Oscars 2013 Catchup: 'Dallas Buyers Club' & 'The Wolf of Wall Street'

Well, all right all right all right.

As I mentioned almost a month ago, my work status and living conditions cut into my movie-going availability for this new year. When the Academy Award nominations were announced on January 16'th, I had only seen four of the eight nominees for Best Picture (which expanded to five when I took in Philomena). Consider the fact that last year's Oscars were the first in which I'd seen ALL of the Best Picture nominees and you can see what a precipitous fall that was. And despite needing to play catch-up on 2014 films (with movies like Ride Along and Non-Stop, I might be doing myself a favor waiting for DVD), I still want to know what made the most recent nominees tick and why they were so favored. And so I recently rented two of last year's Best Picture nominees, looking to see if either of them deserved to be spoken in the same sentence as big winners Gravity and 12 Years a Slave.

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that Matthew McConaughey won the Oscar for Best Actor for portraying the real-life Ron Woodroof in Jean-Marc Vallee's Dallas Buyers Club, in which Woodroof goes from rodeo enthusiast and serial hellraiser to terminal patient during the giant AIDS scare of the 1980's. Faced with the impossibility of obtaining life-saving drugs in the United States, he heads south of the border to get help via non-FDA-approved medication in Mexico. With the assistance of a fellow patient and trans woman Rayon (fellow Oscar winner Jared Leto), Woodruff traffics and distributes this unapproved medication to others ostracized by the system.

Let's be honest; as much as I love Chiwetel Ejiofor, and as AMAZING as he was in 12 Years, McConaughey ABSOLUTELY put forth the best performance by a leading man in 2013. It's easy to point to his physical transformation - his Woodruff looks like he could be snapped in half by Lou Ferrigno - but its the acting side of this man which deserves the most praise. McConaughey absolutely masters the screen, and when you consider what he as already accomplished in the world of entertainment last year (Mud, HBO's True Detective, and even stealing some early scenes in The Wolf of Wall Street, which we'll get to later), that this is his (and the) greatest acting achievement of 2013 is really saying something. And while he's surrounded by a good supporting cast - including solid second-stringer Jennifer Garner as the requisite fictional love interest - the only one who steals any of the naked bongo player's spotlight is Leto, whose transformation into the (also fictional) Rayon is haunting in its perfection and commanding presentation. And to address the elephant in the room, I understand peoples' opinions that a real trans woman should have played the role. Their arguments make a lot of sense, however, to that I have two responses. One is that Leto's work does absolutely nothing to marginalize, insult or make light of the trans community. The other is that this is ACTING, and if Leto was the best actor - trans or not - to portray the role, than he was the right one to be cast. I know it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but does that also mean Idris Elba, Damien Lewis, Emma Watson and Daniel-Day Lewis can only play British people? That seems a tad restrictive, and kind of unnecessary. If someone is the best fit for the role, then it should be offered to them. And when they do as good a job as Leto does, there's not that much left to complain about.

Two of 2013's best.

Okay, tangent over... The story itself is also standout, with the screenplay by relative newcomers Craig Borton and Melisa Wallack doing an excellent job developing the characters and setting the tone. Vallee really transports the viewer back to the 1980's and captures the fears, prejudices and events of the era with a camera style that feels appropriately intimate. We're SUPPOSED to fall in love with these characters, and the director does absolutely everything within his power to make that happen. The only thing preventing the film from being perfect is the editing, which more often than not is excessively jarring and takes the attention of the audience away from the well-crafted story. It also draws attention to the rare story weaknesses, putting a small chink into what could have been a flawless film.

I love me some Rayon, even if she doesn't actually exist...

But even with those light missteps, Dallas Buyers Club is easily among last year's best offerings. Even if McConaughey and Leto hadn't won their well-deserved Oscars, you should do yourself a favor and see this movie if you haven't done so already. Between the excellent acting and mind-shattering story, this movie EARNED its Best Picture nomination.

But while you can see at a glance why Dallas Buyers Club earned a nomination, it's not so easy to say, unseen, where The Wolf of Wall Street fits in. On one hand, it's from a filmmaker (Martin Scorcese) who easily sits atop many experts' Best Director lists, and has absolutely earned that distinction. It's also headlined by superb talents in Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill (who now has more Academy Award nominations than an embarrassingly long list of talents like Gary Oldman and Bill Murray) and even a scene-stealing McConaughey. It's even got a screenplay by a man (Terence Winter) who cut his teeth on The Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire. On the other hand, a LOT of controversy came out of this release, from the accusations that condones greed and sexism, amongst a litany of other transgressions carried out the film's characters. It has the distinction of containing the most uses of the word "fuck" in a mainstream motion picture, and that level of f-bomb dropping usually indicates a lack of creativity, rather than a surplus. Based on the best-selling nonfiction book by Jordan Belfort, this definitely wasn't going to be as cheer-worthy as any of the other nominees. Of course, that didn't matter as it still turned out to be one of the best flicks I've seen in recent years.

Little known fact: Leo doesn't crumple up and throw away money, but James Franco does.

