Review: The Great Gatsby (2013)

F. Scott Fitzgerald is in my opinion the greatest American author of all-time  and The Great Gatsby is the work for which he is most recognized.  While I would argue that it is not nearly his best work, there is no denying that it is one of the truly seminal pieces of literature of the twentieth century.  And while Robert Redford’s cinematic portrayal of Gatsby in 1974 is by no means perfect, it is in many ways the enduring visual representation of the character.  Thus, with all these things consider, director Baz Luhrmann’s and Leonardo DiCaprio’s endeavor to bring the novel to the big screen in a way that resonates with movie goers today, had to be viewed as nothing less than an incredibly challenging undertaking.  And much to my chagrin, it seems the duo bit off more than they could chew.

For those of you who didn’t pay attention during high school English class, the plot of the film follows Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) as he navigates the social circles of New York City in the 1920’s.  Through his eyes we see the story of Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), an eccentric man of great wealth, who has established an extravagant lifestyle for the purpose of  winning back the love of his life Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan).  Unfortunately for Gatsby, she is married to Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton), a man who represents the physical embodiment  of the excess and soullessness that permeates the narrative.

On paper there was so much to be excited about in regards to this movie.  Beyond the fact that it's based on Fitzgerald’s novel, it was hard not to formulate grand expectations for movie that features a cast loaded with names like Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke, and Isla Fisher.  It is without a doubt a dynamite ensemble from top to bottom; one that screams Academy Awards season.  That, coupled with a director in Baz Luhrmann who has such a distinct visual flair, really had me convinced that this version of The Great Gatsby would be an absolute hit.  And then it wasn’t.

I think for me this movie fails on two levels.  The first has to do with Baz Luhrmann’s directorial choices.  On the surface his cinematic panache makes a ton of sense given the time in which the movie is set, but what his style over substance approach fails to capture is both the banality that underlies the excess and the quiet sense of desperation that afflicts the protagonists.  Instead we get just the big parties, fancy cars, lavish shapes and colors.  Without that deep sense of disconnect to balance those sights and sounds, the film start to play like just a series of loud noises and big sets.  And while I give him kudos for taking his usual scoring risk, nothing about Jay-Z’s music in this film works on any level.

My second issue with this film is with the casting, which is such a huge disappointment because the project is littered with a ton of talent.  The problem with the casting is the disconnect between the talent and their respective roles.  One such example is Joel Edgerton, an actor who has in the past repeatedly shown himself to be very talented.  Yet, in this film he looks and feels completely miscast as Tom Buchanan, because for all his acting acumen it is not within his range to to fully capture the requisite combination of privileged entitlement and moral corruption. 

Another example of casting gone awry is in the case of Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway, though this is less an example of miscasting and more that Maguire is just not much of an actor.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that he is one of the more overrated talents in the business.  His performance in this film is a perfect example of why I feel this way.  What he does onscreen is not what one would call acting, nor is it a case of him playing a different versions of himself (a la Brad Pitt).  Tobey Maguire just shows up and  acts like himself – no matter the role.  In fact, if you were to close your eyes and listen to him speak generic lines from each of his roles, you would be hard-pressed to figure out the right movie.  That he serves as the narrator of the film and the person with the most screen time should serve as an indicator as to just how much of a miss this movie is.

In regards to the man given top billing, Leonardo DiCaprio is surprisingly uneven in his portrayal of the complex Jay Gatsby.  There are times when he is spot on with the role and other moments where things seem to drift awry.  He does share strong chemistry with Carey Mulligan and that helps to cover up a lot of the film’s blemishes, but like the rest of the movie, his performance seems overly focused on the visuals as opposed to the nuances.  Mulligan for her part does a nice job as Daisy Buchanan.  Of all the performances in the film, hers is the one that gives the plot exactly what it needs.

As for the rest of the cast, Isla Fisher and Jason Clarke are both good in very small doses but are in no position to dramatically upgrade the quality of the film.  Ditto for Elizabeth Debicki whose portrayal of Jordan Baker in many ways embodies the decaying soullessness that defines the social scene in East Egg.  Collectively the supporting players do a sound job manning the periphery of the plot, but unfortunately, too much of the film is left hanging on Maguire’s very limited acting range.

