The Great Gatsby – 3 Stars

The famous billboard from the cover of the first edition of the novel. It looks a lot less like Jambi the Genie in the film.

 

For the fourth time, filmmakers have took it upon themselves to adapt the great American novel of the 1930s- F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. For those unfamiliar with Fitzgerald’s great work (like myself), the film centers around a struggling writer Nick Carroway (Maguire) who has given up on his artistic dream in favor of a burgeoning career on Wall Street. His home is across the bay from his well-to-do debutante cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan, in a dubiously-cast role). Carroway found a cheap little cottage deep in the woods in a neighborhood curiously called West Egg. The only other home nearby is nothing short of a palace, the home of the enigmatic Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio, pitch perfect, as expected). Gatsby finds a friend in Carroway and enlists his help in winning back his long-lost love, Nick’s cousin Daisy. Finding himself in a wonderful position in which New York’s most famous man needs something from him, he of course accepts, expecting to please both Gatsby and his cousin. The rest of the story is a portrait of the era’s decadence and debauchery- enormous parties held in Gatsby’s mansion, orgies, burlesque houses, and all the cheap liquor one would need to fuel such madness. Nick serves as a bystander, on the outside looking in (“within and without” as he puts it), and he is often shocked and repulsed by the things he witnesses at the hands of his friends and family. All of this weighs down on him, and at the opening of the film, we find Carroway opening up to a psychiatrist in a sanitarium, where he is encouraged to write his story, hence, The Great Gatsby.

The Jazz Age is, of course, infamous for all of the debauchery Nick witnessed. The glitz and glamour, the pomp and circumstance – it’s all there. If you’ve watched his polarizing adaptation of Romeo and Juliet or his lauded Moulin Roueg!, then you’re surely aware that Baz Luhrmann would never miss an opportunity to bombard his viewers with as many swiftly-zoomed tracking shots and lavish visual designs (which, by the way, are worth the price of admission alone) as a film about the Jazz Age would imply. The end result is a film that is an ambitious MTV-era visual treat that remains just restrained enough to keep it on this side of campy. In this dazzling spectacle, as is often the case, Luhrmann loses many chances to tug the heartstrings a touch harder. It always feels marginally “melodramatic”- clearly intended- but never manages to make that full leap to “dramatic.” A major obstacle in that leap is Jay-Z’s credit as executive producer. His presence can be felt at every emotional (happy, sad, or otherwise) moment of the film, and it is almost always unwelcome. The hip-hop beats during the dance sequences are apparently supposed to draw the connection from 1920s New York to today’s youth, but we don’t need butchered covers of Amy Winehouse or jazz standards to do it for us. Lana Del Rey’s love theme, “Young and Beautiful,” occurs several times during the film and is really the only part of the modern soundtrack that isn’t jarring or disaffecting. That being said- the score of the film is spot on. As is the first moment the audience is treated to Leonardo Dicaprio’s signature smile set to a backdrop of fireworks and Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue.” The misplaced and misguided soundtrack doesn’t take away many of the movie’s strengths- the performances of the lead actors (but especially DiCaprio), the beautiful visual design, the adept adaptation of the novel, and its great pacing (clocking in at just under two-and-a-half hours, but it never feels like it drags).

Many viewers may identify most with Nick- horrified by the artificiality, hypocrisy, and devastatingly-low morality of his peers and his generation. Many may identify with Daisy- the victim torn between the love of the brute and the dashing rich gentleman. And many may find themselves identifying with Gatsby- a man who would stop at nothing to re-capture the heart of his love, at any cost. And still, many viewers may find themselves in adrift in a visual spectacle, being tugged every which way by characters who, by and large, have no redeeming qualities. The film leaves all of these doors open but does little to close any of them. But, when all of these doors look so damn good, who cares?

Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Written by Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce
Based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language
152 min.

The Daniel and Dubya Movie Review Program, Episode 1

Oblivion – 2 1/2 Stars

Tom Cruise, still the best action hero of all, faces down a surveillance drone.

