REVIEW: The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger (2013): Dir. Gore Verbinski. Written by: Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio. Based on The Lone Ranger by Fran Striker and George W. Trendle. Starring: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, Tom Wilkinson, William Fichtner, Barry Pepper and Helena Bonham Carter. Rated PG-13 (Guns blazing). Running time: 149 minutes.

2 stars (out of four)

The Lone Ranger is two-and-a-half hours long. If you’re wondering why an action reboot of a 1950s TV show (itself based on a 1930s radio serial) needs to be so long, you may find enlightening the fact that the director, Gore Verbinski, is the man who squeezed a total of seven hours and forty-three minutes’ worth of high seas adventures out of an eight-and-a-half minute theme park ride.

In all fairness, there are a few sequences in The Lone Ranger that gallop along with such jubilant energy you may be willing to forgive the bloated excesses of the film, which too often feels as though it is wading through molasses.

The best of these scenes is the climactic fight on a pair of speeding trains on parallel tracks. Set to the triumphant march of the William Tell Overture (the TV show’s theme), the battle adheres to Looney Tunes laws of physics and is an absolute thrill, though figuring out what exactly is happening and why might prove difficult. The scene is the climax of a jumbled and needlessly complicated plot and features no less than a half dozen participants. But as long as our heroes keep leaping, swinging and dueling, nothing matters except the chugga-chugga-choo-choo nonsense of the action.

During the film’s quieter passages, however, it is hard to muster much enthusiasm for the characters who populate this wild west world or understand their murky motivations. You know a script is weak when you’ve got Tom Wilkinson playing a corrupt politician, Barry Pepper as a mustachioed Army officer and Helena Bonham Carter as a one-legged prostitute, and your mind still wanders during the exposition.

But credit should be given to Armie Hammer who, it turns out, has charisma to match the impressive bone structure of his chiseled jawline. He is likable as John Reid, the dopey lawyer-turned-vigilante of the film’s title. He seeks to bring to justice (not revenge) to his brother’s cannibalistic murderer (William Fichtner, chewing the scenery and at least one man’s cardiovascular organ).

Getting just as much if not more screen time is Johnny Depp as Tonto, the wise-but-dumb Injun sidekick to the Lone Ranger. Tonto talks in fortune cookie phraseology and practices all kinds of goofy hokum, trying the Lone Ranger's patience and very often saving their skin. The character, a mostly inoffensive caricature rooted in decades’ old stereotypes, is a jokester who pokes fun at the white man’s hypocritical ways and acts as a catalyst for much of the film’s action. Johnny Depp, a gifted comedic actor, has a lot of fun with the role.

There’s a weeping damsel too who I very nearly forgot to mention. Rebecca (Ruth Wilson) is the widowed wife of the slain brother and (naturally) a romantic interest for the Lone Ranger. Keeping with the sexist traditions of the genre, the movie uses her as a prop. She spends half her screen time wringing her hands, gripping a scarf and holding back tears.

The Lone Ranger is a genial, good-natured waste of time, as pleasant as it is forgettable. And if you see it on a hot day, you’re guaranteed to get your money’s worth of air conditioning.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/8/13

REVIEW: J. Edgar

J. Edgar (2011): Dir. Clint Eastwood. Written by: Dustin Lance Black. Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts and Judi Dench. Rated R (Language). Running time: 137 minutes.

2 ½ stars (out of four)

Leonardo DiCaprio assumes the titular role in J. Edgar, Clint Eastwood’s stately biopic about the former head of the FBI. The film consists mostly of routine biopic fare but also finds room for some deeply Freudian moments that flesh out some of the less factually certain details of J. Edgar Hoover’s personal life.

The film opens in the late 1960s as Hoover nears retirement and DiCaprio resembles Orson Welles’s Charles Foster Kane more than a little as he shuffles around Hoover’s Washington office buried under prosthetics. Hoover dictates his biography to a revolving series of interns and the film uses this framework to launch into flashbacks that detail the formation of the FBI and Hoover’s subsequent efforts to improve and perfect the Bureau.

