Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: The Great Gatsby returns to cinema, with big-name actors and a stylish director. Although slightly long, this version is very enjoyable and well-done, at least for those like me who've read the book but don't remember it in detail. DiCaprio shines as Gatsby, and Maguire, Mulligan and Edgerton round out a strong cast. Add interesting visual and musical atmosphere, and this is an adaptation of a classic worth seeing.
Week two of summer movie season saw the release of a non-action/comedy blockbuster: another film adaptation of The Great Gatsby. I like having a change of pace like this (see also: 2012's Hope Springs), as a variety of genres helps to keep each of them fresher by having less direct competition. I read Gatsby, as 99% of the U.S. population does, in high school. While I didn't remember many of the plot details, I remembered having enjoyed the novel more than most other assigned readings. Although a mediocre score on Rotten Tomatoes made me hesitant to see it in the theater, a personal recommendation convinced me to give it a try. This version of The Great Gatsby was directed by Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge!) and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, and Carey Mulligan.
I did not go back and check to see how closely Gatsby follows the source material, but I'll provide the usual brief plot overview for those who haven't read it/have memory like mine. The story follows Nick Carraway (Maguire), a young man who moves to New York City in the 1920s to join the unprecedented craze going on there (part of the "Roaring '20s"). He lives in a modest home amidst immensely wealthy neighbors: next to him is the mysterious Jay Gatsby ("new" money), and across the bay are the Buchanons ("old" money), Tom and Daisy. Although Nick is low on the business totem, he is Daisy's cousin and he soon joins the Buchanon's wild party scene.
Nick also checks out a party next door, at mysterious Gatsby's. The reclusive man reveals himself to Nick, a man who can get him what all his wealth has been unable to: get Daisy's personal attention. Nick can only watch, however, as his wealthy companions are dragged down by the very world that built them up in the first place.
The Great Gatsby cast is well-chosen, and the leads live up to the expectations of their roles. Leonardo DiCaprio is a particularly good choice as Gatsby. He is able to portray a man who has become very comfortable with his wealth and power, and yet socially uncomfortable, particularly with those closest to him. He inspires sympathy, yet his selfish and ruthless sides show themselves both subtly and, at times, quite dramatically. Toby Maguire does a great job as Nick, too. Toby's youthful appearance helps to convey his character's naiveté, but his acting also does the trick. He plays a nice, quiet guy, one who is a pawn and then sorrowful witness to events. Both Buchanons are entertaining to watch, too. Daisy is more of a passive character than an active one, but when given the chance, Mulligan depicts the "object of obsession" as an imperfect, deceptively complex woman. Joel Edgerton as Tom is even better, portraying a stiff, aloof aristocrat early, then showing brutal cunning as his part grows larger toward the end.
The Great Gatsby is an entertaining drama, one that appeals visually, mentally and emotionally (apologies in advance for misinterpreting the themes of this literary classic). Although I'm unfamiliar with the director, apparently he has a flair for extravagant visuals, and this film reflects that tendency. Luhrmann goes all out with the party scenes, effectively conveying the carefree attitudes of the characters - although Nick, the eyes of the story, is hesitant at first. Luhrmann is somehow able to transition from this into one of the most effective - and hilarious - scenes, when Nick introduces Gatsby to Daisy. The positive tone carries on through much of the middle act, before the dream starts to come to a halt. The perfect ending (for Gatsby, at least) seems so close - and the cast makes the reversal seem simultaneously shocking and predictable. The fall from there is easy to foresee, but no less powerful as it happens. A final aspect is the music: although I've heard many complaints about it, I didn't mind the infusion of modern styles. They still have plenty of period music, too, and to me the hip-hop was a nice way to place this adaptation in time without affecting the story itself.
***
I really don't understand why this adaptation of The Great Gatsby is getting such middling reviews from the nation's critics. Although I should note, again, that I don't remember the novel itself in any detail, nor do I consider myself a literary critic in any way, shape or form. But taken by itself, as a film, I think it's very good; not perfect, but one enjoyable in several different ways. The cast, obviously such an important aspect of a character-driven film, is engaging, effective and entertaining. The film has great style, especially in the party scenes used to exemplify the period, but it doesn't get in the way of the characters and story moving forward. And the story is a good one to revisit in today's society - though the film wisely does not try any kind of overt messaging. My biggest gripe is with some of the pacing. At the beginning, the editing is a bit cluttered, and they try to squeeze in a little too much; at the end, it's the opposite, several scenes are dragged out a little too long. So I recommend you give this one a try: it's certainly a nice change of pace at the theater this time of year, but it would be just fine if you wait to see it at home, too.
Score: **** out of ***** (B+)
Long Story Short: Iron Man 3 is the first big blockbuster of the summer, with huge expectations as perhaps the second most popular superhero in film (to Batman) and coming off last year's megahit, The Avengers. A new director is brought in, a risky move but one that pays off with a fresh feel for even the familiar elements. Robert Downey, Jr. continues to deliver the goods, and his Tony Stark story is as compelling as ever. Unfortunately, the action and villains are the worst of the series. Still, it's an energetic, entertaining - and hilarious - summer event.