As I mentioned before, Wolf of Wall Street is based on Belfort's life, most notably his glorious rise on Wall Street to his equally precipitous fall from grace, fueled by a life of drugs, infidelity, outrageous behavior and general hooliganism, which eventually got him caught by the FBI. From the word go, you get a real impression of what kind of movie you're in for. The language is crude, the pace is hectic, and personalities are outrageous to the point of lunacy. And whether or not this is consistent with the tone of the book (and many reviewers say it is), this kind of energy with the New York Stock Exchange set as the background is entertainment incarnate. The acting is also top notch. As I mentioned, McConaughey steals a few scenes, even though they are decidedly at the beginning of the picture. Kyle Chandler shows up and puts in a suitable Kyle Chandler offering as an FBI investigator. And while I'm not entirely certain how I feel about Margot Robbie's performance as the mandatory female love interest, two items seriously impress me. First is that her pitch-perfect Brooklyn accent came out of an Australian actress. Second, she plays a vastly different role than her admittedly-smaller part in romantic comedy About Time. She never steals the scenes from the leads, but holds her own opposite more experienced talent, so that at least is commendable.

But the show belongs to these boys.

But this film is definitely a boy's club, and three men in particular are the ringleaders of this circus: Scorcese, DiCaprio and Hill. The director tackles a topic that is not quite as offbeat for him as the kid-friendly Hugo but still feels a bit apart from even his New York-set titles. On the surface it's the kind of nihilistic glorification of greed and selfishness that had NYSE audiences cheering at the inappropriate bits upon its release. But in reality it's easy to see where the guy in charge draws the line. When the boys are running a successful firm and (arguably) harming no-one, or when Belfort is comically embroiled in the middle of a life-altering scandal, it's easy to be drawn in and amused by the hilarious antics of the protagonists. But then there are the jarring scenes, especially a violent one in the last act, where someone IS getting hurt and suddenly the drug trip isn't funny anymore, and you realize that all those good times and funny bits were hiding something much, MUCH darker, something Scorcese makes no effort to cover up or excuse. Much like Kathryn Bigelow refusing to villify prisoner torture in Zero Dark Thirty, Scorcese actually leaves the actual condemnation up to the audience's discretion, which is exactly what a good director does.

Well, we know his kryptonite...

Scorcese's leads help him perfectly in his narrative effort. DiCaprio is perfectly cast as Belfort, but to be honest it doesn't appear much of a stretch as some of his better performances over the years. Lately, it seems like he's been playing this same kind of prideful, self-centered role in The Great Gatsby, J. Edgar and Revolutionary Road. And so I only have to assume those who cry that the actor should have beaten out McConaughey and Ejiofor for the Oscar are merely DiCaprio fanboys, as here he is not quite on their same level (Don't get me wrong, he definitely deserved the nomination). But while DiCaprio puts up predictably strong work, the one who absolutely OWNS every scene is Jonah Hill. Honestly, I can't believe this is the same guy who brought us Superbad and 21 Jump Street. He's always been funny, but here he seamlessly blends into the role in a way I never would have thought him capable. If only one person from this film could have been nominated for an Oscar, it ought to have been Hill all the way. Not only has the actor been the lucky recipient of two Academy Award nominations, but he absolutely EARNED them, as well.

Well... that's different...

Now, as much as I loved The Wolf of Wall Street, I also admit that it has its share of problems. At three hours, it's either thirty minutes too long or short (better editing in the third act would have made for a watchable extended cut). Scorcese falls into his usual trap of obvious metaphors on occasion (one particular scene comparing Belfort to the cartoon Popeye is especially groan-inducing), a habit inexcusable for such a seasoned director. And the movie DOES contain a ton of controversial material, from the objectification of women to a relative lack of punishment for the protagonists, though it should also be pointed out that the real fault for this lies with Belfort and his cronies who played out the real-life story, not the filmmakers who faithfully adapted it to the screen. In fact, Scorcese should be lauded for taking such a despicable character and such a horrible story and making them interesting and utterly compelling to a movie-going public. It's incredibly easy to admire much of what Belfort did all those years on Wall Street, even if it turned out to be more harmful than anything else. And Scorcese's project is absolutely a condemnation of the events in question, even if it doesn't seem like it all the time. It isn't made for everybody, but I still think everybody should see The Wolf of Wall Street at least once. If nothing else, it's a window into a world you may never be a part of, and a cautionary tale so that this true story is never repeated again.

