Pixar Retrospective: "Toy Story 3"

"Toy Story 3"
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen
Directed by: Lee Unkrich

"Toy Story 3" still wins for best pixar movie to date, after my fourth viewing. It's such a solid film, taking characters we love to new heights, having them face not only their worst fears, but even worse, and in the end, grows up with the audience it was first introduced to. If you asked me which pixar films are most like art, I'd say "WALL-E" and "Up," for the reasons previously described in those retrospective reviews. "Toy Story 3" is still mature in its themes, dealing with separation, acceptance, moving on, and facing one's own mortality. Those are pretty heavy themes for a movie targeted towards a younger demographic.

When I first saw TS3, I was accompanied by many young adults and others my age. We are the generation that grew up watching the first film. I was 10 when it came out, and before "WALL-E," I believe it's the only pixar film I saw theatrically. It didn't have as big an impact me on disney's other giant, "The Lion King," which I continue to enjoy today. The "Toy Story" characters grew on me. Their earnestnest, honesty, and simple desire to just be played with. The second film ended on a subtly melancholy note; Andy is going to grow up, and the toys will be faced with their fears of never being played with.

As TS3 opens, we enter Andy's imaginary play world, and it was a beautifully animated, creative opening. Then, we see Andy grow up, and then we see the toys doing a last ditch effort just to see him again. Poor Rex was so happy just to be held by Andy. Consequently, the toys realized the day had come when Andy grew up; even the army men called their mission complete and departed. After a serious of misadventures, Woody lands up with a nice young girl name Bonnie, and the other toys find themselves abused by younglings at Sunnyside, under the care of Lotso, a gentle-on-the-outside but evil-on-the-inside bear. Maybe not so much evil, but turned mean and depressed due to abandonment issues. The rest of the film has some stellar scenes, such as a well-organized escape from the day care.

When the toys end up facing their own morality, it's chillingly sad. You can see the initial hesitation and despair, then defeat, understanding, and finally, acceptance in their eyes. All done in a matter of a minute or two, without a word spoken, and solely through facial expressions. One of the most artistic and beautiful scenes in a film I've ever seen. This single scene is pixar's best, I think. The montage from "Up" was just as heartwarming, but we have an established history with these characters for over a decade, so their apparent demise is much more meaningful. At least, it was and is to me.

The final scene was also beautiful, and one I totally relate to. Andy realizes it's time to grow up, and he gives up his toys for a better cause. The kid in him still exists, as he plays with Bonnie. But he knows that this chapter in his life is over. When he gives up Woody, it's like he finally became an adult. I totally relate to this scene; the movie came at a point in my life where I feel the same type of struggle.

The end credits was also wonderful. Seeing the toys at the day care working in cooperation, and having fun together, was a nice comparison to the enmity our toys endured. And then, saying good-bye to our characters with a nice "You've Got A Friend In Me" in Spanish was a nice touch. And Randy Newman's oscar-winning song, "We Belong Together," also seemed very fitting.

All in all, I still think it's arguably pixar's finest work, and proof that done right and done well, sequels can surpass their originals thematically and narratively. It's unfortunate that pixar's follow-up was a wholly unnecessary sequel, "Cars 2." Still a fine film, but not near the beauty of TS3.

Pixar Retrospective: "Up"

"Up"
Starring: Edward Asner, Christopher Plummer
Directed by: Pete Docter

Ouch. That emotional gut punch hurt. Pixar's trend of more mature-ish films continues with "Up," but it also has that double appeal, to kids as well. That montage in the beginning, wordless, is possible the sweetest single animation pixar has ever produced in their feature films. Paired with their equally heartwarming short "Partly Cloudy," pixar seems to really have been trying to make audiences cry.

"Up" is such an unlikely story, and something I couldn't imagine being popular on the drafting board. An elderly man and a kid on an adventure in South America? An old guy as a hero? Talking dogs? A house set to fly with helium balloons? Pixar took these seemingly incongruous elements and made them into a cohesive, heart-wrenching film about love, devotion, and the adeventure of life.

