This weekend my wife and I faced a strange occurence. We found ourselves childless as our kids were all off at various places. Faced with this we chose to go to a late movie. Being a history buff and faced with my wife's refusal to go see any Harold and Kumar movie we chose to go see this movie.
Having read biographies of the Presidents from FDR to Nixon I have a good deal of knowledge about Hoover. His classic battles with the Kennedy's and Martin Luther King are well documented.
Still Clint Eastwood has produced a strong and overall balanced movie here. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover, with makeup playing the whole lifespan with Naomi Watt playing his loyal secretary Helen Gandy. Playing Hoover's longtime assistant and friend Clyde Tolson is Armie Hammer in a very strong performance.
The movie centers much of it's time on Hoover's struggles to use modern methods of police work to help root out Communists and later the Gangsters such as John Dillinger. The event which allowed for the changes Hoover wanted was the kidnapping of the Lindburgh baby. The movie shows how Hoover used fingerprints, wood research and many other new methods. Despite recent curiousness about the true guilt Hoover's methods proved resourceful.
The dark side of Hoover was he grew to love his creation too much. As new administrations came into office to protect himself he had created files on many people. With FDR he had information on Eleanoar, with JFK he had his womanizing and on and on. Eventually keeping his own power and his creation safe became as important as the safety of the nation the FBI originally was sworn to protect.
The movie does a good job telling the story. Over the last decade or so a few of the sensationalized stories of Hoover, his wearing dresses, his relationship with Clyde Tolson, his overbearing mother, his obsessivness about hand washing and such much has been lost of the true history. Some of these subjects are touched on briefly here but no so much as to dominate the movie.
A good film. Dicaprio is stellar in his performance.
Showing posts with label Clint Eastwood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clint Eastwood. Show all posts
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Unforgiven
I had never seen this movie. We watched it last weekend. Having won the Oscar I expected much from this movie. It was a good movie but I would have to call myself disappointed.
The story was good but by the end of it there is no hero. Not all movies need heroes and I suppose not all Westerns do but it certainly helps. Hearing that our character Clint Eastwood far from being a former bank robber et all was really nothing more than a terrorist of the time before settling down to raise a family is dispiriting.
The pro and epilogue letters about the wife who both tamed him and settled him add context and perhaps a lesson is to be learned that even the worst of us can be settled by love and faith.
A more textural problem with the movie is that no one is likable. Gene Hackman is certainly not. The closet we come to that is Morgan Freeman but his end is violent and jarring.
The biggest issue for me is the movie is not only spiritually dark but physically dark. You cannot see, It is dark and rainy and shadowy. I understand that is part of the setting of the tone but comparing that with the wide open vistas of the recent True Grit and there is no comparison.
It seems to be shedding a little light on the subject might have provided a contrast between the dark script and the location being bright.
Of course it won the Oscar so what I think does not matter. Still I was disappointed.
The story was good but by the end of it there is no hero. Not all movies need heroes and I suppose not all Westerns do but it certainly helps. Hearing that our character Clint Eastwood far from being a former bank robber et all was really nothing more than a terrorist of the time before settling down to raise a family is dispiriting.
The pro and epilogue letters about the wife who both tamed him and settled him add context and perhaps a lesson is to be learned that even the worst of us can be settled by love and faith.
A more textural problem with the movie is that no one is likable. Gene Hackman is certainly not. The closet we come to that is Morgan Freeman but his end is violent and jarring.
The biggest issue for me is the movie is not only spiritually dark but physically dark. You cannot see, It is dark and rainy and shadowy. I understand that is part of the setting of the tone but comparing that with the wide open vistas of the recent True Grit and there is no comparison.
It seems to be shedding a little light on the subject might have provided a contrast between the dark script and the location being bright.
Of course it won the Oscar so what I think does not matter. Still I was disappointed.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Invictus
We watched this movie Saturday night. Starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon, directed by Clint Eastwood it was well received last winter.
I thought the movie was good, not great. The movie was a little slow and for those not understanding of the history a little more backstory might have been beneficial. Why he was separated from Winnie etc.
Matt Damon was wonderful in his role, understated as it was, as the Captain of the Spring Bucks. The movie was Freeman's who with his voice, age and dignity can play any role bordering on God and Nelson Mandela was close to be a deity in those early days of black rule in South Africa.
The story centered around Rugby was interesting, the footage well shot and all in all a good movie.
I enjoyed it
I thought the movie was good, not great. The movie was a little slow and for those not understanding of the history a little more backstory might have been beneficial. Why he was separated from Winnie etc.
Matt Damon was wonderful in his role, understated as it was, as the Captain of the Spring Bucks. The movie was Freeman's who with his voice, age and dignity can play any role bordering on God and Nelson Mandela was close to be a deity in those early days of black rule in South Africa.
The story centered around Rugby was interesting, the footage well shot and all in all a good movie.
I enjoyed it
Friday, January 22, 2010
Escape from Alcatraz
Flipping through the channels last last night I came across this Clint Eastwood movie on TCM.This turned out to be a pretty good movie. Too many screenshots and time spent showing the escapees digging for it to be a great movie and as with most early to mid career Clint movies not a lot of breathtaking dialogue but a very interesting story nonetheless.
Clint plays Harris a man determined soon to get off " The Rock" as Alcatraz was called. The Warden takes great pride in no one having ever escaped and plays his role as a vain, malicious man very well. Harris has to defend himself who decides he would make a good punk and watches as two of his good friends succumb to the wardens punishments before he makes his escape.
Based on a true story the movie is in its simpleness quite engrossing. On a 1 t0 10 it gets a 6.5 which means that many days you might flip through, it does not jump out at you to make you stop and watch, but if you do it you will not be disappointed.
Rating: 5.5
Clint plays Harris a man determined soon to get off " The Rock" as Alcatraz was called. The Warden takes great pride in no one having ever escaped and plays his role as a vain, malicious man very well. Harris has to defend himself who decides he would make a good punk and watches as two of his good friends succumb to the wardens punishments before he makes his escape.
Based on a true story the movie is in its simpleness quite engrossing. On a 1 t0 10 it gets a 6.5 which means that many days you might flip through, it does not jump out at you to make you stop and watch, but if you do it you will not be disappointed.
Rating: 5.5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
