The Highly Entertaining But Kinda Missing the Point Gatsby

Now I haven't really done the best job of keeping up with this blog like I said I would but to make up for that I will be writing three reviews tonight and tomorrow. There was supposed to be one about Moonrise Kingdom but that will be up later along with a review on the new film Now You See Me. But right we are going to focus on The Great Gatsby.

I went to see The Great Gatsby on my birthday because I absolutely love the book, I have read probably a dozen times, and was SO excited when I found out they were making an adaptation. (I am aware of the adaptation with Mia Farrow and Robert Redford and I do love that one too). I wasn't so excited though when I found out Ba Luhrmann was going to be the one directing the adaptation. Now I love Moulin Rouge! and Romeo + Juliet as much as the next person but that is because of their over-the-top nature and just how ridiculous they are. Moulin Rogue! is a really heart wrenching story but it drags and Romeo + Juliet we all know is creative but silly. I don't even want to get into Luhrmann's other film Australia because it is just such a catastrophe.

But even after all that I was still hopeful, and then the worst thing that could ever happen happened. They casted Tobey Maguire. Mr. Maguire has many offenses against him including bad acting, ugly crying, and Seabiscut. But his worst offense his the desecration of Spiderman so to me the worst thing that could ever happen to the adaptation of my favorite book happened. I thought (and still think) Ewan McGregor would be the obvious choice for Nick, the Narrator and considering he and Luhramann had worked together before, I thought it was a no brainer, apparently I was wrong. If I could remake this movie, with all of its faults, the only thing I would do would be to cast McGregor instead because honestly that in of itself would greatly improve the film.

With regards to the film itself, at its very core it is entertaining and film's are meant to entertain, therefore on some level The Great Gatsby is a success. It is also a very faithful retelling of the novel, which is rare but definitely adds bonus points to how I feel about the movie. However, grievances I have are the following; the fact the Narrator is telling the story of the summer he spent with Gatsby from a Sanatorium (a sort-of mental institution), yeah I'm sorry what? How does that make any sense? Why does he need to be narrating from anywhere? Why can't there just be a narrator? And to top it off, Nick's opening narration sounds like he is really old and he his reminiscing about his life, but he's not even old! It's absurd and bizarre and although the character is the narrator, there is a thing as too much narration. There were maybe three or four scenes that weren't narrated. That's just too much. An example of a good balance of narration look at The Royal Tennenbaums.

There were also faults in the fact that there was so much heavy handed symbolism> The director makes it so obvious what the audience should be paying attention to and what's important and what that symbol means that I felt like he thought we were dumb and uneducated and that really turned me off. 

But it wasn't all bad. Leonardo Dicaprio was genius as Gatsby and Carey Mulligan actually made me sympathize with Daisy, which took me by surprise because I can't stand Daisy in the book. So the acting was really top notch and I wasn't even that bothered by the hip-hop music in the 1920s (and this might be due to the fact I am used to Luhrmann's films) but the music did have a jazzy, sexy feel so it still managed to catch the tone of this time of decadence and extravagance. 

But there was still something missing. It felt as though Luhrmann was so obsessed with pointing out how poorly Gatsby fit into high society that he completely ignored the issue of how old money people treated new money in the 1920s. Now obviously we saw moments when it's mentioned Gatsby doesn't really fit in because his wealth was inherited and his mansion is even on the "wrong" side of the Hamptons, however it felt as though this was pointed out because of the jealousy of Gatsby trying to win Daisy back. It's disappointing the issue was glossed over and I wish it had been explored more because it's such an interesting problem that arose during this time of abundance and wealth.

Keeping everything in mind and how well The Great Gatsby was adapted, I would have to give the film a seven out of ten because of the entertainment factor and it's unique adaptation. 

Definitely An Unexpected Journey

So after a couple days of digesting a movie a ginormous as The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I now feel confident enough to to justly review the movie.

Peter Jackson's retelling of the J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit was definitely unexpected. Let's start with the good. The cinematography was absolutely gorgeous. Even in the regular frame rate, the picture was stunningly clear. The saturation was also a plus. It was a very pretty film to watch. Secondly, I love Martin Freeman. He IS Bilbo Baggins, right down to the core. His portrayal of the hobbit was just perfect. I truly believed he was Bilbo. The cast in general was just full of superb acting, though that's what you get when you stock your cast full of actors from the BBC. Ian McKellen was excellent as Gandalf as always. The dwarves were led by the talented Richard Armitage who played Thorin. The cast also included James Nesbitt as Bofur, Aidan Turner as Kili, and Stephen Hunter as Bombur.

