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: White House Down

Let’s get the comparison out of the way.  Olympus Has Fallen is a better movie than White House Down.  In what has to represent career lows for both Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum, the duo have been outdone in the presidential catastrophe genre by the non-immortal Gerard Butler.  But in the interest of keeping things real, let me say that comparing these two movies is the equivalent of comparing Burger King and McDonald’s; both are almost equally terrible and in the long run will probably kill you.  It’s just that the stench from White House Down is a bit more pungent.

The plot of this latest movie from director Roland Emmerich finds former Marine Cale (played by Channing Tatum) looking to earn a job with the Secret Service and win the respect of his daughter (Joey King) while on a trip to the White House.  When a band of domestic terrorists unleash an assault on the White House in an effort to take the President and wreak political havoc, Cale is forced to take action in order to save both the Commander-in-Chief and his own daughter.

Clearly Emmerich and writer James Vanderbilt (The Amazing Spider-Man) are completely eschewing realism for this movie, but that should neither come as any surprise nor is it the kiss of death.  The problem here is that White House Down is the continuation of a downward spiral for Emmerich, who once upon a time knew how to deliver actions movies that were short on intelligence and long on fun.  More recently his films (2012, 10,000 BC) have shown his transformation into a caricature of himself as a director with action sequences that seem poorly planned and the kind of schlocky sentimentality that could send someone into sugar shock. 

Making matters worse are Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx who act as gasoline to the flame that is Emmerich’s direction.  In my opinion Tatum is Mark Wahlberg redux – an actor who is funny (in a big goon kind of way a la 21 Jump Street), but is hard to take serious in any other kind of role.  He is only passably believable as a former Marine turned Cop, but has no credibility as a divorced father.  Sure, writer James Vanderbilt is feeding him terrible lines, but it feels like Tatum is making no attempt to exude any kind of charisma while delivering them.  Normally, I would call this a paycheck film for an actor, but with Tatum it’s really hard to distinguish because acting is not really his strong suit.

Then there is Jamie Foxx, who I have said repeatedly is a terrible actor.  In fact, he may be the worst actor ever to win an Academy Award…seriously.  And it seems in White House Down, he sets out to prove this sentiment true.  If ever there was a less believable performance in cinematic history than this one, I challenge one and all to find it.  Yes, he fumbles lines.  Yes, he fails at maintaining any kind of consistency in his character.  Yes, he has zero chemistry with his muscle-bound co-start.  And yes, he is actually a worse dramatic actor than Channing Tatum.

So with the two names sitting atop the marquee performing so poorly, it’s no wonder the movie wreaks so badly.  Even with fair performances from acting veterans Richard Jenkins (Speaker of the House), James Woods (head of the president’s Secret Service detail), and Jason Clarke (rogue Delta soldier), and a better-than-usual turn for Maggie Gyllenhaal, whom I will forever refer to as the weak link in the Dark Knight, nothing makes this viewing experience any better.  Not even a slightly better than average child performance from Joey King (Cale’s daughter) and good comedic relief from Nicolas Wright (as a White House tour guide)

There’s no nice way to put this.  White House Down stinks.  At best it’s a Sunday night FX movie at the end of a long weekend when you can’t really concentrate and you need something to put you down for the night.  Under any other circumstance, you will without a doubt find yourself struggling with the same regret I am plagued with as I type this review.  If it is action you seek, go with Independence Day as it will let you experience some of Emmerich’s better work from days long since passed, and it will also give you that White House demolition visual.  A refresh of that movie could be useful as Independence Day parts 2 and 3 are rumored to be in the works; also to be directed by Emmerich.  On second, you may want to take a pass on those movies as well. 

Standout Performance:  Richard Jenkins.  He’s solid in this movie and that’s saying a lot.

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: Lawless

Prohibition era stories have been done quite a bit by Hollywood.  Gangsters in suits with semi-automatics in hand, bullets and blood lining the streets of New York and Chicago, and square-jawed lawmen chasing down thugs from speak-easies to back alleys.  There has almost been a romantic quality that has underlined these movies, which most often are marked with severe brutality.  Filmmakers and moviegoers alike have held an affinity for these stories and have watched with different rooting interests as the system and its laws crash down on the men peddling their bootleg moonshine.  