The summer movie season begins! While it doesn't always have the best films of the year, summer is always packed with big event films, and so I plan to be heading to the theater on a regular basis for the next few months. The first release of the summer is often among the biggest, and the same is true this year: after the spectacular success of The Avengers - not to mention the popularity of the other Iron Man films - Iron Man 3 hit theaters with huge expectations, and it wound up making $175 million last weekend. Fun fact I read recently: Robert Downey, Jr. has now starred in a film that made over $500 million (worldwide) for each of the past six years. As I enjoyed the other Iron Man films and The Avengers, this was a no-brainer for me to go see. Iron Man 3 was directed by Shane Black (Jon Favreau did the first two) and stars Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, and Don Cheadle.
Despite the spectacular triumph of Iron Man and his pals in fending off an alien invasion, Tony Stark (Downey, Jr.) is an anxious, jittery mess as the latest chapter begins. He has become obsessed with preparing for the possibility of another cataclysmic event, leading longtime partner Pepper Potts (Paltrow) to worry about him. Out in the world, a new terrorist threat has emerged under the persona of the Mandarin (Kingsley), who has been launching attacks at random around the world, bewildering efforts to stop or capture him. Stark pays the Mandarin little attention until one of his attacks affects Tony directly. Tony flies off the handle and it backfires, big time; through a series of events, he finds himself stranded in the American heartland.
Unable to rely on his high-tech gadgets or Iron Man suit, Tony has to use his natural wits and intuition to figure out how and why the Mandarin has been launching his attacks. In a nod to the first Iron Man, Tony must grapple with the consequences of his previous carefree lifestyle that alienated many he came into contact with. Oh, and of course, there are plenty of explosions along the way.
The cast of Iron Man 3 is a mixed bag. Most importantly, though, Robert Downey, Jr. reprises his role as Tony Stark/Iron Man. I, and apparently millions of others, find that Downey, Jr. is a perfect fit for the role: he does a fantastic job of realistically balancing his character's cynical, egotistical side with a streak of selflessness and bravery. He is bitingly hilarious, and in the next moment inspires great sympathy - not an easy trick to pull off. His partner, Pepper Potts, is played by Gwyneth Paltrow again. I think that Pepper's role - in the series overall, and in this film in particular - is creative and interesting, but the writing for Pepper is poor and Paltrow's acting is often too shrill when she's in an action or tense scene. Don Cheadle as Col. Rhodes/Iron Patriot has little to do in this film; honestly, his part could have pretty easily been cut out entirely, which is a shame because Cheadle is a tremendous actor.
Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin is great. I won't go into any more detail than that. Guy Pearce plays Killian, another villain. He's pretty good, but early on he's entirely overshadowed by the Mandarin, and later in the film his character becomes a little absurd. Other notable roles: James Badge Dale (The Pacific) seems to have a great time as a henchman, and is fun to watch... Rebecca Hall is kind of in no-man's land in virtually every respect possible... Jon Favreau (yes, the previous director) gets a bigger role as head of security; he hams it up but is a cheerful presence... Ty Simpkins is actually pretty good (huge praise for a child actor).
On a general level, Iron Man 3 has a similar mix of elements to the first two films of the franchise: lots of humor; more focus on the "alter ego" (Tony Stark) than most superhero films; but plenty of action, too. Still, new director Shane Black certainly puts a distinctive style into this film, so while many faces are familiar, the feel is considerably different. How does that work out for the various elements? It strengthens what was already perhaps the best superhero alter ego, Tony Stark. I loved how they actually showed the side effects of the massive Avengers battles on Tony. They bring in contacts from Stark's bad boy past. And yet the tone in many of these scenes is a little more cheerful than in prior installments. Finally, the humor is about on par (ie: excellent) with the others.
The style change has a different result on the superhero aspects of the film. Granted, I've never been particularly blown away by this element of the Iron Man films: too much of the action seems overly arbitrary. Of course, all superhero films are unrealistic, but Iron Man's abilities seem to vacillate to fit the needs of the plot a little too much for my tastes. This weakness gets amplified substantially in Iron Man 3, where at several points I found myself saying "if you just did ____ earlier in the film this would have been a much shorter movie!!!" The attack on Stark's home - I know you've seen parts of it in trailers/commercials - is one of the most ridiculous and, amazingly, boring actions scenes in recent memory. Kingsley's acting as the Mandarin is the high point for the enemy and its plot. It's just too much of a mess, and pay close attention otherwise key information will pass you by and be assumed as common knowledge from that point forward.
