As I've had about a week to reflect on my viewing of "The Great Gatsby", I have concluded that this is the least Luhrmannish of any Baz Luhrmann film to date. The trailers were very Luhrmann, and I was pretty psyched to get the full experience. Instead I got a really good movie which was more subtle than I had expected. The atmosphere of the Roaring 20s is a perfect fit for Luhrmann's visual style, and I think that he did an excellent job, but this movie is about something, and the 20s is simply a backdrop. Let me clarify that last statement; I suggest that the story and the characters represented in this film are timeless. Luhrmann stays true to the novel and retains the period, but he could have easily updated the setting and been just as successful (as in his "Romeo and Juliet"). What he does in this film is allow the characters to take center stage, their actions and motivations are what drives the film. Without the standard clichés, we come to see Carey Mulligan's character Daisy for the truly selfish woman that she always has been. Tobey Maguire is perfectly cast as Nick, who is Gatsby's best friend and our guide through the story. I say perfectly cast, because it was so easy to accept Maguire's performance as an unassuming, reliable narrator. Leonardo DiCaprio, in the title role gets an opportunity to once again show his amazing range as an actor. While I was reminded somewhat of his portrayal of Howard Hughes in "The Aviator", it was only briefly. Overall he hit all the right notes, which involves a tragic detachment from reality, an inspirational attitude of determination, and one of the best fits of rage I've ever seen captured on film (which really is the best place for it).
It was especially enjoyable to see a movie with Jess which was based on a book that she really likes. Now I feel like I've read the book too.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Iron Man 3
There's not much to say about "Iron Man 3", but I'll say it anyways:
Most of the reason I liked "Iron Man 3" is directly related to how much I disliked "Iron Man 2". To understand what I'm referring to, you would have to go back and read my review of that movie. Personally I prefer not to revisit movies that disappoint me so badly, so the fact that "Iron Man 3" didn't disappoint me is probably the best thing I could say about it. The strength of this movie is that it was reminiscent of what made the first installment fun. In the first "Iron Man" we see Tony Stark tinkering with the suit, and learning how to fly. Here again we get a glimpse into Stark's private life, the interesting part of his personality which is an inventor and basically just an oversized kid. As he assembles a suit which will home-in on himself and assemble piece by piece, we are impressed by the visual spectacle, but more importantly by his creativity. I fell asleep during the final act of the original "Iron Man" (or more accurately, it put me to sleep), so I knew what I was in for here again. The battle sequences contain approximately 1/16th originality, and 15/16ths incomprehensible computer collisions. I can't even say robots and suits and fiery supersoldiers fighting, because the mess is so discombobulated during the final fight sequence that any illusion created prior is completely shattered, and I became conscious only that this took a bunch of guys with nice computers a really long time to generate. I'm not sure why these movies treat the audience like meth addicts, who not only need their fix, but need more and more each time. Nevermind, I know the answer to that.
Anyways, "Iron Man 3" should hold you over until "Avengers 2" comes out, so just watch it over and over again until then and you should be alright.
Most of the reason I liked "Iron Man 3" is directly related to how much I disliked "Iron Man 2". To understand what I'm referring to, you would have to go back and read my review of that movie. Personally I prefer not to revisit movies that disappoint me so badly, so the fact that "Iron Man 3" didn't disappoint me is probably the best thing I could say about it. The strength of this movie is that it was reminiscent of what made the first installment fun. In the first "Iron Man" we see Tony Stark tinkering with the suit, and learning how to fly. Here again we get a glimpse into Stark's private life, the interesting part of his personality which is an inventor and basically just an oversized kid. As he assembles a suit which will home-in on himself and assemble piece by piece, we are impressed by the visual spectacle, but more importantly by his creativity. I fell asleep during the final act of the original "Iron Man" (or more accurately, it put me to sleep), so I knew what I was in for here again. The battle sequences contain approximately 1/16th originality, and 15/16ths incomprehensible computer collisions. I can't even say robots and suits and fiery supersoldiers fighting, because the mess is so discombobulated during the final fight sequence that any illusion created prior is completely shattered, and I became conscious only that this took a bunch of guys with nice computers a really long time to generate. I'm not sure why these movies treat the audience like meth addicts, who not only need their fix, but need more and more each time. Nevermind, I know the answer to that.
Anyways, "Iron Man 3" should hold you over until "Avengers 2" comes out, so just watch it over and over again until then and you should be alright.
The Company You Keep & Pain and Gain
Yes, I get a kick out of seeing two movies that are so completely different, and then trying to write about each concisely and thoughtfully. I must begin by noting that my friend Rob chose the first movie, while I pushed for the second; you may not even need to read the following reviews to know which one of us least affected by Hollywood's flashy marketing...