"Up" begins, after a short film about Muntz, with the aforementioned montage. It chronicled a life of early love and shared dreams, sadness at having no children (why not adopt?), rekindled dreams, sickness, death, and loneliness. As Carl is about to be sent to a retirement home, we truly feel sad for him. If we just saw an old guy protecting his mailbox and hitting someone on the head, we'd think he's just a crazy old wizard. But knowing how much the home and mailbox meant, as a remembrance to his wife, made it so much more meaningful. If "WALL-E" was pixar's most artistic film from a visual standpoint, "Up" battles "Toy Story 3" for their most artistic film from an emotional standpoint.

We grow to like Carl and relate to him, because we understand what he's lost and what his goals are. So, when Russell comes along for the journey, I can empathize with his frustration. There, they meet Dug the talking dog, along with Alpha and his pack, and Muntz. And Kevin, of course, who forms the basis for the rest of the plot.

I found it interesting, in the bonus features, about how the story designers spent time deciding Muntz's fate. It turns out Muntz stayed young-ish all these years by eating the egg of Kevin's species, which wasn't touched on in the film. Muntz seems to have definitively died in the film; a sort of serious end to a villain for a pixar film. Although, he's not quite a villain. Muntz was only a man trying to redeem his name after false accusations that he was a fraud. But the pixar team decided he needed to definitely die. Why? Because he represented Carl's initial desire to be an adventurer, and his death meant that part of Carl could move on. Not only that, but the loss of Carl's house, symbolic of his love Ellie, meant that Carl could let that part of him go; pick up his bags, and move on. Seeing him make that step forward, that growth in his character, was fantastic.

The friendship between Russell and Carl, developed over the film, was also wonderful. I really felt like the pixar team spent so much time on Carl's character, and they fine tuned his growth throughout the film to make emotional and logical sense. It's what I wish Lucas did a little more with "Revenge of the Sith," because the foundation for Anakin's fall was there, but the way the plot was structured made it seem a little hasty.

Finally, the film showed that you're never too old to live your dreams. But don't get caught in the past; live for the future. A truly beautiful work of art, and also pixar's last original film to date. After the wonderful "Toy Story" sequel and the not-needed-but-still-fun-to-watch "Cars 2," I'm excited for pixar's next original work, "Brave," which seems different from their usual films.

"Star Wars" On Blu-Ray: The PT

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith



Star Wars finally arrives on blu-ray, and it gives me another chance to revisit that galaxy far, far away. I haven't seen the PT, or the OT, in quite a whole, so it was fun to watch it again, with somewhat fresh eyes. I started off with TPM, which came out in 1999. I was in 8th grade at the time, and I remember watching it with one of my best friends at our local theater. There were a few people dressed up, and I remember being shocked at Qui-Gon's demise. And equally surprised that my friend had to go use the bathroom as soon as he died!

AOTC I saw during high school, after an AP test. I saw it with another close friend from high school, who's currently doing some government work in Russia. For that one, I went to the Ziegfield theater in Manhattan, dressed up in a flowing cloak. There were more people dressed up there, and a stronger fan base, including some media outlets. I knew a bit about AOTC before going in, from watching all but the last trailer. It was good experience, but it only increased the anticipation for the third chapter.

ROTS was highly anticipated for me. I didn't see a film in theaters, to my knowledge, between AOTC and ROTS, and I also avoided watching trailers or any other promotional material for the film, aside from the poster. I went to Maryland to see it, with my best friend who I saw TPM with. Why Maryland? That's where the head of the message board I frequented at the time, COWD, was located. Another board member also came down for the trip. ROTS was more than I expected, and totally became my favorite SW episode. I remember being impressed that the final duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin took place over such a vast area, and GK, the head of COWD, said something to the effect of, "that's why Lucas makes the big bucks."