If you’ve seen the trailer for this film, you may have had the same initial impression as me: This looks just like WALL-E. Turns out, I was wrong because Tom Cruise isn’t cleaning up any garbage, he isn’t alone, and WALL-E never said the “f”-word. Tom Cruise plays Jack Harper, a maintenance man whose job is to keep drones working in a post-apocalyptic nightmare version of Earth. After a large-scale nuclear war, Earth was essentially destroyed through contamination and combat. Jack and his work partner/implied-wife Victoria are stationed high above the surface and are charged with the dubious pleasure of maintaining surveillance drones. Jack has no memories, but he has curiosity- about books, about plants, about the world that came before him, and about the  dreams he has every night of a woman he’s never met. Of course, he finds the answer to all of his questions before the film has wrapped up. This is sped up by the discovery of a mystery woman about halfway through who stirs something inside Jack’s head. Without giving too much of the plot away, she serves as a major catalyst for the film’s main action.

For the first half, it’s a slow-burner about two people stuck doing a job and trying to make the best of it. For the second half, it’s more of a traditional sci-fi thriller with one or two pretty intense action scenes and a lot of existential crisis-management. The film itself suffers a bit of an existential crisis at the crossroads of the two halves, but, somewhat messily, it manages to come out on top. The short-and-sweet version of it is this: it’s a beautifully-executed film with some great ideas and images that regrettably never seem to add up or live up to its ambitions.

The head songwriter from the electro-dreampop band M83 has done a tremendous job of translating the sweeping almost cinematic sound of his band’s music onto the big screen and in turn creating a tremendous backbone to the film’s overarching mood. The large-scale camera work brings this barren world to life with great contrast and clarity, and the set design evokes moods reminiscent of the golden-age of sci-fi film. Its aesthetic is one of the finer points of the film and the only one that feels truly fleshed out.

Though a vast and impressive undertaking, the world-building that the creative team has done falls short (haha) when placed on the shoulders of Tom Cruise, who breathes a completely unaffecting  life into his character. He’s not the only one- of the few actual human characters in the movie, Morgan Freeman’s brief role is the most enriched. Go figure. The other four (maybe five) actual characters seem to walk around blindly in a dizzying circle of worn cliches and science-fiction tropes.

Oblivion is still a more cerebral movie than its trailers may suggest, more concerned with creating an attitude and an atmosphere than raising the pulse above its natural rest. The final act of the film, while borrowing very heavily from Portal and 2001: A Space Odyssey, picks up a bit and brings the film to a satisfying if not very predictable close. The first two acts meander a bit through landscape shots of recognizable landmarks resting in ruins and some quite impressive visual effects, but they always manage to progress just when you think they’ve sputtered long enough. It’s not a confusing movie, but it would like to be. It’s not even exactly a disappointing movie because it seemed to deliver basically what I expected. It has an almost equal number of merits and problems, but it was certainly grand to behold in a theater.

Directed by Joseph Kosinski
Written by Joseph Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek, and Michael Arndt
Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence, brief strong language, and some sensuality/nudity
124 min.

Predictions for the 2013 Oscars – Major Categories

I write this a fair bit prematurely, as I have still not seen three of the films nominated in major categories that I’d like to get under my belt. In the interest in time and my already-formed opinions of the films I have seen, I present my choices and predictions for the Oscars in the major categories and a few personal selections for the others.

Scroll down the the bold, gawdy headings to skip my musings and pontificating.

This year represents a real high-point in American mainstream cinema. Never before (at least, since I’ve started paying attention to the awards) has the race been so jam-packed with films that nearly everyone has seen or heard of. Not one of the films nominated in a major category stands out as a poor decision, as they all represent a refreshing marriage of achievement, aptitude, craft, and crowd appeal. It’s one of the strongest showings in a long time, but that’s not to suggest perfection. Using superlative descriptive adjectives to describe a motion picture leaves grey areas, but on terms of “good,” “very good,” ”great,” and “masterpiece,” there’s much to be desired. I would not say that the crop this year represents any true masterpieces and few great films. In years past (not really last year or the year before, though), at least one film stands out way above the rest as a gem, a true masterpiece, that, even if not recognized as such, represents the highest achievement in cinema craft. The Tree of Life is one recent one that particularly stands out, and There Will Be Blood is another. In many years, these films will be remembered and studied as enigmas and true master works of artists at the top of their craft. I believe The Master, who only received nominations in acting, was one such film,  but it is to be left out of the discussion henceforth (except where necessary). Nevertheless, the represented films are terrific, enjoyable, and real anomalies in the mainstream world. If you catch any of these films, you’ve done yourself a great service.