Robert Redford surprised me with some of the conclusions his characters make in "The Company You Keep". This is a subtle thriller, which is peopled entirely by hippies, liberals, and other like-minded extremists (with the exception of one cop, who is merely a personification of how liberals view conservatives). It's actually quite funny to see a group of whackos taking themselves so seriously, only it's tragic because the believe that they are completely normal. Of course, isn't this how we all live? The reason I was surprised, is that Redford allows his main character to make some really selfless and honorable decisions towards the end of this film; despite advice and expectations to the contrary. In a culture where "principles" outweigh any sense of morality, it is quite amazing to see the hero actually do the right thing.
Redford both stars in this film and directed it. Redford knows how to tell a good story, and I thought the pacing (which was quite slow) was fitting. It's too bad that Redford made a number of really poor casting choices, one of which was himself. Unfortunately bad acting and unconvincing characters seriously degrade an otherwise good film.
"The Company You Keep" refers to relationships which were established 50 years ago, when Redford's character was an anti-war activist. He is forced to face consequences of past actions when a newspaper reporter begins to uncover pieces of the puzzle. Shia LaBeouf plays the reporter, and while I don't necessarily have any complaints about his performance, it was a unneeded narrative device. In the end, all that we are really interested in, is will Redford's character do the right thing, or will he do what "he believes in"? Perhaps, after 50 years, it's now the same thing.
Where should I begin with "Pain and Gain"? Why did I want to see this movie in the first place? These are the kinds of questions which become difficult and elusive once I've actually seen the movie. Now yes, I did know that it was directed by Michael Bay before I went in; but somehow I was thinking it would be the Michael Bay of "The Rock", "The Island", and even "Bad Boys"... I honestly wasn't thinking about the Michal Bay of "Transformers 2" and "Transformers 3". Bay is great at what he does, which is generating energy, an energy that permeates the movie theater. He's the jet fuel of directors, he burns the images into your brain with immense intensity; unfortunately once the movie is over there's nothing left. Correction; once the movie is over you realize that there was nothing there in the first place. Bay blatantly disregards the first law of thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing... Here's a movie about three dumb bodybuilders who decide to kidnap rich people and steal all their possessions. If this had been an original screenplay by a creative writer I'm convinced that the premise has possibilities. Too bad that this is based on a true story and the events actually occurred more or less as they are portrayed. I am reminded of the far superior film, "Fargo" that claims at the beginning to be a true story, which is the part of its genius. The outrageousness of "Fargo" is contrasted with a genuine understanding of the human condition. Bay simply makes an episode of "World's Stupidest Criminals", a rated-R, over-the-top, throbbing-with-steroids, so-unbelievable-it-has-to-be-true dark comedy that's barely funny.
Rob, you picked a better movie this time. So when are we going to go see "The Hangover 3"?
Robert Redford surprised me with some of the conclusions his characters make in "The Company You Keep". This is a subtle thriller, which is peopled entirely by hippies, liberals, and other like-minded extremists (with the exception of one cop, who is merely a personification of how liberals view conservatives). It's actually quite funny to see a group of whackos taking themselves so seriously, only it's tragic because the believe that they are completely normal. Of course, isn't this how we all live? The reason I was surprised, is that Redford allows his main character to make some really selfless and honorable decisions towards the end of this film; despite advice and expectations to the contrary. In a culture where "principles" outweigh any sense of morality, it is quite amazing to see the hero actually do the right thing.
Redford both stars in this film and directed it. Redford knows how to tell a good story, and I thought the pacing (which was quite slow) was fitting. It's too bad that Redford made a number of really poor casting choices, one of which was himself. Unfortunately bad acting and unconvincing characters seriously degrade an otherwise good film.
"The Company You Keep" refers to relationships which were established 50 years ago, when Redford's character was an anti-war activist. He is forced to face consequences of past actions when a newspaper reporter begins to uncover pieces of the puzzle. Shia LaBeouf plays the reporter, and while I don't necessarily have any complaints about his performance, it was a unneeded narrative device. In the end, all that we are really interested in, is will Redford's character do the right thing, or will he do what "he believes in"? Perhaps, after 50 years, it's now the same thing.
Where should I begin with "Pain and Gain"? Why did I want to see this movie in the first place? These are the kinds of questions which become difficult and elusive once I've actually seen the movie. Now yes, I did know that it was directed by Michael Bay before I went in; but somehow I was thinking it would be the Michael Bay of "The Rock", "The Island", and even "Bad Boys"... I honestly wasn't thinking about the Michal Bay of "Transformers 2" and "Transformers 3". Bay is great at what he does, which is generating energy, an energy that permeates the movie theater. He's the jet fuel of directors, he burns the images into your brain with immense intensity; unfortunately once the movie is over there's nothing left. Correction; once the movie is over you realize that there was nothing there in the first place. Bay blatantly disregards the first law of thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing... Here's a movie about three dumb bodybuilders who decide to kidnap rich people and steal all their possessions. If this had been an original screenplay by a creative writer I'm convinced that the premise has possibilities. Too bad that this is based on a true story and the events actually occurred more or less as they are portrayed. I am reminded of the far superior film, "Fargo" that claims at the beginning to be a true story, which is the part of its genius. The outrageousness of "Fargo" is contrasted with a genuine understanding of the human condition. Bay simply makes an episode of "World's Stupidest Criminals", a rated-R, over-the-top, throbbing-with-steroids, so-unbelievable-it-has-to-be-true dark comedy that's barely funny.