Revisiting the PT was an interesting experience. I had a lot of random rituals associated with SW, such as watching the end credits all the way through, among others. After a big life change in 2009, those rituals sort of died down, and with SW theatrically completed (for now), my fandom for SW also went down a bit.

Rewatching TPM, I can see why there was disappointment and criticism. I feel like TPM provided a good, solid foundation for the rest of the PT. However, it certainly didn't start off very interesting. A trade boycott on an outer rim planet? A galactic government tied up in bureaucracy? A set of bargains and deals to have a random kid with a race on another outer rim planet? The sense of importance was not there in TPM. However, the film is part of a whole, not a standalone. In real life, huge conflicts such as World War I didn't start off with a bang. Well, I guess that war did start after a gunshot, but in a more figurative sense, it takes time to build the stage for an epic war to begin. That's what TPM was. It set the stage for Palpatine to gain control of the republic. It brought Anakin Skywalker to the center of the galaxy. It set up the sith's return as a threat to the Jedi. And it introduced us to the workings of the galactic senate, the structure of the jedi order, and the general state of the galaxy at the time. TPM works well in the grand picture, but as an introduction to that galaxy far, far away, I think ANH is still the best entry point. And as for Jar Jar, I still think he's not as bad as people made him out to be. But, he's still largely annoying and a pointless character that could have been better served by a different type of character.

AOTC remains a strong film, while the acting still is rather wooden. Maybe we favor a different type of acting today, with the gritty realism of "Batman Begins." The acting here gets the job done, but sometimes the characters feel a bit distant. AOTC and ROTS work well together, and are just as good as I remember them being. They look fantastic in HD, and the beauty of the locales, especially Naboo, is wonderful.

TPM is a bit hazier in HD. I read that TPM was not shot in HD, which could explain the blurriness of the film. Overall, I see why people were not a fan of the PT, and I really think it stems from the disappointment of TPM. It's hard to disagree with them back in 1999, when we had no idea how good or bad AOTC and ROTS would be, and all we had as an indication was TPM. Still, TPM had some deeper themes, which I don't think people realized, and which I wish were fully explored. Namely, Qui-Gon's view of the force and the jedi, and his insistence on the living force over the unifying force. It's something alluded to in ROTS, when Yoda tells Obi-wan that Qui-Gon is sort of still alive. It's a shame that the PT didn't investigate this more, but I suppose with the grand story to be told, it would have been hard to fit it all in.

I'm looking forward to revisiting the OT, and see how it looks in HD!

Pixar Retrospective: "WALL•E"

"WALL•E" (2008)
Starring: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight
Directed by: Andrew Stanton



"WALL•E" is the film that sold me on pixar. I saw the original "Toy Story," and I think I saw a few other pixar's before "WALL•E," probably "Finding Nemo" and maybe a couple more, but "WALL•E" showed me how truly creative and outside-the-box pixar was. When I saw the original trailer for "WALL•E" I was thoroughly unimpressed. A robot on the ground looking at space, and a weird robotic voice announcing the film's title? I had no idea what the film was about, and I wasn't too interested. Fast forward to the summer of 2008, and "WALL•E" was getting some pretty good reviews. I was in Washington DC visiting a friend from high school, and we decided to go to the movies. Since "WALL•E" was all the rage, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. So, I went to see it, while my friends saw some other nonsense ("Hancock," maybe?).

I was amazed; it was one of the best theatrical experiences I've ever had. I had no idea that the true story behind "WALL•E" was an Earth deserted by humanity's wasteful ways, and now we're in space for generations, growing fat and complacent and living just for the sake of living. If "Ratatouille" was a more mature-ish film for pixar, "WALL•E" is on a whole different level. It can easily rank up there with some of the best science-fiction films, and it's depiction of a world gone bad by our carelessness was chilling.