Now, here are my choices and my predictions for the major categories.

Best Supporting Actor

• Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master
• Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln
• Robert DeNiro, Silver Linings Playbook
• Alan Arkin, Argo
• Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained

This is my favorite race of the year. It’s such a treat to see Robert DeNiro enjoy himself in such a comedic but emotionally-gripping role. The Academy could very well reward him for it, too. My choice is Phillip Seymour Hoffman, but I am biased, as he is my favorite actor. He brought such a startling reality to the cult leader he played, and I felt it to be the best performance of the bunch. Christoph Waltz is an up-and-coming star in Hollywood who plays a fairly similar character to his Inglourious Basterds ”Jew Hunter,” for which he also won an Oscar. It was a truly great performance too. His rising star may well bring him a second Oscar, and I think he’s going to get lucky.

I’d choose: Phillip Seymour Hoffman
They’ll choose: Christoph Waltz

Best Supporting Actress

• Sally Field, Lincoln
• Jackie Weaver, Silver Linings Playbook
• Helen Hunt, The Sessions
• Amy Adams, The Master
• Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

Anne Hathaway gave a mesmerizing and career-defining performance as a broken woman in Les Mis, and however brief her involvement, it strikes a chord with anyone who sees it. She should win this hands down, despite the terrific performances of the other nominated women.

I’d choose: Anne Hathaway
They’ll choose: Anne Hathaway

Best Original Screenplay

• Amour
• Django Unchained
• Flight
• Moonrise Kingdom
• Zero Dark Thirty

I feel alone in my judgment of Zero Dark Thirty as a film that never seems to be much more than several dramatizations shot for 60 Minutes. Many feel this to be the likely winner, but I feel Quentin Tarantino to be much more deserving and much more likely. Django was a brave screenplay that always bordered are severely offensive, but he pulls it off as a historical reenactment and the vengeance tale he has come to be so gifted at telling. He has won several awards already for his marvelous writing, and he deserves the big one too.

I’d choose: Django Unchained
They’ll choose: Django Unchained

Best Adapted Screenplay

• Argo
• Beasts of the Southern Wild
• Life of Pi
• Lincoln
• Silver Linings Playbook

This one is a little trickier, as all of these are outstanding screenplays that have about equal shots of winning. Lincoln is my immediate choice due to its historical significance, but I also jump to Silver Linings Playbook immediately for the  hopeful message it delivers without ever stooping to cliche. Argo would be an easy choice, as it just won the Writer’s Guild Award. Many of those same voters will vote again here.

I’d choose: Silver Linings Playbook
They’ll choose: Argo

Best Actor

• Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
• Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook
• Denzel Washington, Flight
• Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables
• Joaquin Phoenix, The Master
  

For my money, it doesn’t get much better than Joaquin Phoenix’s outlandish performance in The Master. It’s the role I believe he will be remembered most for, even more than Johnny Cash. His bizarre public life in the previous few years resulted in a great performance art film I’m Still Here that made me a lifelong fan of his, as he revealed himself to be a far more gifted actor than anyone even realized. That being said, Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the best actor of this era and may well find himself considered among the best of all time. He will find himself with an Oscar, well-deserved and well-earned.

I’d choose: Joaquin Phoenix
They’ll choose: Daniel Day-Lewis

Best Actress

• Jennifer Lawrence,  Silver Linings Playbook
• Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty
• Emmanuelle Riva, Amour
• Naomi Watts, The Impossible
• Quvenzhané Wallis, Beasts of the Southern Wild
  

This one I have the least familiarity with, unfortunately. Jessica Chastain was the most watchable, enjoyable, and human part of Zero Dark Thirty, but I’d have to say Jennifer Lawrence deserves the award because she lifted so many spirits and probably even saved many lives with her beautiful, heartbreaking performance as a normal young woman struggling with mental illness in a very real way.