Rob, you picked a better movie this time. So when are we going to go see "The Hangover 3"?
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Jurassic Park and Oblivion
This will be an unfair review, in that it's probably impossible for you to act upon the information contained within. This review is only really helpful for those who had good enough sense to see "Jurassic Park" and "Oblivion" without first consulting me. The reason for this, is that both of these films were recently shown in the IMAX format, but have most likely been bumped in your area by a little movie called "Iron Man 3" (by the way, I'm going to pretend that "The Avengers" was "Iron Man 2").
20 years ago, as school was closing for Summer, I went to see "Jurassic Park" with my dad and brother(s). It was a ground-breaking visual achievement then, and not only does it hold-up well today, it actually puts to shame so many current movies. The line which stands out for me, and is applicable here is, " your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should" (Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm). Alright so maybe it's not directly applicable to what I'm about to say, but it's a decent segue... So many movies, which depend on special effects, seem to bite-off more than they can chew. Instead of showing restraint and utilizing effective effects, all too often we are subjected to shoddy workmanship, which jolts us out of the movie viewing experience. It is my position that Spielberg understood this temptation, and teases the viewer in an early scene (with the Brachiosaurus eating from the tree). At this early stage he allows us one moment where we can think "that's not real, who'd be afraid of that?". From that point on the dinosaurs are so convincing; whether models, puppets, or digital, that we believed every moment of it. My brother David texted that it was awesome in the theater, so I went to see it again.
He was right.
"Oblivion" is ground-breaking in a more subtle way that "Jurassic Park". Here the effects, stunts, and performances are seamless; I challenge you to detect where the real ends and the simulated begins. Sure the story seems like a mish-mash of all the best science fiction films of the last 30+ years, but at least they "borrowed" from the best. Some "Matrix", a little "Blade Runner", a nod to "Wall-e", a dash of "Planet of the Apes", and even some "Fight Club" just to spice things up. Please allow me to stray off on a tangent for just a moment: If Heaven doesn't include the good parts of Earth; Mt Princeton, Point Reyes, the hills of Tennessee, etc. then I think that it would be impossible not to miss them. As Tom Cruise's character in "Oblivion" is faced with the inevitability that he must leave Earth, for a more civilized place, he is sad. This film could be easily be construed as an argument against war, or an environmental sermon, or perhaps an admonishment directed towards those who put blind faith in those with authority. Ultimately, it is a surprisingly beautiful film, which have the potential to spark deep thought, without requiring it to enjoy the ride.
20 years ago, as school was closing for Summer, I went to see "Jurassic Park" with my dad and brother(s). It was a ground-breaking visual achievement then, and not only does it hold-up well today, it actually puts to shame so many current movies. The line which stands out for me, and is applicable here is, " your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should" (Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm). Alright so maybe it's not directly applicable to what I'm about to say, but it's a decent segue... So many movies, which depend on special effects, seem to bite-off more than they can chew. Instead of showing restraint and utilizing effective effects, all too often we are subjected to shoddy workmanship, which jolts us out of the movie viewing experience. It is my position that Spielberg understood this temptation, and teases the viewer in an early scene (with the Brachiosaurus eating from the tree). At this early stage he allows us one moment where we can think "that's not real, who'd be afraid of that?". From that point on the dinosaurs are so convincing; whether models, puppets, or digital, that we believed every moment of it. My brother David texted that it was awesome in the theater, so I went to see it again.
He was right.
"Oblivion" is ground-breaking in a more subtle way that "Jurassic Park". Here the effects, stunts, and performances are seamless; I challenge you to detect where the real ends and the simulated begins. Sure the story seems like a mish-mash of all the best science fiction films of the last 30+ years, but at least they "borrowed" from the best. Some "Matrix", a little "Blade Runner", a nod to "Wall-e", a dash of "Planet of the Apes", and even some "Fight Club" just to spice things up. Please allow me to stray off on a tangent for just a moment: If Heaven doesn't include the good parts of Earth; Mt Princeton, Point Reyes, the hills of Tennessee, etc. then I think that it would be impossible not to miss them. As Tom Cruise's character in "Oblivion" is faced with the inevitability that he must leave Earth, for a more civilized place, he is sad. This film could be easily be construed as an argument against war, or an environmental sermon, or perhaps an admonishment directed towards those who put blind faith in those with authority. Ultimately, it is a surprisingly beautiful film, which have the potential to spark deep thought, without requiring it to enjoy the ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)