The Not-So-Great Gatsby

If you went to high school in the United States, chances are you had to read F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novel 'The Great Gatsby.' And if you did, you likely realize that better perhaps than any other work of fiction, Fitzgerald captured the essence and spirit of what we call the "Roaring Twenties", with the freely available liquor and cares hidden so far below the surface they're practically unrecognizable. It was the party after allied victory in The Great War, and before we would realize the devastation that was the Great Depression. On the cinematic front, there are now five adaptations of Gatsby, ranging from Herbert Brenon's original 1926 entry to the classic 1974 film scripted by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Robert Redford and Sam Waterston. But Baz Lurhmann's latest rendition of Fitzgerald's seminal work looks to change the entire look and feel we've been accustomed to in 2013's The Great Gatsby. For one thing, it's Baz frickin' Lerhmann, the man whose modernist film adaptation of Romeo + Juliet has become easily the most popular cinematic version of Shakespeare's most famous play. This is a man who has become known for his visual splendor, a la Moulin Rouge and Australia. Even if you're not a fan of his work, you have to admit that he takes an artistic effort to make his movies as visually arresting as possible. Looking at the early trailers for his Gatsby, it's easy to see how his ocular voluminosity could work wonders with the age of excess that was the 1920's.

When the bowtie was king.

For those of you who still haven't read 'Gatsby' (or if you're like me and have forgotten most of it), it's the story of nouveau riche millionaire Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a man known for his extravagant all-night parties and his mysterious anonymity. He takes interest in young neighbor Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), and pines after the love of his life, Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). But Daisy is married to philandering Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton), and until now didn't even realize that Gatsby was still alive. In the chaos that follows, friendships are tried and tested, and in the end, we learn just who the cryptic Jay Gatsby really is.

Wish I could see what was so interesting.

The good news is that Luhrmann's vision of the world Fitzgerald originally created is largely fitting. Gatsby's parties are full of pomp and circumstance, and the showy decorations, ginormous and elaborate mansions and the outrageous dresses looking both perfectly modern and eminently appropriate for the time. The director also has a flair for cinematography, capturing shots beautiful to the naked eye. The special effects work is unfortunately hit-or-miss; while his shots of the majestic (but still under construction) New York City are gorgeous, some of his more action-oriented visuals - most notably Gatsby driving his gold-tinted car though the city - have enough twinges of falsity to their animation that it's unfortunately noticeable. A few other visuals don't exactly work (makeup effects create some very cartoonish characters, for instance), but for the most part Luhrmann's efforts are successful. Far more likable is the soundtrack, compiled by Jay-Z, which includes the hip-hot artist alongside pop artists Lana Del Ray, Florence and the Machines and a host of others current-day performers. While the soundtrack is very much modern, Jay-Z's talents combined with Lurhmann's modernist touches never lets the anachronistic soundtrack feel out of place in the ninety year-old setting.

Daisy could use these flowers as camouflage.

The Great Gatsby is also another step on the great career that is Leonardo DiCaprio stardom. For the longest time DiCaprio was the epitome of unfulfilled potential, often performing well enough but not at the level of excellence many had predicted for him (and in the case of Titanic, sometimes less than that). That abruptly changed in 2004 with The Aviator, with such a mature performance that rose above almost everything else that year. He proved that year was no fluke by following it up by great performance after great performance, starring in The Departed, Revolutionary Road, Shutter Island, Inception, J. Edgar, and Django Unchained. In Gatsby, he once again puts forth a dominating effort, perhaps the greatest characterization of the suave and emotional Jay Gatsby to date. One of the rumors for why this film was pushed back was so that DiCaprio would not have to lobby for two award nominations at once (along with Django, which sadly saw him left off the Oscar ballot), and if true his showing here definitely gives the theory some merit. Still, it's not entirely his show, and Luhrmann does a decent job surrounding him with great actors like Mulligan, Edgerton, Isla Fisher, Jason Clarke and Australian newcomer Elizabeth Debicki, all of whom meld into their characters and provide their much-appreciated talents.

One of the bigger talents in the movie. No, I don't mean Tobey.

Sadly, the acting is also largely where Gatsby goes wrong, most decisively with Tobey Maguire, who trounces everybody's combined good efforts with a performance worthy of the Razzies. Maguire is so completely miscast for the role that it almost seems silly to criticize his performance, but since he was the man Luhrmann chose to narrate his tale, I'm going to do so anyway. Maguire varies between trite, boring voice-overs and overly emotive dialogue, and never succeeds at drawing any interest from his audience. It's bad enough that Nick Carraway is a boring side character in the life of Jay Gatsby, but as we're supposed to be seeing all of the action through Nick's perspective, it would have been nice to actually want to give a damn about him. Instead we're forced to suffer through some of the worst dramatic acting this year, and all because Luhrmann wouldn't realize that Maguire had been regressing talent-wise since he peaked almost a decade ago. Nick Carraway CAN be interesting (Watterston did it in the seventies!), but Maguire absolutely sinks any good his character might have achieved.

"A toast to forget the last two hours."

Maguire is not the lone problem with Gatsby (how did Luhrmann not learn how to cut and edit a film by now?), but he is the most obvious and offensive flaw within it. While it's visually splendid, does have a few good moments and is largely well-acted, this Great Gatsby is a drab, soulless, BORING recitation that almost put me to sleep on more than one occasion. There's just nothing going on behind the scenes, and the director does little to make Fitzgerald's creation relevant beyond his cosmetic touch-ups. Luhrmann's work is all sound and fury, and while he definitely makes the film all his own, it remains one of the more disappointing of the year, and perhaps will even be remembered as one of the year's worst. Fans of the director and Fitzgerald fanatics might get what they want out of this, but everybody else should stay far, far away.