I’d choose: Jennifer Lawrence
They’ll choose: Jennifer Lawrence

Best Director

• Michael Haneke, Amour
• Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
• Ang Lee, Life of Pi
• David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
• Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
  

This is the strangest category of them all, I think. To be honest, none of the three films I’ve seen from this category struck  a large enough chord with me to make a decision, and this is one of the most important awards of the night. My choice would have been Ben Affleck, but he was inexplicably snubbed. I guess I’d choose Ang Lee because Life of Pi was an extraordinary achievement in artistic vision, but my mind (in this category, at least) may well be changed if I get around to seeing Beasts before Oscar night.

I’d choose: Tentatively, Ang Lee.
They’ll choose: Steven Spielberg, most likely.

Best Picture

• Amour
• Argo
• Beasts of the Southern Wild
• Django Unchained
• Les Miserables
• Life of Pi
• Lincoln
• Silver Linings Playbook
• Zero Dark Thirty

At the time I’m writing this, I’ve seen 7/9 nominees. I intend to see one more before Oscar night. However, my mind is likely made up already. Argo, Lincoln, and Zero Dark Thirty emerged quickly as the front runners. All three are historical documents of major moments in American history, and all three are very fine films. To me, Argo emerges as the winner. Lincoln failed to build enough suspense to keep me going through the last hour, and Zero Dark Thirty was a finely-made film that played too much like an overblown episode of 60 Minutes. I felt no real attachment or urgency until the last twenty or thirty minutes. On the whole, I was let down. There are other films that deserve to mentioned more seriously, but they will be overshadowed by Argo and Lincoln. It’ll be close. I’d love to see the actual vote spread on this one. I’d pick Argo, but boy, wouldn’t it be something if Django Unchained managed to win?

I’d choose: Argo
They’ll choose: Argo

Other Categories:

Cinematography: My choice is Anna Karenina, a strangely-unique and modern twist on the conventions of filmmaking.

Score: Anna Karenina, one of the best film scores in recent years. It’s hard to imagine that such beautiful music was written as the background of a film.

Song: Skyfall, one of the greatest James Bond themes.

Life of Pi – 3 Stars

Pi (the human) and Richard Parker (the adult Bengal tiger) sit adrift in the ocean, surrounded on all sides by the natural beauty of Earth.

Films based on popular novels often set themselves up for failure. Often times, they are. I have not read the wildly-popular novel that this film is based on, but from what I’ve gathered and what I’ve seen on screen, I’d wager that few fans of the book were let down by Ang Lee’s often-majestic interpretation of the 2001 novel by Yann Martel. It tells two stories- one of the author Martel interviewing a man (adult Pi) for a novel and the other is the story of Pi’s survival for nearly a year as he drifted across the ocean with a tiger after the death of his family. Pi spends most of the film’s action on a boat alone with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker, and their relationship forms the emotional pull of the bulk of it. He is forced to care for himself and the tiger, and his fear of the tiger is what keeps him alert and focused on the lifeboat.

There’s an overarching religious theme to the story that Pi’s experience helps illustrate (and that is explicitly stated in the last part of the film). I feel that this may have worked better in the book than on film because the last twenty minutes of the film became a religious lecture told through code and felt forced and heavy. This also dragged down the first half-hour of the film, as the opening act helps to set up this theme. Had this not be included or even toned down, the film would have been far more successful. Instead it just feels cheesy, especially by the end.

In spite of the film’s heavy-handed philosophical approach, it stands as a dazzling representation of the power of film. It took a story that many said could not be filmed and turned it into an experience that only a film could bring. Few films in recent years have had such an audacious and magnificent vision of the natural world, represented through expansive shots of the sun rising on the horizon or aerial views of a tiny boat sitting in the ocean with fish swimming around it. They are imaginative images that seek to remind us of the beauty that film can invoke.

