’s probably why passing nods at those aspects of Hoover’s more salacious legacy feel forced and contrived.

DiCaprio, reminiscent of himself as Howard Hughes in The Aviator, gives us everything we expect from the actor: a finely executed drawl, studied character flaws and a captivating performance. But it’s really the film’s non-linear, non-chronological structure that holds it together, giving the audience something to be excited about as we insert into different stages of Hoover’s journey. The pacing, however, varies too much between the two halves of the film, blazing into the first scene with a tenacity that disappears in the latter part.

Most disappointing is the prosthetic latex makeup used to age the actors, especially Armie Hammer, whose performance is severely affected by the makeup department. Even Naomi Watts, who plays a subtle but solid role, looks too much like Helen Mirren for us to focus on her contribution.

It’s not that J.Edgar has a bad plot. It has the beginnings of a lot of plots, none that are thoroughly explored. It’s that lack of thoroughness that leaves you unsettled throughout the film and waiting for more. C+

By Jelena Djurkic
Dream cast: Helen Hunt, Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster and David Duchovny (but only if he gets to yell out "Scully!")