***
Well, for the fifth straight film, I'm stuck in the "B"s. I must say, though, that this was a much more interesting film to consider than the others, which were pretty straightforward "B"s. Iron Man 3 has much more variety, both good and bad. It all starts with expectations: when low, a movie can soar, but when high, a movie can get bogged down. Iron Man 3 certainly had high expectations (like last year's The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit). I think that it was a great decision to insert a new director who made the project his own, with its distinctive style. And the Tony Stark story was carried forward with great skill and some clever interweaving with prior films. Unfortunately, the weakness from prior films - the action and villains - was only worsened here. A superhero film simply cannot get an "A" rating if its superhero elements are poor. Still, it's a high-quality production with strengths in creativity, humor, and Robert Downey, Jr. Come to the theater with tempered expectations... but still, come see it in the theater.
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B)
Long Story Short: Oblivion is a pretty typical modern sci-fi action film, with the twists and turns that those movies have incorporated as standard practice. However, whereas many of those films shoot for the stars and go straight into the mud, Oblivion holds it together for an entertaining event: a veteran, skilled action star (Cruise); noteworthy visual effects; restrained, effective suspense; and a plot that holds together long enough to keep the suspension of disbelief.
Well, I didn't plan to have another extended delay between movie reviews, but that's what happened. I hope to see another film from April, 42 (the Jackie Robinson film), sometime, and I had hoped to catch this one sooner than I did. But as of this week, the "official" summer movie season has begun, so the reviews should start to come in a lot more regularly (starting with Iron Man 3). About this film: when I saw the trailer for it in the theater, I was quite intrigued: an interesting sci-fi premise, plus Tom Cruise whom I enjoy as an actor. Unless it got terrible reviews, I was determined to go see this - a warm up to the summer blockbusters. Oblivion was directed by Joseph Kosinski (only his second feature film!) and stars Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, and Olga Kurylenko.
Some sixty years in the future, technicians Jack (Cruise) and Victoria (Riseborough) are alone on a very different Earth from the one we know. This one has been devastated by the destruction of the moon, and the alien invasion that followed. What remains of humanity has fled to a space colony near Jupiter, and Jack and Victoria have the mission of overseeing the salvage of whatever resources can be collected from Earth. Jack goes down to the surface, spotted with half-buried artifacts from bridges to skyscrapers, each day to maintain the fleet of drones that look for remaining aliens, while Victoria keeps watch from their base high in the atmosphere.
With just two weeks until their mission is complete, Jack and Victoria begin to feel a strain in their relationship. Victoria is eager for more human company, but Jack feels a growing pull toward his home planet and isn't so sure he wants to leave. Meanwhile, mysterious beings watch silently from the shadows...
Obviously, there isn't a huge cast in this sci-fi dystopia, but there are some interesting characters. Tom Cruise as Jack is the lead, as Cruise typically is. There really isn't much about Jack that distinguishes him from a generic male lead: he is physically and mentally very capable, and somewhat rebellious. But Cruise has gotten so good at this type of role that he makes Jack likable and fun to watch, even if unoriginal. Riseborough as Victoria actually gets a more interesting, though far smaller, part. She loves Jack to the point of obsession, and is fiercely protective of the relationship. You can tell she winces internally each time Jack resists their orders, fearing that they will be separated. Neither Olga Kurylenko's acting nor her character, Julia, add much to the film. I won't give any details about her since it would spoil things, but even in a raft of similar small parts for women in action films, this is a poor one. I was hoping that Morgan Freeman would have a larger role than he did, but even still, it's good to see him. I do hope he gets more to do in the next of his film's that I see.
Like last year's Looper, the makers of Oblivion seemingly took pains to really remake Earth for the purposes of the film. The most obvious effect is in the sweeping landscapes through which Jack flies his nifty hovercraft. Nature has reclaimed almost all of the land; Jack lands in the stadium where the last Super Bowl was played, and it looks like the Colosseum. there's also the Empire State Building, Washington Monument, bridges, and so on. The massive emptiness also helps to heighten the suspense, showing how exposed and alone Jack is as he does his work. The action in the first half or so is used cautiously and effectively, although in the second half it turns more to sci-fi cliche. One thing I liked about a lot of last year's films was that, although they were not intended as comedies, many had great humor; Oblivion really doesn't have much at all - but at least it doesn't make horrible or cheesy attempts at it, either.
***
Oblivion makes the fourth "good but not great" film I've seen in a row in 2013 (although the year began with the excellent Zero Dark Thirty). I'm perfectly happy that I went to the theater to see it as it's an entertaining film and one meant to be seen on a big screen. Tom Cruise is an eminently watchable actor, in my opinion, even in a role without distinction. The film has great visuals, as well as some nice suspense and an interesting plot. The writers were smart: they knew the audience would be able to see twist(s) of some kind coming even if they tried to hide it, so they downplayed the importance of keeping them secret and unveiled them in a mostly reasonable fashion. Oblivion is also nicely paced. On the down side, the writer and director seemed to grab for more sci-fi cliches for safety in the second half as events speed up and become larger in scope. What is an entirely personal story in the first half becomes a little confused as to its priorities in the second half, dragging even the best parts of the story down a little bit. Still, Oblivion is a very solid sci-fi action flick, where many in the genre start with good intentions and completely fall apart. You'll be able to tell by watching the trailers if you would like this, so if they interest you, I recommend you give it a try.