If pixar just stopped there, it would've been an amazing film. However, they went a step further, and decided to limit the dialogue between the film's two main characters, WALL•E and EVE. Instead, we saw a whole lot of communication through body language and facial expressions, namely eye movement. Anger, concern, love, sadness, and joy were expressed through perhaps the most basic form of communication. This is arguably pixar's most artistic work. Just watching the beautiful animation, with the music and scenes taking place without dialogue, it's just a work of art. Coupled with a strong story, it shows why pixar achieved the name it did.

This remains one of my favorite pixar films. The best goes to "Toy Story 3," which is a thematically stronger film, in my opinion. I feel like, after "Cars," which definitely was appealing to children (perhaps slightly more so than to adults), pixar's subsequent two outings were slightly skewed more towards the older population of children or young adults. Both "Ratatouille" and "WALL•E" don't seem as appealing to children on the outside, and "WALL•E" especially has a deeper, more involved plot that I imagine is beyond the grasp of younger kids. Having never actually spoken to a kid about either of these two films, though, I could be totally off.

"WALL•E," to me, represented a breakthrough in animation, and my first good look at the breathtaking work pixar does. After this, I became a pixar fan, and even if the trailers look bad (like the teaser for "Up"), I still can't wait to see each pixar movie, if only to recapture a bit of the wonder I experienced when seeing "WALL•E" for the first time.

Pixar Retrospective: "Ratatouille"

"Ratatouille" (2007)
Starring: Patton Oswalt, Lou Romano
Directed by: Brad Bird



"Ratatouille" is one of pixar's sweetest films, and also one of their longest. I love this movie. It's not their most innovative in terms of perspective (like "Toy Story") or story ingenuity (such as "Monster's, Inc."), but it's like a step out of pixar's usual play box. In some ways it's a more maturely made film, with less outright laughs, and feels directed at a slightly older audience. Not to say that pixar's other films don't appeal to older people; on the contrary, I think there are specific themes that only older people understand and appreciate in pixar's films. However, I think this is the first film where it may not be as appealing to kids. It's not as colorful, but paints a story quite beautiful.

The film tells the story of Remy, a rat living in Paris who loves food. Not in glutton-type, but the true food connoisseur. After a mishap involving some saffron snatching, he finds himself in Paris, at one of the formerly best restaurants named Gusteau's. Befriending Gusteau's formerly unbeknownst son, they work in tandem to cook amazing dishes and restore the name of Gusteau's. Remy, however, has to lives with two halves of himself; the food-loving, human-befriending side, and the side devoted to his family.

Some of the scenes here are typical of pixar's emotional gut punch. They find a way right to go down to the core of an emotion. When Ego, the food critic, tastes the ratatouille, we see how his mother's ratatouille uplifted his spirits as a kid, and you see those memories totally bring life back into his gaunt demeanor. The end was also beautiful, with the rats dining upstairs alongside the humans below in the new restaurant. And the scene with all the rats cooking, divvied up into teams, was some beautiful animation.

I think pixar took a different approach with this film that worked. It's a very innovative story, but not of the "Monster's, Inc." variety. It's a more traditional, grounded story but also quite different. Through it's main message, "anyone can cook," it helps you realize that things aren't always at they seem, and you can't make assumptions based on your preconceived notions. Ego's food review at the end embodied that notion. A truly beautiful film, and one that I hope is a classic for decades to come.

Pixar Retrospective: "Monsters, Inc."

"Monsters, Inc." (2001)
Starring: John Goodman, Billy Crystal
Directed by: Pete Doctor



"Monsters, Inc." is arguably pixar's most creative movie to date. Whereas their prior features focused on looking at the world through a different perspective via existing things (ex: toys, bugs), and their later work did much of the same (ex: cars, robots, humans, a rat), this is the standalone film that totally imagines a world of things that don't exist. The simple idea of the monster in your closet is turned into a world where screams are needed for energy, and the monsters fear us just as much as we fear them.