Black Panther

I have not always been a fan of Quentin Tarantino. These days, he's known as one of the most influential directors in Hollywood, but for the longest time I didn't quite get it. Sure, Pulp Fiction was pretty good, the nonlinear storytelling was certainly unique and interesting, but to this day I can't stand Reservoir Dogs; I just don't understand what it was is that people saw in that mess. It wasn't until I finally caught Kill Bill on DVD that I gained any interest in the incomparable director, who borrows heavily from his favorite sources yet still manages to create an experience all his own. I was even more fond of his portion of the 2007 double feature Grindhouse. Sure, my friend Kiki may never forgive me for dragging her in, but even she has to admit that Death Proof was a lot of fun to behold.

But it was 2009's Inglourious Basterds that might be remembered as Tarantino's best film. The director's WWII-inspired vengeance tale had it all: Femme Fatales, orgies of violence, excellent acting (and an Academy Award for newcomer Christoph Waltz) and an excellent, vengeance-filled story. Best of all, gone was possibly the worst and most-telling sign of a Tarantino movie; the unnecessary conversation. Every previous flick of his had them: long, arbitrary dialogue meant to express the filmmaker's opinion on one topic or another. Usually they had little or nothing to do with the plot of the movie, and often were the dullest aspects of his work. Basterds was surprising in that it largely rid itself of them, and the result was a clean, uncluttered film that retained all of Tarantino's creativity and imagery and none of his self-indulgence. It's as if the years of experience had finally matured into a sense of focus, and he no longer needed to add these elements out of mere amusement.

Just don't call him "Sundance"...

That maturity is what made Django Unchained such a desirable destination this Christmas Day, though to be fair I saw it only because Les Miserables was sold out until late in the evening. It seems like all I see on Christmas lately are dark, violent movies (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, True Grit), and I confess I had hoped for a more uplifting tale this time around. But, Les Mis will wait, and I was certainly going to see Django anyway. As many film aficionados know, Tarantino's is not the first Django flick, which began as a violent 1966 spaghetti western directed by Sergio Corbucci and starring Franco Nero (who makes a cameo here), and spanned dozens of unofficial (and one official) sequels. The new movie slightly resembles those older ones if you squint and turn your head to the side, but while the new Django (Jamie Foxx) doesn't drag his own coffin around behind him, he does cut a patch of bloody vengeance through the pre-Civil War south as a former slave freed by bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (the returning Waltz) to rain terror and lead on bad men. Seeking out his abducted wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), he and Schultz must discover a way to rescue her from the plantation of the charismatic. ruthless, and evil slaver Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

Yup, that's some hammer.

There are usually two major sides to any Tarantino film. The first is the humor/violence aspect. Yes, I know it seems odd to pair two seemingly disparate themes in the same discussion, but when these elements seem to go well in hand with this particular man behind the camera. Even with such serious themes as American slavery and the thin line between law and crime, Tarantino makes sure to have fun with his characters, whether through visual gags or legitimately funny dialogue and contexts that he puts them in. That extends to his famously violent scenarios as well, as often he makes positively grisly carnage appear light-hearted and fun. There's nobody in the industry who loves squibs more than Tarantino, and he puts on arguably his bloodiest display of violence and depravity for the amusement of his audiences. Following Django as he kills white men for money is genuinely cathartic as well, tickling that portion of your brain you don't often get to use in a world that tries to be politically correct, especially when it comes to the slavery issue. Here is a cinematic hero that attempts to right the wrongs of the era, and it's absolutely entrancing to watch.

Yes, that's Samuel L. Jackson. Yes, he's awesome.

The other aspect is the darkness Tarantino often embraces. Like Basterds, Django focuses on a grim era in human history, substituting the pro-slavery Deep South for Nazi Germany. While certainly not historically accurate (also like Basterds), the director certainly does his absolute best to capture the horrors of being black in the mid-1800's. The result is definitely powerful, as we see just some of the horrors and atrocities happened upon people at the time, down to even the casual use of the "N" word (hey, I'm white; I have no desire to say it) to emphasize just how bad things were. To that point, he also deftly forms his cast with some of the better actors in Hollywood, with Foxx ably leading them with a dry wit, a thousand-mile stare and just enough crazy to be believable. While I would have loved to see The Wire's Michael K. Williams in the role (early reports had the excellent actor as a favorite), Foxx puts forth one of his better performances, followed closely by the blessedly consistent Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson and a creepily effective DiCaprio, who just seems to get better with each performance. My only complaint is Washington, whose potentially interesting character is reduced to a damsel in distress. Tarantino has created a number of strong female characters in his films (Jackie Brown, The Bride, Zoe Bell in Death Proof and Shosanna in Basterds), and the lack of one here certainly feels like a step back. Putting it in historical context, I guess it makes sense, but considering his willingness to revise history I would have loved to see more strong females, especially when Washington has enjoyed better roles in the past.

