Reviews

Any movie Clint Eastwood makes is certainly worth a look, and Leonardo DiCaprio is entertaining in anything he does. But this version of J. Edgar Hoover's story seems superficial, and lacking meat on its bones.

That has more to do with its form – a theatrical film only two hours and 17 minutes long - relative to the length of the biography at its core. Hoover was such a complex man, and his career was so long, with so many chapters, that his story is probably better suited to a 4-to 6 hour HBO mini-series, where more of the details of his life, that this film with its short running time can only hint at, can be more completely told.

Dustin Lance Black, who wrote this film's screenplay (as well as that of Milk), is walking a very fine line here regarding Hoover's complex personality; it seems that he had a much more intricate story he wanted to tell, were it not for the confines of the feature film format. Here, broad brush strokes take the place of long chapters on Hoover's involvement with the Red Scares of the '20's and '50's, political blackmail, gambling, organized crime, and of course, homosexuality.

But if it had been made as a mini-series, it probably wouldn't have attracted Eastwood and DiCaprio, and consequently wouldn't have the high profile that this film does. That version of his story will have to wait for another time.

Eastwood chose to shoot this story in a washed-out color palette. The story jumps back in forth in time, and the closer the events of the film are to the end of Hoover's life, the more color Eastwood imbues into the scenes; the earliest moments in the time line are shown in a color scheme barely above monochrome. It's a subtle effect, but it helps the viewer keep track of where the scenes exist in Hoover's life.

That long time line necessitates that DiCaprio must be seen in various makeup schemes to convey the age of his character at any point in the story. His makeup is uniformly good; but the two other principal actors in the film, Armie Hammer as Hoover's longtime companion Clyde Tolson, and Naomi Watts as Hoover's secretary Helen Gandy, don't fare so well as their characters age. Obviously, the lion's share of the film's makeup budget was allotted to the star. Hammer, it must be said, gives a fine performance under all those old-age prosthetics. Christopher Shyer, who plays Richard Nixon in a brief scene, has the least-effective verisimilitude of anyone who has played the man in a motion picture.

But makeup alone does not a performance make. Di Caprio's ability to remain in character and "age" with him is remarkable, and transcends the work of his makeup artist. As he did with his portrayal of Howard Hughes in The Aviator, his skillful use of voice and body to stay true to his characterization of Hoover through the years is evident throughout.

One gets the feeling that much of this film was shot in front of a green screen, no surprise given the various eras of Washington that it depicts; but to a longtime moviegoer, there's a certain sadness that imparts to seeing that technique, once the province of the large-scale action film, used in serious dramas. There was probably no other way to do it in this day and age, but it just calls attention to itself in a way that gets in the way of one's immersion into the subject matter. Admittedly, that's my problem, not the film's.

So, is it worth a look? Sure. Best Picture nominee? In a field of ten, probably. Will Leo finally win an Oscar this time out? Well, look at it this way: Paul Newman gave his best performance in The Verdict, but the Academy finally honored him for The Color of Money. Leo probably should have won for playing Howard Hughes, but maybe he'll win for playing J. Edgar.

I saw A Christmas Carol in IMAX 3D, and was so impressed by it that I saw it again in RealD, the other 3D process in which it is being shown. I'd like to share some observations with you as to the similarities – and differences– that I observed between the two formats.

The similarities: the 3D effect is essentially the same in both formats. That's not to say that there aren't differences in the 3D experience, but the "depth" of the image is as apparent in the RealD format as it is in IMAX. One method won't cause images to "pop out" more than the other will. And the extra "dimension" that the 3D effect imparts to the story is equally real.

The differences:

If your nearby cinema has the film in the IMAX format, it's probably also playing it in RealD, as well as in 35MM "2D". The IMAX ticket will be more expensive than the RealD ticket, and that will be pricier than the 35MM ticket. You do get what you pay for.

The IMAX screen, being so large (70 feet or so across), takes up a larger swath of your vision than the RealD screen will (35 feet wide or so). Because the IMAX screen is so big, the 3D effect is more immersive than it is in RealD. This is most apparent in the film's four "fly-through" scenes (one at the film's opening, and one in each of the three "ghost" sequences). The 3D effect is the same either way, but because your eyes have less "non-screen" area to see around the picture area, you are more "swooped up" in those scenes during the IMAX screening than you are in the RealD showing.

Sonically, no other theatrical experience can quite compete with IMAX, simply because the IMAX sound system has more speakers and more amplifier power than you are likely to find in auditoriums with the digital sound systems used for RealD or 35MM showings. If that is uppermost in importance to you, IMAX is your winner, hands down.

Visually, there are some differences. Because it's film, the IMAX image has a certain amount of "jitter" to it. It manifests itself at the end of the film, during the credit roll. You will see some of that jitter on the screen, as the credits seem to "stagger" their way up the screen. The jitter is always there during the IMAX presentation, of course, not just during the credits. If you have noticed it before when you went to the movies, digital projection provides welcome relief from it.

I saw the film in IMAX early in its run, but had I waited a few weeks to see it, I would expect to see that the print had accumulated some dust and scratches as it ran through the projector again and again; but the RealD screenings, which are rendered from a hard disk, would have none of those defects, even weeks after its opening.

Then, there are the differences between the two 3D technologies, especially as they apply to the glasses worn to see each format.

IMAX 3D relies on "linear" polarization. Its biggest drawback is that the surfaces of the glasses need to remain essentially parallel to the surface of the screen in order for the 3D effect to be optimal. And, the wearer's head needs to remain perfectly level throughout the screening. Tilt your head slightly, or turn away from the screen even a little, and the 3D image will start to "ghost" or produce visible after-images, particularly in areas of high contrast, such as credits against a dark background. Tilt your head too far, and the 3D effect goes away altogether.

This means that your seating choices in the IMAX theatre, as large as it is, are limited. You want to sit dead-center to the image, both laterally and vertically, so that your glasses aren't tilted by you having to look UP or DOWN to see the image. Don't be faked out by the overall size of the screen as you walk into the theatre; this movie is in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, so it will not fill the entire height of the IMAX screen, only its entire width.

If you see the film in IMAX 3D and then see it RealD, the first thing that you are likely to notice is that the IMAX image is a lot brighter than is the RealD image, but if you choose to see it only in RealD, that image won't appear to be "dim".

RealD uses "circular" polarized glasses, and that means you don't have to be as careful where you sit, or how perfectly aligned your glasses are to the screen. Even if you tilt your head as far as you can, the 3D effect won't disappear, and ghosting will be far less obvious.

Is this version of A Christmas Carol, with all of its technological wizardry, worth seeing, compared to any of the other movie or TV versions?

Well, yes, it certainly is; the fantasy that Charles Dickens built into his story practically begs for it. And Jim Carrey acquits himself wonderfully in the role of Ebenezer Scrooge. Yes, you'll spot him - and his trademark facial contortions - beneath all that motion capture. Is it worth the extra bucks to see it in 3D?

Absolutely, if for no other reason than to see how skillfully Robert Zemeckis and his team have manipulated it. The added dimension augments the terror that Scrooge feels as the spirits transport him to the edge and back.

Is it worth spending the even bigger bucks to see it in IMAX 3D instead of RealD?

If you care about such details as I have described here, and you have access to an IMAX theatre, sure. But is it worth driving 150 miles farther than another theatre playing it in RealD?

Nah.