Sully (Goodman) is the top scarer at Monsters, Inc., and is assisted by his longtime pal, Mike (Crystal). Fellow scarer Randall is trying to usurp the top rank from Sully, or so we think; he's actually building a machine to extract scares from kidnapped children, with the CEO of Monsters, Inc. completely aware. Sully accidentally falls into one of the kidnapping ventures, and befriends a little girl he names Boo. The movie follows Sully and Mike as they try to save Boo and thereby expose the nefarious plan underway at Monsters, Inc.

The amount of creativity displayed here is wonderful. The only criticism I have is that the world itself isn't completely fleshed out. I think that's because a lot of it is really based on our world. Whereas "Toy Story," "A Bug's Life," and "Cars" had to humanize the world around them, in terms of making mundane things have a function (cracker box-turned-caravan in "A Bug's Life"), here the world itself was almost a mirror of our world, but inhabited by monsters. They drive cars, go on dates, watch TV, and go to work, just like we do. I would have liked to see a bit more of the world itself, and any differences there may have been. Perhaps "Monsters University" will take us there in 2013.

Outside of that, the actual relationship of our world to theirs is wonderful. The fact that screams are used here to power their world was a smart idea, but the way it's turned around for the ending is even better. This is almost like the light version of what Moffat does in "Doctor Who." Taking commonplace sayings or things, and imaging them as something not only real, but fully fleshed out (ex: Moffat's weeping angel aliens in "Blink"). Many of us may have feared the monster under the bed, but as adults, we're pretty sure that's all false. "Monsters, Inc." presents a world where that could actually exist.

Pixar created an endearing character in Sully. You can feel the earnestness in him, and his quest to save Boo at all costs was the emotional core of the film. I loved the way the film ended, with Sully finally seeing Boo again, and the audience left remembering the joy on his face. Boo was also a wonderful character, if only because she was so darned cute. Mike was funny at times, but also a bit on the annoying side. Paired with Sully, he's tolerable, but if we had to watch him on his own, it'd probably be a bit tiresome.

I can't wait to see what pixar does when they revisit this world. I also hope future pixar films will have this almost entire outside-the-box story. I love the pixar films based on the real world, but for different reasons. Just remember, if you see a monster coming out of your closet.... laugh.

Pixar Retrospective: "Toy Story 2"

"Toy Story 2" (1999)
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen
Directed by: John Lasseter

For their third theatrical treat, pixar decided to serve another round with the "Toy Story" gang, returning to the foundation that made them a household name. Initially deemed a direct-to-video sequel, but was later converted to a theatrical release. Based on the strength of original, the scope of this movie, and it's new batch of memorable characters, it's amazing to think this may have ended up along the likes of "The Lion King 1.5" and "Cinderella 3" in the pantheon of disney's direct-to-video B-movie list.

After a successful welcome of Buzz Lightyear and a new dog to the gang, Andy's toys are enjoying their lives, when Woody gets a bit of a tear in his arm. This leads to him finding Wheezy, who gets tagged for a yard sale. In a daring rescue attempt, Woody ends up being stolen by Al (yes, Al from Al's Toy Barn!) who tries to fancy him up for a museum in Japan. After a realization of his famous past, Woody decides to go. It takes Buzz, new Buzz, Zurg, an airport chase, and Stinky Pete to finally bring Woody back home.

This film was filled with a bunch of little treats. Seeing Buzz see how oblivious he was in the first movie (via new Buzz) was funny. Zurg's battle with new Buzz was fun, especially since we saw the virtual version when Rex was trying to fight him. And the classic line from "The Empire Strikes Back" was made all the funnier with new Buzz's shocked face.

The movie was greatly enhanced by the expanded scope. Whereas the first film took place in four major locales: Andy's house, Sid's house, Pizza Planet, and the gas station/car, this one took us to some vast new locations: a huge toy store, a new apartment, the airport, and an airplane. The story itself was also expanded in scope, adding more to Woody's overall backstory. And, in almost a reference to it's sequel, it ends with Woody and Buzz reflecting on a life once Andy grows up. It's almost as if "Toy Story 3" were in their minds at the time.