So the acting was very good and the film was visually very appealing. The most crucial part of any film is the story. The story was not bad. It definitely felt like Tolkien since there was a lot of attention to detail but there were some elements that I just did not like. I appreciated the way Jackson opened up with Old Bilbo narrating the story and eventually revealing the story is being told to Frodo. I did not like Frodo's cameo. It felt very forced and like it was only there to appeal to the members in the audience who loved Frodo in The Lord of the Rings. I understood he was trying to reveal that Bilbo was writing his story on the day of his 111th birthday, the same day he leaves and Frodo's adventure begins, but something about it just did not feel right.

I also was not a fan of the Pale Orc having a bigger story arc in the movie then he did in the book. It seemed as though Jackson was trying to create more action and tension than there was in the first part of The Hobbit because he wanted it to be more action-y. This, took away from the feeling of a true Lord of the Rings feel. There did not seem to be as large of an emphasis on plot because when there was actual plot it moved very quickly. However, I did love that Jackson decided to expand Radagast's (Slyvester McCoy) story farther than what we read in the book. His storyline helped really enhance the plot and it was interesting to see another wizard beside Gandalf and Saruman, especially another good wizard.

The film was good but not great and thinking about it, I would say it is like The Two Towers for me considering that movie is really good but it is not my favorite (or I think) the best out of the trilogy. 

The Journey Begins

Tonight I am going to the midnight premiere of The Hobbit and I honestly couldn't be more excited. I love The Lord of the Rings; I own all of the extended editions and watch all of them at least twice a year. So needless to say I am a huge fan of the movies and the series.

I know there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the film about Jackson deciding to film the movie at 48 fps when the standard is 24 fps but honestly, this is because we are not used to a frame rate that high and it seems to be more popular with people my age. Regardless, I highly doubt it will stop me from loving the film. Jackson is a visionary and no one could translate Tolkien's world into film quite like him. So I have nothing but high expectations and high hope. I am sure I will not be let down.

So I've been kind of a hiatus

 School has been VERY hectic but I'm back now and ready to review more films. I think to dip my feet back into the water I'm going to be reviewing Wreck-It Ralph. Next week I'll be reviewing The Hobbit, but more on that later.

Wreck-It Ralph, which stars John C. Reilly, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch, and Sarah Silverman, is a very cute and endearing cartoon about a video game villain (Ralph) who no longer wishes to be bad. Writer and director, Rich Moore was able to find a pleasant balance between entertaining both the children and adults who viewed it. It is not often a children film achieves this. The film is a real treat for those who are old enough to remember 8-bit games since the main character's game is that style.

There were some parts of the movie that I really did not enjoy. Although, the animation was quite impressive and all the actors did phenomenal jobs with their voice work, there were just some parts that felt a bit odd or forced.  There was a brief moment when a cartoon version of Skrillex popped on screen  and I really did not enjoy it. It just seemed bizarre to me for him to appear on screen however I can see that maybe his cameo existed in order to appeal to the older audience members. I was also not a fan of the romance between Jane Lynch's character, Calhoun, and Jack McBrayer's character, Felix. Don't get me wrong, I love Jack McBrayer and Felix was such an adorable character, however the romance just felt wrong and very forced. It seemed as though Disney felt there needed to be a romance because it is a Disney movie. The romance was very underdeveloped, very rushed, and just overall threw off the theme of the film.

The film is one about accepting yourself for who you are and it doesn't matter if you are bad or good, as long as you are comfortable with yourself, that's all that matters. This is a very important and endearing message to send to children. It's time to start telling children it doesn't matter what you look like or who you are and that's good.

How Jurassic Park Taught Me to Love Movies

As the spring semester of my sophomore year comes to close, I cannot rightfully end the semester without writing about my all-time favorite movie Jurassic Park. The film, directed by Stephen Spielberg, came out in 1993. A very brief synopsis of the film is as follows: during a preview tour with several specialists in the field of Paleontology and Mathematics, a theme park featuring real dinosaurs, suffers a major power breakdown that allows the cloned dinosaurs to run amok.

Before Jurassic Park Spielberg had directed Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and The Color Purple to name a few. So by the time directing Jurassic Park arrived, Spielberg was already an established director. Spielberg seemed like an obvious choice for Universal Studios to take on such a massive film and he did such a fantastic job.