You don't say anything bad about Django's dress code.

It's a tough call to name Quentin Tarantino's best movie at this point. I still say his best is Basterds, but I can definitely understand the argument that puts Django Unchained on top. It's a strong, fun, enjoyable adventure that includes some of the director's best work behind (and of course, occasionally in front of) the camera. It feels like forever since I've updated the list, but Django Unchained finishes off as the #3 movie of 2012. Tarantino has grown so much as a director that it's impossible not to be drawn into the world he has created, whether you are sickened by the time or entertained by the exploits. You definitely won't be bored, that's for damned sure.

You Sunk My Passenger Liner!

I generally like to think that I have a decent knowledge of films in general. I've seen many titles that are considered must-sees or classics by prestigious organizations like the American Film Institute. Typically I'll give anything a shot if it comes recommended by someone I trust. And of course, in recent years I've seen most of the major wide releases that were available, as well as a small number of lesser-known indies. However, I'm still a little behind on major films released in the past couple of decades. Here is a sample of some relatively recent films nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture that I have YET to see: Toy Story 3, An Education, Milk, Frost/Nixon, Michael Clayton, Atonement, Babel, Munich, Brokeback Mountain, The Pianist, The Hours, Gangs of New York, Erin Brockovich, American Beauty, The Cider House Rules, Life is Beautiful, Good Will Hunting, the list goes on. There's barely a year you could find in which I actually saw all the nominees, and even a few in which I've never seen the Best Picture winner. One of those I've missed (or at ;east not seen all the way through) is James Cameron's Titanic. Released in 1997, Titanic was odd for Cameron in that the film was a serious drama, in stark contrast to his earlier excellent genre works Terminator, Aliens and Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Tackling one of the world's most famous tragedies, Cameron's efforts were rewarded with not just a Best Picture win, but also a Best Director statuette for Cameron himself. And I never saw it.

Until now.

"I'm the king of the... no, you know what? It's been done."

Just about everybody by now knows the story of the RMS Titanic, the "unsinkable" passenger liner which struck an iceberg on its maiden voyage and disappeared beneath the waters of the Atlantic within two and a half hours, taking all but 710 of its passengers with her. Cameron's story focuses on two young people; Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), a young, poor artist who won his ticket in a card game; and Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet), a young woman from a rich family engaged to the stuffy Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). Against all odds and social standings the two meet and fall in love, and begin a relationship that would probably go on forever were it not for the events of that fateful day, 100 years ago...

Yeah, water perhaps adds a bit too MUCH atmosphere to the place...

I was excited to finally see this film for a few reasons. First, while I had certainly heard some grumblings about how Titanic did not perhaps deserve to win the Best Picture award, the fact is that it did; SOMEBODY not only liked this title but loved it. Secondly, watching the Titanic sink on the big screen has been described as one of the most amazing things recaptured in cinema. I've seen parts of the sinking on TV, but I'm sure we can all agree that the small scale likely wouldn't have done the sequence justice; I NEEDED to see this on the big screen. Finally, the 100'th anniversary of the ship's demise was the perfect opportunity for Cameron to re-release his Oscar winner; on top of that, Cameron's film was the perfect opportunity for those who wanted to honor the ship on the centennial of its death to do so in a fitting manner. Never mind that the film has been reformatted into 3D, even though Cameron was the man who made the technology so fashionable; post-production 3D has finally gotten to the point where it doesn't automatically suck, and I had been told by friends that Titanic's fate is all the more exciting when it's popping out of the screen. With these reasons in mind, I simply HAD to see for myself whether it would be worth the time..

Naked women... in 3D!

And in fact, it is that slow, deliberate sequence of the ship sinking that really makes Titanic worth watching. The exterior shots of the ship itself are striking enough; watching the whole thing sink into the inky darkness of the ocean on the big screen is a treat for the senses. Adding to the talents of the film's SFX crew, the 3D is also well done, though perhaps not to the degree it would have had 3D cameras been around at the time of filming. Still, even in post-production the 3D improves the visual feel of the movie to a high degree, and the sinking especially feels more immersive, drawing you into what was already your favorite part of the film.

"Listen to your friend Billy Zane. He's a cool dude." Name that movie!

The acting however, yikes. In all fairness, we have proven since this film's release that Leonardo DiCaprio can indeed act, as can many of the people who don't look like talented performers when up on this particular screen. You wouldn't know any of this from Cameron's screenplay however, and while Titanic set Cameron's places as a true mainstream director, it also seems to be the beginning of Cameron's ham-fisted screenwriting techniques, which we all saw later with Avatar. It's shocking when you consider how well-written Aliens and Terminator 2 were, but in Titanic the actors had to use every ounce of talent they have to overcome poorly-written and overly-hyperbolic dialogue and foreshadowing. DiCaprio, who was only 22 at the time, still hadn't developed as an performer, and it shows in his complete lack of commitment to the words he's given to speak. Winslet isn't much better but she at least throws herself fully into her role, and while her lines aren't any better written than anybody else's, she at least avoids becoming the train wreck in a shipwreck. Other failures are the overly smarmy Billy Zane, whose character is so obviously evil that one wonders why he wasn't given an eye patch or an ugly scar to complete the point, and Gloria Stuart as Winslet's modern-day counterpart, who painfully narrates the whole thing as if she's reading it off a teleprompter in front of her. How she was nominated for an Academy Award for this work confounds me.