In these flashbacks we are introduced to all the salient players in Hoover’s life: his personal assistant Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), his mother (Judi Dench) and FBI Assistant Director Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). Meanwhile the film addresses still relevant issues of national security when they were in their formative years of debate and controversy. To what degree must the American people’s privacy be sacrificed in order to protect the country from its enemies? Hoover’s insistence on obtaining information at whatever cost can be viewed as a sort of early Patriot Act philosophy but Eastwood presents this from a historical, not allegorical, perspective.

Hoover also understood the importance of good PR and much time is spent on the media spectacle that was the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, one of the first opportunities for the then-young FBI to prove its worth to a captivated public. Eastwood also has some fun depicting the FBI’s tenuous relationship with Hollywood and the movies’ representation of gangsters and G-men. Many of these scenes engage in the self-conscious reminders that we are watching a historical drama that have become typical of a big-budget biopic. Some of these moments are playful (Hoover’s radical idea of creating a centralized database of so-called “finger imprints” is met with much reluctance) while others are tedious (when talking to Bobby Kennedy, Hoover has to clarify that he means the President when he says, “your brother”).

Though J. Edgar enters decidedly murkier territory in terms of historical accuracy when presenting Hoover’s personal life, the film finds its stride dramatically when it strays from the strict facts. Judi Dench smolders and snarls with maternal oppression as Anne Marie Hoover, whose relationship with her son (mostly depicted in scenes set in her bedroom) seems eerily intimate yet cold. Despite their closeness (Hoover continues to live with his mother long after most birds choose to leave the nest), she has little regard for her son’s emotions.

The same cannot be said of Clyde Tolson, whom Hoover takes on as his right-hand man early on and quickly forms a deep friendship with. Their relationship, which always seems on the verge of blossoming into something more but never quite does, provides J. Edgar with its emotional core; the pair’s scenes of understated flirtation are among the best in the film. Armie Hammer, whose face resembles that of a Ken doll – both rugged and smoothly plastic – had a star turn playing opposite himself as the Winklevoss twins in last year’s The Social Network and again reminds us how important a strong supporting performance can be. In his scenes with Hammer, DiCaprio loosens up and gives his portrayal of Hoover some much needed warmth and humanity. Underneath the hard-edged FBI director, DiCaprio finds an emotionally complex man.

Unfortunately the film never convincingly pulls these two halves of Hoover – the professional and the personal – into a coherent whole. The script, written by Dustin Lance Black (who won an Oscar for his Milk screenplay) feels disjointed. The film does not fully connect the anguish of Hoover, the private citizen, to the ambition of Hoover, the public figure; there is no Rosebud to provide us the narrative key into his life story. Had the screenplay been better focused, these contradictions of character might have made a scintillating portrait, but though the film offers some fascinating anecdotes and plenty of austere reminders of Hoover’s historical legacy, the man himself remains an elusive figure.

- Steve Avigliano, 11/18/11

REVIEW: The Social Network

The Social Network (2010): Dir. David Fincher. Written by Aaron Sorkin based off the book The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich. Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Brenda Song, Rooney Mara, Armie Hammer and Max Minghella. Rated PG-13 (sexual content, drug and alcohol use and language). Running time: 121 minutes.

3 ½ stars (out of four)

In the opening scene of The Social Network, Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) explains to his girlfriend (Rooney Mara) how gaining membership into one of the school’s prestigious final clubs will inevitably lead to a better life. The parties are great. You meet rich, influential people. You even have a better chance of one day becoming the President of the United States. When he gets into one, he promises, he’ll bring her along for the ride. After his girlfriend stands up, insulted, and breaks up with him on the spot, Zuckerberg seems surprised. She assures him though that the break-up is not because he’s a nerd, but because he’s an egotistical jerk.

Similarly, the story that follows, which dramatizes the creation of the now multi-billion dollar social networking website Facebook, is not about computers but rather the personalities behind them. Zuckerberg’s problems do not come from writing endless lines of programming, which he could do in his sleep, but from his interactions with other people.