One of the reasons I love the film so much is because it was one of the first movies to use CGI. Spielberg wanted the audience to have the same reaction to seeing the dinosaurs for the first time as the characters in the film, which led them to the addition of CGI and this was the first film to use digital surround sound. But Spielberg was worried that computer graphics meant Nintendo type cartoon quality. He originally only wanted the herd of Gallimimus dinosaurs to be computer-generated, but upon seeing ILM's demo animation of a T-rex chasing a herd of Galamides across his ranch, Spielberg decided to shoot nearly all the dinosaur scenes using this method. For 1993 the graphics are quite breathtaking. A viewer watching this movie has the feeling that he/she is looking at a real dinosaur.

The first time we see the dinosaurs, the viewer is taken aback. Up until this point we have been following the main characters Dr. Grant, Dr. Sattler, John Hammond, and Dr. Malcom since their arrival to the exclusive island housing these genetically cloned dinosaurs. The camera, in one fluid sweeping track, follows the jeeps the characters are in until the jeeps stop and Dr. Grant and the others spy the Brachiosaurus’. The camera switches between a close up of Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler’s face. This leaves the audience really yearning to see the dinosaurs. The audience finally gets their wish when the camera pans to reveal the very breathtakingly real (for that time) dinosaurs. Now the GCI looks very silly and fake, but for then the dinosaurs look very real. They are tall and majestic against an equally CGI’d background. The scene is quite impressive for 1993.  

However, not all the dinosaurs are CGI. The production team did use animatronics for the famous T-Rex and menacing Velociraptors. Watching the film and intently studying the differences between the CGI and animatronics dinosaurs, I find the animatronics dinosaurs to be more real. This might be because I am watching the film in a decade of extremely advanced CGI or because I usually prefer animatronics to CGI in general.

The scariest scenes in the film are hands down the scenes when the two children are trapped in the kitchen with the Velicoraptors and when the T-Rex is attacking the jeep the children are in. These scenes both use animatronics. The look and movement of the animatronics is just more menacing and realistic. The texture of the dinosaurs is also really astonishing. One can almost feel the texture of the skin of the dinosaurs. As the Velicoraptors are stalking the kitchen looking for the children the viewer can feel the extreme fear of the children due to the menacing threat that at any moment the Velicoraptors might catch the children. However, the most fear inducing aspect of the scene is John Williams’ score.

John Williams is a VERY talented composer and has worked with Spielberg on Jaws and the Indiana Jones films and with George Lucas on the Star Wars films. Williams is a master at evoking a certain emotion from the audience using the most simple of melodies. His music flows intricately and masterfully from an upbeat, happy tune to a very ominous and foreboding warning. His music greatly enhances such scenes as the T-Rex chase scene to the joyous moment when viewers first see the dinosaurs. Many people forget how important music is to a film. It can either bring the movie to a whole new level or weaken it due to poor melodies and tunes. Without Williams score on this film, Jurassic Park would not be as strong of a film.

Jurassic Park is one of my favorite films because of its dutiful attention to detail. The push to create new technology in order to enhance the viewing experience for viewers and the wise choice for John Williams to score the film are little details that make the movie so wonderful. I think Jurassic Park is sometimes under appreciated, but what people do not understand is what the film did for the world of CGI and all the opportunities and possibilities its invention opened up for the world of film.

Hot Fuzz; the story of a Bromance

One of my favorite movies is Shaun of the Dead and Simon Pegg is one of my favorite actors so in only seemed natural to watch the movie Hot Fuzz (2007) in order to see how it compares to Pegg’s other movies. Honestly, I think Hot Fuzz is my favorite. It is one of those films that I have watched so many times, and I still notice something new each time. There are so many subtle details and references, that it is a film that needs to be viewed more than once. Directed by Edgar Wright and written by Simon Pegg and Wright, Hot Fuzz is smart, witty, a parody cop movie in a refreshing way, and is still incredibly funny.

Hot Fuzz (the short of it) is about a highly successful London cop, Sgt. Nicholas Angel (Pegg) who gets transferred a small town and gets paired with a witless partner, PC Danny Butterman (Nick Frost). This reassignment proves good for Angel because he and Butterman stumble upon a series of suspicious accidents and events.