May I have this last dance? You know, before we all die...

My father once described the movie Titanic in this way: the boat has so many unique and fascinating characters aboard, but the film itself focuses on the TWO LEAST INTERESTING. That this happens is obviously a mistake, as Titanic from the start carries the feel of an ensemble film, but relegates all the secondary characters to the side once the star-crossed lovers meet. What about historical character "The Unsinkable Molly Brown", played wonderfully by Kathy Bates, but a role that is so swiftly neutered that it's scary? Another good but little-visited role is Victor Garber as the ship's builder, Thomas Andrews. And Frances Fisher, who has one great line about what it means to be a woman in 1912, before being thrown out? Those are just the parts among the nobles though. How about Danny Nucci, Jason Barry and Jenette Goldstein as immigrants who are seen in the beginning but do next to nothing until the ship starts sinking? While Cameron does do a good job of examining the British class system, it matters little on the whole, and he leaves a lot of potentially interesting characters on the cutting room floor while he focuses so obscenely on his gag-inducing love story.

Seriously, I couldn't find any good images not featuring one of these two? Fail.

Still, in what was a major leap forward for his career, Cameron manages to do a great job of drawing you into the tale of this doomed voyage, despite his missteps. While some moments were far more awe-worthy than others, I couldn't help but be swept up in the story of one of history's greatest tragedies, even if this wasn't the way I would have made it. More than just a ship sinking (though not by much), Cameron's Titanic stands out in today's crowded market, even after fifteen years past. Maybe it's not the best film about the RMS Titanic, maybe it could have done more to illustrate all that went wrong on that bleak night in 1912. Still, you could do a lot worse to honor the memories of those who lived through that wretched night, and those who did not. If you were a fan of this film when it first came out, do yourselves a favor and check it out again. There are just some movies whose best attributes can only be appreciated on the big screen.

Life in a Vacuum

Well, I wasn't expecting that. With hordes of folks out this weekend to see one of the two new blockbusters released - the mythological warfare epic Immortals and the Adam Sandler comedy Jack and Jill - I was sure that lost in the struggle would be the Clint Eastwood directed, Leonardo DiCaprio starring J. Edgar, the biopic on the life of the man who was the face of law and order in the United States for almost forty years. These days, most people know little about J. Edgar Hoover, other than that he, according to rumor, preferred the feeling of wearing women's clothing. Those historians that do know him often neglect to give credit for many of his modern innovations in the world of criminal justice still used today (forensics, fingerprinting) and instead focus exclusively on the controversies surrounding his methods of investigation. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, but the vast majority of people still don't know much about this major figure in American History. Between that and the questionable abilities of Clint Eastwood as director, I was frankly expecting to see J. Edgar in a half-full theater. I was soon proven wrong as I found myself in the presence of a packed house, and was lucky to find a good seat with which to see this surprisingly sought-after release.

J. Edgar did not have sex with that woman... or anyone else, apparently

It is the closing days of the career of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio). For thirty-seven years, he has fought to protect his country from Communists, anarchists, saboteurs, and anyone he thinks is being disloyal to the United States. Drafting an agent to chronicle his memoirs of his career in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hoover is determined to set the story straight: that he is a hero to be celebrated, a devoted civil servant who protected all of us from the radicals who would undo all the greatness we have attained. Following the story through flashbacks, we witness the entirety of his career, between pursuing legitimate criminals to spying on government officials, and the relationships between he and his mother (Judi Dench) and his only real friend and confidante, Associate Director Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer).

It's like Rear Window meets Goodfellas

The production values are at a high standard, not surprising for a Clint Eastwood picture. Every detail from the post-WWI scenery of the film's opening scenes to the costumes and props of the times represented are meticulously detailed and perfectly placed to make each era of Hoover's career feel unique and properly aged. The gray film quality also lends an old-timey look to the visuals, making it appear a true period piece not unlike this year's Jane Eyre. Clint obviously pulls off the stops, making sure that there are no visual errors that would detract from the splendor of the picture. If nothing else, J Edgar does its best to at least look the part of an Academy Award shoe-in.