The film begins with Zuckerberg’s first seed of an idea. Following the bitter breakup, he seeks revenge on the girls of Harvard by drunkenly creating Face Mash, a site that allows students to rank pictures of female students. Heavy traffic on the site causes Harvard’s network to crash and Zuckerberg finds himself invoking the ire of both school administrators and the female student body. The site’s initial success, however, draws the attention of fellow computer programmers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (both played by Armie Hammer) and Divya Narendra (Max Minghella) who want to recruit Zuckerberg to help create a social networking site exclusive to Harvard called ConnectU. Almost as soon as he accepts their offer, he begins work on a site of his own with help from his roommate and best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), who has the money to finance the project.

Zuckerberg’s partnership with Saverin begins to sour, however, when Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the founder of the file-sharing network Napster, enters the picture. Parker, who has accrued millions of dollars through his involvement in several web companies, lives life like a rock star. He knows a thing or two about getting rich quick in the Internet Age and even more about how to spend the subsequent wealth. Seduced by Parker’s life of luxury, Zuckerberg moves out to Silicon Valley and begins to gradually cut Saverin out of the site’s development. We know the end result of Zuckerberg’s actions through scenes of two separate lawsuits against him: the disgruntled ConnectU founders who claim Zuckerberg stole their idea and the betrayed Saverin who feels his friend has robbed him of his fair share of the company.

The scenes of the hearings might have been dull in lesser hands, but screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The West Wing) transforms them into engrossing drama. He manages to make dialogue about computer programming and copyright laws (and there’s a lot of both) easily understood, and keeps his focus on the characters. Jesse Eisenberg’s Zuckerberg is a thoroughly unlikable individual but Sorkin’s script allows the performance to become a character study. Eisenberg had already proven himself capable of creating likable personas in comedies such as Adventureland and Zombieland, but he broadens his range here. Though he spends much of the film sitting and typing behind a desktop, he develops a subtle and fascinating character.

The rest of the cast is filled out with talented young actors. Andrew Garfield, who was recently tapped to be the new Spider-Man, makes Saverin the most relatable face in the film, and Armie Hammer steals a number of scenes talking to himself as the buff crew team twins who seek financial retribution. Justin Timberlake is well (and perhaps ironically) cast as the young man who effectively ruined the music industry. Some questioned Timberlake’s acting potential a few years back, but he’s wonderful here as the cocky hotshot, giving Parker a layer of vulnerability late in the film.

Holding the film’s many excellent parts together is the emerging style of director David Fincher. Fincher’s underrated Zodiac was one of the decade’s best and though his follow-up, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, was less exceptional it still bore the mark of a talented director. As with those films (and earlier works such as Seven and Fight Club), Fincher’s style uses muted colors and claustrophobic angles to bring a dark edge to the material. In Fincher’s hands, Zuckerberg’s success story is filled with images of isolation and detachment. There are also a few stylistic flourishes that you can’t help but just sit back and enjoy. One sequence involving the Winklevoss twins’ close loss at crew match is a virtuosic moment of style that also showcases the exceptional work of editors Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall.

Fincher and Sorkin craft a story with themes of betrayal and victory worthy of a Greek tragedy, but while the film succeeds in broader terms, it falls just short of making a definitive statement about life in the Internet Age. Fincher presents honest and cynical portrayals of young entrepreneurs who want to get rich quick with the Next Big Idea, but the film never quite confronts the moral implications of what sites like Facebook introduce into the culture. The full disclosure and lack of privacy that are necessarily a part of social networking are occasionally brought up but the film never truly deals with them.

As it is, The Social Network is a fascinating portrait of the world’s youngest billionaire and what he did to get there. There is some debate regarding the film’s accuracy – which is reasonable considering Saverin was a consultant for the source material and no doubt had a biased take on the events – but this comes with the territory of a fictionalized account of real life events. The film is ultimately not about who did what and when, but rather why they did it. The who and what involve computers and a lot of dates and facts, while the why opens up a world of motivations that include sex, friendship, fame and prestige. Factually, this is murky territory to be sure, but it makes for an engrossing human story.

- Steve Avigliano, 10/6/10