A more detailed description includes Frost being reassigned to this small town because he is too good a cop and is making all of his fellow police officers and superiors look bad. So his new colleagues immediately dislike him because they think Angel is there to show them up. The only one who likes him is Butterman. Butterman is in awe of all of the action Angel experienced in London. So Angel, reluctantly, takes Butterman under his wing and together they unearth a dark secret about the town.

Both Pegg and Frost are brilliant comedic actors in general and in this film specifically. Their comedic timing only strengthens Hot Fuzz’s witty style. They really know how to keep the movie flowing and they have a very good ability to vie off each other’s energy. Their off screen friendship definitely seems to help with their on screen chemistry because when you are as good of friends as these two are off screen, you know their style and how to keep the comedy flowing.

Wright has directed a number of successful films along with Shaun of the Dead. So it makes sense why this film has a similar feel to Shaun of the Dead because both are really smart, satirical films that parody of a specific type of film. Shaun of the Dead is a parody of zombie films like Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later, while Hot Fuzz parodies cop films Bad Boys II, Die Hard, and Lethal Weapon. Ironically Sgt. Angel is the character that has most of the clichés cop movie lines but is unaware of this due to his lacking repertoire involving cop films. So, Butterman, who is so totally immersed in cop movies, stands by while Angel says all of these classic one-liners, such as “Shit just got real” and “Punch. That. Shit”.

Both films were written by Pegg, which would also explain why the two movies are so similar. Pegg has a very clear writing style that combines wit, humor, a specific knowledge of film and its genres, and seriousness. Hot Fuzz is a very funny satirical film that is also very serious at times. The film can move from really funny to really serious in just one line, which is what makes the film so brilliant. A couple moments in particular are when Angel is fighting off this giant brute and the moment is tense because the brute is trying to kill Angel. Angel manages to knock him out and the mood changes from serious to funny in an instant because Angel says, “Playtime’s over” and knocks him out. It is a very funny moment of comic relief done right. The other very serious moment that turned funny in an instant is when Angel discovers the Neighborhood Watch Association is actually a group of murderers. They are all chanting something in Latin. They are shrouded in black cloaks and have flashlights lighting their faces. It is all very creepy and uneasy. Once the chanting subsides, one of the female members starts discussing town events. She mentions that a couple had twins and when the shower will be held. It is all light-hearted and a complete 180 from the moment before. The effect is a fit of laughter.   Pegg is clearly as talented as a writer and he is an actor.

Some very interesting scenes visually would be when the murder of Martin Blower is happening, the scene chronically Angel’s journey to Sanford, and the beginning of the final showdown with Neighborhood Watch Association. The scene involving Martin Blower’s death the viewer watches see parallel actions going on. One scene follows Angel and Butterman spending the night watching Bad Boys II and Lethal Weapon. The other scene is Martin Blower being murdered in his home. The actions in each scene mimic and parallel each other. When the murderer hits his victim on the head, the movie cuts to Angel falling down into a chair. Then Angel says the line, “You have to be pulling my leg,” and the shot cuts to the murderer pulling his victim (by his legs) into a kitchen.

The scene after Angel has been reassigned to Sanford, we follow his train ride and subsequent rides until he reaches his hotel in Sanford. The viewer starts off seeing the hallway of what is most likely the Police Station and hear the voice of Angel’s new boss, Lt. Frank Butterman. As his voiceover plays, the shot then fades into Angel packing for his new position. The camera cuts to a picture of Angel as a child and then a car passes in front of the lens of the camera and the shot is now outside. Angel is standing in front of his apartment building and once again we hear the voiceover play. A taxi pulls up and the viewer gets a close up of the Taxi sign. As the voice over continues to play, the scene fades in and out of Angel on a subway car and then another train. The camera then makes a series of quick cuts of Angel’s head on a window, a plant on the table in front of him, a different perspective of him looking out the window. Then another quick cut of Angel waiting for the next train, it’s light out; the shot quickly cuts to dusk, angel has fallen asleep. Then another cut as a train goes by and he is jolted awake. Then a quick succession of cuts of Angel, plant, taxi. All of these cuts are happening in rapid succession and create a very dynamic viewing experience. The journey then reverts back to how it began with soft fades and the light going in and out on Angel and the scenery around while he is in the taxi and on the last leg of his journey. The different type of editing techniques illustrates the contrast of the parody nature of the film and how it is still its own unique movie.