He's 6'5", 220, but there's only one of him this time

There is also some decent acting, though sadly the dialogue is often times presented in such a ludicrous manner that you can't help but laugh. DiCaprio deserves a lot of credit for his performance however, his Hoover standing above the rest of a very talented cast. He has the distinct difficulty of taking a singularly unlikable character and making him charismatic enough to carry a film. That he fails does nothing to discredit his effort, and people will certainly be discussing his work come award season. Armie Hammer runs a close second in the chops department; the man who made us take notice as twins in 2010's The Social Network goes solo this time out, and he portrays Tolson as an idealistic foil to the film's lead. Sure, there's no explanation as to why Tolson (in this telling) would be drawn to an unlikable goat like Hoover, but that's obviously where artistic license is brought into play. Surprisingly underused is Naomi Watts as longtime Hoover receptionist Helen Gandy. I actually thought Watts would play a large part when she got some early screen-time, but instead she is a constant presence, one that inspires neither interest nor contempt in the irrelevance of her appearance. Beyond that, there are an assorted collection of recognizable actors who make sporadic appearances. To a point, their limited appearances are consistent with the historical figures they represent, but soon you are distracted by the recognition of some noticeable actor over what is actually happening, causing overall disinterest in the actual story in progress.

"Land Shark, calling on line one"

And in the end, that is just one small thing wrong with J. Edgar, part of a sea of small, wrong things. Clint Eastwood as a director hasn't been a major factor since 2004'a Million Dollar Baby took it all. Hereafter was one of 2010's worst. Gran Torino and Invictus were popular but quickly forgotten. Changeling had a great Angelina Jolie performance but not much else. Don't even get me started on the overrated heaps that were Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Eastwood has a very obvious style of directing, sadly lacking in innovation and tending to stick to "tried and true" methods. That worked fine when the material he worked with was at the top of the game. Now that he's delving into less heralded territory, his flaws as a storyteller become more readily apparent, as far too often did the story he was trying to tell get away from him, and the cliched film-making methods he used only exacerbated the problems. To be fair, I can't think of any director who could have pulled this tale off; it's only because Eastwood is such a known commodity that his failures here are so remarkable.

Five makeup companies had to be hired to slather that on

So what else is wrong with the film? Well, the sexual tension between Hoover and Tolson gets more than a little ridiculous at times. Yes, I know there is speculation as to the nature of their friendship, but these two seriously have more passing glance moments than Sam and Frodo had during the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I had enough more than halfway through. Judi Dench is absolutely horrid (I never thought I would say that in my lifetime), completely wrong for her role as Hoover's demanding mother. I also hated Hoover depicted as an emotionally-stunted mama's boy with serious development issues. Sure, he might have actually been that, but when I watch a biopic of someone, I expect that he or she will present me with at least ONE good quality. Hoover's ability to do the wrong thing for potentially right reasons is an interesting idea, but one lost early on when getting into his growing levels of corruption. Yes, absolute power, blah blah; I'm bored now. The film's makeup is one of the lone visual aspects that looks absolutely fake on screen. Older actors should have been hired to portray the elder Hoover and Tolson, as neither lead actor looks believable in the aging process. If it wasn't for the fact that Cylde Tolson really did have a stroke, I'd have thought it was an excuse for the complete lifelessness in Hammer's face in the film's latter act. And DiCaprio manages to just look like a twenty-something wearing heavy prosthetics. And finally, the story's focus on the Lindbergh Baby tragedy turned the film into complete shambles, though it did provide one of the film's unintentionally funniest lines of dialogue.

He's... to sexy for his derby hat...

From the perspective of those who want Award season to begin, I guess I can understand why people flocked to see J. Edgar this weekend. It's unfortunate though that the object of their affection is in fact quite broken, none of the better concepts working out as they should. While the film boasts some good acting and is at least told competently, if not WELL, there are far too many moments where you have to remind yourself why you chose this film over anything else currently in theaters. Though not among the worst films this year, J. Edgar is by no means recommendable, and will likely be long forgotten when it comes time to nominate the year's best. Despite his apparent efforts at notoriety, it seems Hoover is destined to become forgotten as his many contributions to law enforcement will forever be overshadowed by bad decisions, character flaws and extremely casual dress codes. This film, and its director, do him no favors in getting any better.

Spoiler Alert!

It's about dreams.

Okay, it's actually a whole lot more than dreams, but to be completely honest, I'm not sure how much I can say about Christopher Nolan's latest piece of art, Inception, without giving away any of the plot devices, spoilers, twists, turns or character development that the trailers were quite careful not to give away (unusual for a big-budget Hollywood flick). It's quite the conundrum, wanting to write a thousand-word review without saying anything revealing..

And so I've come up with a compromise. See Inception. That's all I can say right now, all I SHOULD need to say right now. If I can't talk about the movie without giving it away to those of you who HAVEN'T seen it, and it it's an excellent enough movie that I don't want to spoil it for you, then I suggest you see the movie, come back, and we can continue with this conversation.

Enjoy!

Are you still there? Or have you come back? Well, then... (clears throat)

!!!SPOILERS WARNING!!!

(Just to make sure you were paying attention)

Anyone who knows me realizes that I have had, and still do have, problems with Leonardo DiCaprio. I know, he gets touted as Hollywood royalty, and no I haven't seen What's Eating Gilbert Grape which was supposed to be his early-days best film, but I never got into his movies. For years, I would justify these feelings with how bad his movies were (The Beach) or how he was constantly being overshadowed by his supporting actors when they simply out-acted him (Gangs of New York). And of course nobody talks about his performance in Titanic (except perhaps to ridicule it). So for years I remained unimpressed by this so-called wunderkind while others flocked to rightfully steal his thunder and shove themselves into spotlights which before might have been reserved for Leo.