Life of Pi represents outstanding achievement in motion picture art as a collection of majestic landscape shots that make film such a unique medium. Its overbearing approach to its underlying religious philosophy don’t quite elevate it to the level it could have been, but it is still a film that has the power to be unforgettable to the right people. It’s shown me parts of the world I have never seen and may never see, but it did not touch my heart the way it intended.

Written by David Magee
Directed by Ang Lee
Rated PG for emotional thematic content throughout, and some scary action sequences and peril
127 min.

Les Miserables – 3 Stars

Hugh Jackman (Jean Valjean) and Anne Hathaway (Fantine) raise this film to great heights with their raw humanity.

Many of the greatest artistic works of all time were underappreciated or hated in their time, and such was the case with one of musical theater’s most popular works, Les Miserables, based on the gargantuan novel by Victor Hugo. Set in the French Revolution, it tells the story of an ex-convict who is struggling to make a better life for himself and his ward amist a changing tide. At times, it is a love story, a historical document, and a statement about human morality. It’s a touching story that was brought to life in the early 1980s by a team in France who adapted the novel as an operatic musical. Reviews were terrible, but over time, it grew to be one of the most successful shows of all-time. Even today, thirty years later, the show sells out crowds, and fans of the show long to portray one of the many iconic characters. This is the first film adaptation of the musical, and many will wonder how successful this was.

As one who has never seen the show, I got an interesting introduction to it. For one, I was unaware that the show was entirely sung-through, meaning that most of the dialogue was sung as well as the musical numbers. This took some getting used to, but before too long, it wasn’t bothersome. The first half of the film had very little steam outside of a number by Hugh Jackman and one by Anne Hathaway. By the end of the first hour, though, the film picks up enormous momentum that plows through the next nearly-two hours. The conclusion is heartwarming and satisfying, even if most of the film is terribly bleak.

Director Tom Hooper – whose most recent film The King’s Speech garnered him Oscars for Best Director and Best Picture – opted to record all of the songs live instead of in the studio to capture as much raw energy as possible. To further this, he frames most shots as very tight close-ups on the actor’s faces. Many have found this distracting, but this allows the audience to get even more attached and feel the emotions even more. After all, many of the songs are sung solo, so having large, spacious shots of someone on their own would really just leave a lot of empty space on screen. It’s a strangely effective technique that few other musical films have utilized (but more will in the future, I’m sure).

Most of the success of the film is thanks to the fantastic cast. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway, who both received Oscar nominations for their roles, come apart at the seams and explode with humanity. Anne Hathaway, who only appears on screen for about twenty minutes, is almost guaranteed her Oscar. As the broken woman Fantine, she struggles to earn even a few francs to send to her sick daughter. The crowning moment of the film is Hathaway’s harrowing performance of the show’s most famous number, “I Dreamed a Dream.” With the camera zoomed in on her face, she belts out the heartbreaking tune with tear-soaked eyes until her voice cracks from the truth in her words. It’s one of the most touching moments in film this year, and it’s a role she will always be remembered for. Hugh Jackman comes to her side as reformed convict Jean Valjean, the hero of the story. Valjean spent nearly twenty years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, and upon his release, he is determined to turn his life around by hiding his life as an ex-con. Valjean is one of musical theater’s most revered roles, and Jackman nails it perfectly. Especially in the final moments of the film, Jackman reveals a new side of himself as an actor. It’s often an unruly performance but one that resonates after the credits roll. Unfortunately, Russell Crowe provides a staggering amount of dead-weight as the unbearably static Inspector Javert, who hunts Valjean over many years. Javert is a lawman who does not believe in redemption. Despite Valjean’s towering moral standing, Javert is unwilling to accept that people can change. The character could have been so much more than it was, but neither his acting nor singing abilities were able to match anyone else in the cast.

All in all, a fan of the musical will find this to be an incredibly satisfying adaptation. One unfamiliar with the show may find the “sung-through” style of the film to be daunting and difficult to follow. In the hands of any other team, this could have been a miss, but it succeeds, albeit marginally. For me, I found it to be a satisfying but lacking experience and a good introduction to one of theater’s most enduring works.

Directed by Tom Hooper
Screenplay by William Nicholson
Based on the play by Claude-Michel Schoenberg and Alan Boubil, which was in turn based on a book by Victor Hugo.
Rated PG-13 for suggestive and sexual material, violence and thematic elements
157 min.