The entire supporting cast is fantastic. Mr. Potato Head, Hamm, Rex, and Slinky are the major returning characters here, with the Bo, spelling machine, troll, and a few others around for a bit. The army men have a much smaller role this time around.

It's hard to say that anything can beat the original "Toy Story," just because it's so classic. But I'd say the "Toy Story" films are one of the rare cases where each sequel is better than the one before it. An expanded scope, a hint at deeper themes, and that sad montage of Jesse losing Emily makes this film another classic in pixar's ever-expanding library of classics.

Pixar Retrospective: "A Bug's Life"

"A Bug's Life" (1998)
Directed by: John Lasseter
Starring: Dave Foley, Kevin Spacey



Pixar's second outing was likely a feat of a different type than their breakthrough hit, "Toy Story." Trying to achieve the success of that film was a challenge of itself, and they likely had to prove that the pixar name was lasting, not a one-time wonder. For their second feature, they turned to the miniature world of bugs. They crafted a world from the ground up, about how a small ant colony would function and live with the bigger creatures around them.

Flik is the main ant here, an innovator who isn't seen in the best light. After a catastrophe involving the loss of the colony's offering to the grasshoppers, led by the aptly named Hopper, he's sent on a mission to find some warriors to help defeat the grasshoppers. Unfortunately, he mistakes a traveling circus troupe for warriors, and bring them to the colony. After crafting a fake bird, their true status is seen, and the circus performers are sent off with a now exiled Flik. It takes Flik's determination, and the help of his new pals, to return and extinguish the grasshopper's plan for good.

I don't know if it's the classic status of "Toy Story," but the characters here aren't as endearing. They're all unique in their own right, but it's just not the same. The story is classic pixar, with moments of sadness, heartwarming goodness, and a happy ending. The world itself is also beautiful; the outdoor locations are breathtaking, especially in HD. I'm not quite sure why the ants are blue, however. There's not a human to be seen, but we know they exist, from the animal cracker box turned circus van, to the sombrero hat hideout of the grasshoppers.

The movie is still pure pixar, but it's a step below "Toy Story," to me. I really think it's because the "Toy Story" characters are just classic, and the ones here, while interesting, just aren't nearly as enduring. Still, a strong second effort from pixar, and one that cemented their status as the leading animation studio.

Pixar Retrospective: "Toy Story"

"Toy Story"
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen
Directed by: John Lasseter



Of all of pixar's breakthrough movies, perhaps none holds as special a place as their first, "Toy Story." It arguably defined a new genre of film: the CG animated film, and also may have put the first nail in the coffin for big screen traditional animated films. By focusing on something so commonplace, yet taking a new spin on them, and also making it into an enemies-turned-buddies story, it stands as a symbol of the creativity and innovation that pixar continues to embrace.

As many know, the story follows Woody, a cowboy and favorite of Andy. When newcomer Buzz Lightyear comes along, Woody feels threatened, and accidentally throws Buzz out a window. In an attempt to rescue him, he ends up at Sid's house of horrors, befriends his former enemy, and makes his way back to Andy.

My biggest flaw with this movie is that it's way too short. I'm glad two more sequels followed, because in hindsight, this movie seems so brief. In one of the blu ray specials, Lasseter was talking about how it was daunting to craft a 75-minute story from what they were used to, which were short films. It goes to show how far animated features have come, that now a movie once considered long seems ever so brief.

Another aspect that shows how far we've come is the animation itself. "Toy Story" hold up incredibly well over a decade and a half later. Certain parts of the animation are crisp and beautiful, especially the woodwork, like the floors of Andy's home. However, some textures and characters don't come across as well, especially the three-eyed aliens. Motion also is not as fluid as it is now. Despite that, it's still a beautiful movie to watch, and much of that is due to pixar's gift of storytelling and crafting genuine, heartfelt characters that draw you into the story.