The best scene that illustrates how Hot Fuzz is a parody is when Butterman and Angel decide to take on the villagers on Sanford. Once Butterman joins in the camera moves between quick takes of the Butterman and Angel and the people of Sandford shooting at each other. The moment when Butterman and Angel have taken down the people in the square, the camera movement mimics that of one someone would see in a cop film. The camera circles Angel and Butterman after they have taken down the doctor and Angel says, “You’re a doctor, deal with it” in a very breathy, cop film voice. The camera continues to circle them and feature the two of them together in the frame from different angles as they discuss what to do next. It is all very cliché but works for the film because Hot Fuzz is trying to parody but in a refreshing way.

This film is a genuinely good film. I think it is even a great film because every element of filmmaking comes to together in a smart, cohesive manner. Hot Fuzz is a bitingly satirical film that is hugely entertaining that everyone should see at least once because it is a very well made film and to be honest, those are very rare know-a-days. The film is a very smart film in its writing, editing, and directing. All the elements work together so perfectly to make one fluid, continuous movie.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead...or are they?

In my Lit class, we have been discussing Existentialism on and off for the past couple of weeks. During one of these discussions, the subject of writing from the point of view of an obscure character came up. So naturally we discussed the play Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. I had read this play in high school and greatly enjoyed it so I wanted to watch the movie and see how the themes fate and destiny, and whether we can really ever escape it, are portrayed in the film adaptation.

The film Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990), directed and written by Tom Stoppard, follows the characters Rosencrantz (Gary Oldman) and Guildenstern (Tim Roth) from Hamlet. The story is really about fate and whether we really have control of our lives because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern keep reliving their life from the beginning of their journey to see Hamlet and ends when they are ultimately hanged. The story is more focused on the idea of fate and how we are merely players in the game of life. However, the film is very playful. It is playful with its dialogue, its editing, and story. Stoppard really draws the viewer in with witty and clever dialogue, and through a surprisingly engaging story told via the point of view of two very minor and insignificant characters from one of the greatest stories of all time.

The film begins by following Rosencrantz and Guildenstern on a journey somewhere yet unknown with Rosencrantz decides to start flipping a coin. Each time he flips the coin, it lands heads. In the beginning it seems to just be a random occurrence that it lands heads so many times. But after 76 times of landing heads, Rosencrantz begins to think it means something while Guildenstern thinks it is just random. Of course the coin landing heads so many times is NOT random. At the beginning of the film it may be unclear as to why the coin never lands tails, but by the end it is evident that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are stuck in a type of limbo that affects the outcome of the coin. The coin landing heads may also allude to the fact that they both end up getting hanged.

What is interesting about the film is how it is structured. The film is linear, per se, but the transitions between scenes are discontinuous, much like how I would imagine life in Limbo to be. An example of this in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is when they are watching a travelling show and then suddenly the camera cuts to them in a castle draped in curtains that have fallen upon them. Also in the castle, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern try to leave the room they magically appear in only to end up at the opposite entrance of the room. They are trapped within the room because they are unable to make other choices outside of what fate had laid out for them. Even though the idea of their limbo is to try to figure out what they did wrong and change it. The editing style is definitely unique and supports the idea that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are in some type of supernatural place.

The ending line of the film (“There must have been a moment at the beginning, where we could have said no. Somehow we missed it. Well, we'll know better next time.”) suggests the two are stuck in a cyclical Limbo in which they are forced to relive their lives over and over again from a certain moment. There are other lines through out the film that allude to the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are, in fact, dead. For one, there is the title of the film, the fact Rosencrantz and other people keep mixing up their names, and they can’t remember what the first thing they did that day was.

The best scene in the movie is when they are playing the game, “Questions”, which is when two people keep asking each other questions and the game ends when one of the players says a statement or asks a question with rhetoric. The point of this scene, besides being very visually interesting to watch, is to play with the idea that questions are more important than answers. If you ask the right question, then maybe you will begin to better understand life and its meaning. The scene is very visually interesting because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are playing this game on a badminton court and are acting like there words are volleys. So each time they lob a question, they move across their side of the court. The scene juxtaposes a very playful game with a very serious message about life and its purpose.

What makes this film so strong, other than the script, are the actors (Oldman and Roth). Their portrayal of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern being stuck in some sort of Limbo is believable through their body language. Even the subtlest movement fits so perfectly in the story because each little facial tick or shrug tells just as much as what is said. In Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead what is said is just as important as what is left unsaid.

The film is really a brilliant adaptation of an equally genius idea to take on a story from the point of view of a seemingly unimportant character, or characters in this case, about how fate is something we can never escape or change.