Django Unchained – 4 Stars

Leonardo DiCaprio is a hysterical force to be reckoned with- and a foul-mouthed one at that. He alone says the “N-word” more than 100 times.

This year, two films told the story of men who ended slavery: one was the revered Abraham Lincoln, and the other was a German bounty hunter who happened to need a companion. Django Unchained, the 7th film by the always-shocking Quentin Tarantino, is nothing like Spielberg’s majestic Lincoln, as you might well imagine. Instead, it’s a modern Spaghetti western focusing on a freed slave who travels with a bounty hunter to find his slave wife. By turns touching and horrifying, Tarantino has assembled a film to be proud of- a historical document of the Civil War-era South that fits his mold and never seems the least bit exploitative.

Tarantino has built a career by stealing tropes from outdated film genres and reinventing them into a mess that he then weaves into an original, compelling, and often ingenious work. The result is often brutal and bloody with a trace of heart to be found, beating as the pulse of the film below the surface that only those who search for it will find. It’s what makes Kill Bill more than just a disgusting bloodbath, and it’s what makes Inglorious Basterds more than exploitative. The heart of Django Unchained is closer to the surface, in a similar way that his previous past two works have been.

Both Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds help predict Django Unchained. Kill Bill, a personal favorite of mine, is the best example of Tarantino’s style. Shot with MTV-era editing, interlaced with flashbacks, references to nearly every film genre, and even an animated sequence, the first volume is heartpounding fun. Critics and audiences loved it. The second film introduces a new facet of Tarantino’s talent – heart. It’s as close as he could likely ever come to make a romantic film, but moments in the first half are devastating and heart-breaking in their own subtle, understated way. It’s a lot less brash, but it’s a lot more developed, and it’s brings the tale to a perfect conclusion. Inglourious Basterds borrows and combines both the brazen lunacy and controlled heart of Kill Bill and becomes as much a love story of the cinema as it is a disgusting, brutal revenge tale. Django Unchained, in modern Tarantino fashion, feels like a spiritual brother to both of his past works, picking up stylistically where he left off in 2009. It is a supremely polished, often beautiful film to behold. Cinematographer Robert Richardson frames the desolate landscape with such unique majesty, even in the more outrageous scenes. Django also has more heart and humanity than any of Tarantino’s other works. There are several moments, including one very powerful one towards the end, that prove that he is working on a new level. He has long been an admired and popular filmmaker, but Django feels like the next step towards something bigger and better on the way.

He gets a lot of help. Jamie Foxx, in a particularly scary performance as slave-turned-badass Django, is noteworthy. Christoph Waltz, as Dr. Kim Schultz, bounty hunter, plays what seems like an extension of his character Col. Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds. Where as Hans Landa hunted innocent men and women, Dr. Schultz only hunts the criminally-wanted. Both men are dazzling charmers and smooth-talkers who are able to be cordial one moment and deadly the next. Waltz is on his way to a second Oscar for this portrayal, I believe, and it makes sense given that he won once for essentially the same character back in ’09. Leonard DiCaprio plays a barbaric but classy plantation owner with a filthy tongue, and his unchained performance is one of the better parts of the film. The real star of the cast is the head house slave of DiCaprio’s Calvin Candie, Samuel L. Jackson’s Steven. The iconic actor is nearly unrecognizable as a traitor to his kind and delivers a haunting performance. He can be positively bone-chilling at times, especially near the film’s final moments.

Django Unchained never stops being jaw-dropping throughout its entire 2:45 run, which culminates in one of most hyperbolic and excessive fight scenes. It’s Tarantino’s longest film to date, but luckily, it never really feels like it. Perhaps that’s because Tarantino, somewhere in his head, has learned the ultimate formula of movie-making. Whatever he does, it seems that audiences and critics both love it. Very few Oscar-nominated directors can claim the same notoriety he has. He’s a cult figure with a bright past and even brighter future.

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Rated R for strong graphic violence throughout, a vicious fight, language and some nudity
165 min.