Lawless is the latest entry into this sub genre although it takes the conventions of this kind of narrative and flips it on its head.  Like Jessica Chastain’s Maggie Beauford, the story escapes the mean streets of the inner city for the rural rolling hills of Virginia to a town run by the immortal Bondurant brothers.  When the state sends crooked lawmen to town to take control of the bootlegging, a back woods brouhaha begins to brew.

What makes this unique from its brethren is the matter of role reversal.  The system and its laws – mechanisms of the big city and its judicial system – have been handed to the Bondurant brothers by way of their legendary hold over this small town in Virginia.  Thus, the lawbreakers are cast as the lawmakers in this rural community and their reputations give them the authority to wield such power.  So when Guy Pearce’s Rakes comes to town with his special detective’s badge and threatens to disrupt the status quo, it is up to the Bondurants to enforce nature rules. 

Tom Hardy plays Forrest Bondurant – the leader of the pack and the muscle of the group.  While Shia LaBeouf's Jack Bondurant is the narrator of the film and is framed as the lead, Hardy’s character is the most pivotal to the film.  And as usual, he delivers.  Hardy is quickly establishing himself as a tremendous actor who makes good choices and his stunning record remains intact with this film.  He once again brings a strong physical presence to the role while hinting at a deeper sentiment and drives his brute force.

And as for the rest of his cast members, it is a bit of a mixed bag.  Jason Clarke as Howard Bondurant does a nice job playing the bridge between the three brothers.  On the one hand he brings a physical edge to the role while on the other he exudes the foolhardy demeanor one would expect from a middling sibling underling.  Joining him in the plus column is Guy Pearce, whose Charlie Rakes is an exemplary villain, dispensing acts of crooked punishment without an ounce of remorse.  Pearce does a good job of fashioning a creepy persona that is both vile and threatening.  Rounding out the superlatives are Dane DeHaan as Cricket Pate and Mia Wasikowska as Bertha Minnix.  The two do a fine job of portraying good-natured sympathetic characters that find themselves swimming in a pool with sharks.  In a movie with varying shades of gray, their performances establish the light end of the scale between good and bad.

As for Jessica Chastain and Gary Oldman, two of the major talents featured in this film, I was left some what unimpressed.  Chastain is a very good actress who has done very good work (as recognized by numerous awards nominations), but I found her performance to be vanilla and run of the mill.  As the most prominent woman in a male dominated cast, there was an opportunity for her to deliver a standout performance and to steal the show.  Unfortunately, nothing about her stood out and consequently she is relegated to “also-ran” status in this film.  As for Oldman, his presence is window dressing in the same manner as I described Liam Neeson’s in Battleship. As he does nothing whatsoever to legitimately advance the plot, I would guess that any number of actors could have easily filled his shoes and probably have done so with a bit more verve.

And last and most certainly least is Shia LaBeouf.  The man simply is not a third of the actor he thinks he is and the harder he tries to distance himself from the Transformers movies that made him so wealthy, the more his limitations as an actor get exposed.  He’s a one trick pony in the same way Taylor Kitsch is, but was just more fortunate to be attached to a Hasbro property that actually translates to a movie.  LaBeouf has one gear and that is of a petulant beta male with a dour disposition.  Even when cast in this role, his ability to channel this onscreen is questionable at best.  In a movie that features decent story telling and some good acting, he is the lone black mark.

LaBeouf however does not completely derail this movie.  There is enough here at work to keep you entertained.  I won't call this a must see movie, bu I would have no problem recommending it for the holiday weekend.  The character acting is just strong enough to engage viewers and get them to emotionally invest and the action sequences are robust enough to pick up the pace of the film when required.  It won’t get your adrenaline pumping the way Premium Rush did last weekend, but it will provide you an interesting story.

Standout Performance: Tom Hardy is quickly becoming one of most solid performers in Hollywood by combining legitimate character acting with a strong physical presence.  

Read More