Then came The Aviator.

The Howard Hughes biopic, while not a perfect film, was up to that point owner of the finest Dicaprio performance to date, with the actor almost flawlessly stepping ton Hughes' loafers, portraying the industry magnate with a fiery energy almost unseen in his career. Of course, one movie makes not a career, and only time would tell whether this had been a fluke or if he was truly beginning to "get it." The latter seems to be the case, since after The Aviator, Leo has starred in several notable films with nary a blotch inbetween. With The Departed, Revolutionary Road, and Shutter Island, DiCaprio finally seems to be living up to his potential as a performer (and, though the Academy didn't agree, actually deserved an Oscar nomination for his role in Revolutionary Road). It remains to be seen if he can keep it up but for now I don't have the dread feeling of impending failure when I see he's headlining a film these days.

And so I was actually excited to see Inception, the latest mind-fuck by Christopher Nolan (the man who made Batman cool again), but not just for Leo. Inception boasts a strong cast, with up-and-comers Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Tom Hardy and Ellen Page, and veteran performers Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and Pete Postlethwaite flanking DiCaprio. It was like Nolan got his shopping list out and grabbed every great actor he wanted, no fuss no muss. As the writer, writer, and producer of the film, Nolan took what could have easily been a glorified Matrix rip-off and instead produced a fine piece of filmmaking, creating what might be one of the better films this decade, let alone this year.

You might think that last bit was a little bit of hyperbole, but I honestly think this film is too smart, too clever, too GOOD to end up on the wayside. I once thought Nolan would be remembered for reviving the Batman franchise, but I'm confident that he'll be to this movie what the Wachowski Brothers are to The Matrix. What makes Inception different from the superhero-like Matrix, however, is it's genre. It's a heist film, and a giddy heist film at that, but one that, unlike most such films, also has emotional stakes which drive the movie forward, in addition to the genre's standard practices. As Cobb, the group's leader, DiCaprio had to be that character who's doing what he can with what he knows to recover from his wife's death and be able to return home to his children. That, more than the dream scenarios or fantastic effects, are what drive the film forward, and Leo handles the role with a talent I honestly didn't know he had ten years ago. You see the pain in his eyes, the tiredness and wanting to go home, to somehow redeem himself for the guilt he feels he put on himself.

And let's not forget the rest of the cast, who put on something of a clinic themselves. Gordon-Levitt has gone from indie favorite to rock star in his role as DiCaprio's partner in crime Arthur, a man so bodily beaten in this film it's surprising he can still stand at the end. Whoever's running Ellen Page's career deserves major kudos as well, as the in-her-prime Canadian actress once again wows and dominates most of the scenes she's in. Those she doesn't steal are pretty much in the hands of Hardy, whose suave forger (who can imitate other characters in dreams) always has the perfect quip to suit the occasion. He also becomes one of the ones to root for in the film's closing moments, led only by Arthur. Cotillard may be the best, vacillating between the loving wife DiCaprio remembers and the scorned personification of his guilt as she foils his jobs. Not as much is seen of Watanabe or Murphy, but both put on the respectable performances they are known to be capable of. Rarely do you see this level of talent in an ensemble cast, and nobody mixes poorly with the others, proving Nolan cast this piece well.

One of Inception's best qualities is that Nolan does his best to eschew the idea of shoving CGI graphics into any part of the film that is difficult to shoot. While CGI was necessary to add to create some of the more outlandish sequences in the dream worlds (including the "folding earth" moment shown in the trailer) some of the movie's more famous scenes were done in real time, with multiple cameras catching the action simultaneousy. Some of these, like the infamous exploding Paris bistro scene with Dicaprio and Page, or the rotating hallway fight involving Gordon-Lovitt, were done without CGI in very tricky shots that any other director might have done entirely using computers. The only instance where this hurts is in the very beginning of the film, where Watanabe's old-man prosthetics look extremely fake and haggard, but that's a minor quibble. Thankfully, Nolan's old-school attitude made sure that no fake-looking CGI ruled the day, and his extraordinary directorial talents made sure the scenes looked fantastic.

(Okay, even if you didn't take it seriously before, SPOILER WARNING!!)

With a story that cuts deep and manages to surprise, Nolan has brought us a film that hopefully will be remembered years from now as a modern classic. But is is truly over? I've heard more than one viewer wondering aloud about the ending of the film, which keeps the idea open that Cobb may not have woken up and may be still in fact dreaming. My opinion is, whether yes or no, it doesn't matter. Cobb's journey was to accept the circumstances that led to his wife's death, nothing more. Whether he's really awake or stuck in a dream, his guilt is assuaged, and he can once again be happy. And that's what this last job has really been about. It was never about the idea of actually pulling off inception, but about redeeming himself, to himself, stopping his self-sabotage and being able to go home again one day.

And if you're happy, who are others to say whether it's real?