The blu-ray also included a peek at the dark days of "Toy Story," when pixar seemed forced to create a more "edgy" Woody who threw Buzz out a window, yelled orders at Slinky, and got the other toys riled enough that they wanted to throw him out the window. That totally would've been an anti-kids movie, I think. Thankfully disney got the sense knocked into them, and let pixar take the reigns of their own work.

Like many companies that start strong, they start to fizzle out. Pixar created masterpiece after masterpiece, and I hope they continue to do so for many years to come.

Oscar Watch: "J. Edgar"

"J. Edgar"
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts
Nominations: TBD


Oscar season is nearly upon us, and with Billy Crystal tapped to host, I'm really hoping it'll erase some of the blah telecasts we've had so far. Nominations won't be announced for probably two more months, but whenever it's November and you see a Clint Eastwood movie at the multiplex, there's a good probability it'll up for something.

"J. Edgar" chronicles the life of J. Edgar Hoover, who is known largely for building the foundation of the FBI as it exists today, through methods both legit and questionable. Leonardo DiCaprio portrays the titular character, throughout various stages of his life. Eastwood presents the movie in an interesting narrative fashion. To me recollection, there are no dates shown on screen. The basic structure of the movie follows an older Hoover narrating a book about the FBI to some FBI agents, and the film recounts key events of the FBI's and Hoover's history. At times, this narrative structure could be a bit confusing. For instance, we go from a scene with a young Hoover, to one with an older Hoover on his mother's deathbed, and then to a scene somewhere between the two, with an older Hoover and his healthier mother. The placement of that deathbed scene was sort of tucked away there, probably for some larger narrative or artistic purpose.

Surprising to me was the undercurrent of Hoover's speculated homosexuality. According to wikipedia, Hoover's sexual preferences are controversial, with his relationship with Tolson (portrayed by Hammer) rumored to be sexual in nature by some, but simply brothers by others, like Mark Felt (aka "Deep Throat). The film showed Hoover cross-dressing and admitting somewhat subtly to his mother that he had no feelings for men. This may be the main drawback to the film. I am far from knowledgeable on Hoover, but if wikipedia is correct and this subject is up for debate, taking one side in favor of the other in this film could question the accuracy of the film's facts overall.

Side note: I love how the FBI agents back in the day wore those caps. Time to bring them back! And it's amazing how, before Hoover came to power, criminal investigations were rather lacking. No fingerprints, tampering of a crime scene, disposing of evidence.... any generic investigation show on TV (probably on CBS) would tell you that those seem to be investigation 101.

The film was set in a sort of off-color light, which felt totally appropriate for the period setting. There were sprinkles of subtle humor, but overall, it was rather serious, steadily-paced biopic. Solid acting and directing, but critiques of the film lacking coherency is definitely arguable. With the unique narrative structure of the story, it was sometimes difficult to get a good grasp on the temporal chain of events. Nevertheless, it was engaging. And realistic. As my friend pointed out after the film, Eastwood took a very realistic approach. The scene with Hoover's half naked, pale, dead body on the floor was shockingly realistic and inelegant, and showed that despite the major advances he made to the FBI and this country in his life, in the end, he was only human, like everyone else.

I just finished reading "Steve Jobs," the official biography by Walter Isaacson, and there were definite parallels, to me, between Jobs and Hoover. The intense, narrow focus, no-nonsense attitude, and intensity seem to be shared between the two. I also wonder if Hoover had a sort of "reality distortion field," based on how he acted and expected people to just do as he commanded, like when he assumed the professor was going to work for the FBI without even asking him.

Overall, an enjoyable biopic, but I would question certain facts as presented in the film. I think nominations should go to DiCaprio for lead actor, Eastwood for directing, possibly Hammer for supporting actor, art direction, and cinematography.