In considering this film in its totality, it becomes apparent that this movie was doomed before a single image was captured on film.  Poor directorial choices and weak casting no doubt laid the foundation for a flawed project.  Sure, there are Luhrmann apologists who are going to blindly love this and those who have not read the book that will approach this with a blank slate and appreciate the tragic romance angle that drives this film.  But to everyone else, it can be seen as nothing less than a disappointment and probably a film that most would be better served to avoid.  If it’s on cable television, I wouldn’t fault anyone for giving it a look, but the truth of the matter is that the best version of this story is the one that resides within the pages of Fitzgerald’s book.

Standout Performance:  Carey Mulligan.  She does just enough to rise above the mediocrity of her co-stars.

Read More

Review: Zero Dark Thirty

I don’t turn to movies for history lessons (a surprising number of people actually do) and I don’t let filmmakers and actors influence how I think.  Movies are entertainment for me – no more, no less.  So in regards to Zero Dark Thirty, I have blocked out the noise as to whether the film is politically motivated, pro-torture, historically accurate from start to finish, and so on and so forth.  Everyone with an interest in the on goings in and around Capitol Hill seems to have an opinion on this.  What I can say about Zero Dark Thirty is that it is an ambitious and comprehensive look at the post 9/11 search for Osama bin Laden through the lens of a singular agent.

The plot of the movie follows Jessica Chastain's Maya from her first days in the field as a CIA agent and her twelve-year search for a thread to lead her to Osama bin Laden.  The film details her efforts against the backdrop of major events that have unfolded between the 9/11 attacks and bin Laden’s eventual demise.  Agency politics, political machinations, and hostile skirmishes play out onscreen building to a crescendo until the film’s climax.

This film is right up my ally in subject matter.  The Kingdom, The Recruit, and Body of Lies – I tend to find films that focus on the agency and counter terrorism incredibly interesting even when they are not particularly good.  Zero Dark Thirty is a better brand of film than the aforementioned three.  Brought to the big screen by Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal – the team behind The Hurt Locker – the film does a great job of humanizing events that could easily have been sensationalized.  Everything feels personal and real, and this is done by taking an immensely large story and telling it on the smallest of scale.

The success of this film is tied to Jessica Chastain’s performance and she does a good job of portraying a character that develops from a very green agent into someone with a singular focus and determination.  She strikes a good balance between being a person and an agent, and while it probably is not her best performance, it is my favorite from her resume.

Playing opposite Chastain is a host of accomplished actors who bring a lot to the film in limited screen time.  Jason Clarke as veteran agent Dan does a great job of setting up a contrast to Chastain’s Maya and provides a reference of one direction that her career could ultimately take.  Jennifer Ehle’s performance as a fellow agent helps to draw out the personal aspect of the film’s protagonist.  Mark Strong and Kyle Chandler deliver professional workman-like efforts as the physical embodiment of bureaucracy, while Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt turn in my favorite performances in the film as U.S. Navy Seals. 

The finished product is a very strong movie, perhaps a bit longer and more comprehensive that I had anticipated, but as you watch the scenes unfold, you become aware that you are watching accomplished filmmaking.  The lone drawback for me in this film is that it is so layered and the subject matter so incredibly real that there is little joy to be garnered from it.  Sure, there is great catharsis as the climax takes place  (it is palpable as you watch it with a crowd in the cinema), but the film leaves you with an understanding that it only offers a bit of closure to a story that never really ends.

I would recommend you see this movie on the big screen as it warrants this type of viewing.  It is in limited release now (Los Angeles, New York) and drops nationwide the second week of January.  While I don’t think it is the best picture of 2012 as many pundits have claimed, I do think it is a meaningful and expertly executed exercise in filmmaking.

Standout Performance: Chastain gets the nod here since it is her movie from start to finish, but Jason Clarke, Joel Edgerton, and Chris Pratt deserve some notice as well.

Read More

Review: The Thing (2011)

Let me start by answering the question that I know is weighing heavily on your mind: The Thing (2011) is not a remake of The Thing (1982).  It’s actually a prequel.  Good, now that we have cleared up that pressing question, I can tell you this: the best thing about The Thing (2011) is that it transitions seamlessly into the events that kick off John Carpenter’s classic.  When I ask myself why exactly I watched this movie, I can really point to two things: insomnia and the presence of Mary Elizabeth Winstead, whose work I adored in the thoroughly underrated Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

The issue with this movie is that for the most part, films of this archetype are a dime a dozen.  Alien being from outer space is sent to earth for some reason (or no reason at all) and poses a threat to humankind.  Bloodshed ensues.  One thing that aids the film in drumming up suspense is that it is set in Antarctica, which creates a sense of isolationism that dials up the intensity a couple of notches.  An interesting choice on the part of director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. was to feature the alien extensively rather than slow play the big reveal.  At the risk of sounding like a D.O.S. (disciple of Spielberg), I think the slow reveal would have been the better choice and probably would have helped to mask the overall mediocrity that pervades this film.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is credible as the lead because she is adept at putting forth a rugged exterior that translates well into the role of a survivor.  The issue here is that the survivor is only a good as the threat and ultimately it is the alien antagonist that fails Winstead’s performance.  As for the rest of the cast, Eric Christian Olsen is bland and uninspired and has already seen his best days in Not Another Teen Movie, Beerfest, and the The Comebacks (gasp).  Joel Edgerton continues to look like a masculine Conan O’Brien, but does little to add any value to this film.  The rest of the cast – that includes Ulrich Thomsen, Paul Braunstein, and Jorgen Langhelle – spend the bulk of the film hiding under beards and hoods waiting for a violent death.

This movie is not a total miss, but only if you like films of the horror/suspense genre.  There are a few nail biting moments and a couple of stomach churning scenes that for some might be worth the price of the rental.  If you like Carpenter’s original, you may want to stay away from this one for fear that it might cheapen its predecessor.  I can’t recommend this film, but my guess is that there is a place for it somewhere at the very bottom of your Netflix queue in case you see every other movie that might be of any kind of interest to you.

Standout Performance: Jorgen Langhelle as Lars has very few spoken lines - a classic case of less is more.

Read More

Review: Warrior

In case you haven’t been paying attention, Tom Hardy is putting together an impressive body of work.  He is most associated with his role as Eames in Inception and his upcoming appearance as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, but Hardy has also appeared in films such as Black Hawk Down, Layer Cake, and RocknRolla.  Knowing this, I was curious to see his performance in Warrior.  I have to admit, that I didn’t have huge expectations for the movie.  I knew there was a lot of positive buzz for the film during its theatrical release, but as someone who is not really a fan of MMA, I was not sure if the plot would appeal to me.

The film that director Gavin O’Connor has put together is gritty and raw from its casting, to its cinematography, to its execution.  Three men – a father and two sons – estranged from one another and broken in their respective lives are brought back together against the backdrop of an epic Mixed Martial Arts tournament.  The physical violence inflicted in the ring runs a distant second to the emotional torment and resentment that festers between these three men and the tournament serves as the catalyst to draw these issues to the forefront. 

Joel Edgerton (who looks like a more menacing Conan O’Brien) plays the classic underdog, Tom Hardy – the raging inferno, and Nick Nolte – the alcoholic father.  Each character could easily have become a bag of clichés, but the three actors do a great job of brining real depth to their respective roles.  Edgerton is believable as a journeyman fighter – turn teacher – turn fighter again and is incredibly easy to root for.  Tom Hardy brings an intense physicality to his role as Tommy Conlon – a man with a singular focus and a gift for inflicting pain.  And Nick Nolte owns the role of Paddy Conlon and masterfully conveys a sense of pain and loss in the throaty way he delivers his lines.  As for the rest of the cast, Jennifer Morrison, Frank Grillo, and Kevin Dunn are solid if not remarkable in balancing out the film. 

It’s not Shakespeare, but Warrior is very good for what it is – a film that has just the right mix of action and drama.  Not since Best of the Best, have I seen a film tests a man’s ability to remain dry eyed throughout.  It will probably never make anyone’s top ten list, but the movie will definitely entertain.  What more could anyone ask for?

Standout Performance:  Tom Hardy disappears into the role.  Look for him next in This Means War opposite Chris Pine.

Read More