The Hangover Part III would be an unqualified success if it wasn't for one nagging problem: the plot. Yes, a large part of the fun of the original The Hangover (and to a lesser extent The Hangover Part II) was watching the unraveling of a wild night no one remembered, but the humor flowed naturally out of the narrative. It was clearly a one-off project, but the massive, out-of-nowhere success of director Todd Phillips' comedy practically mandated a sequel in Hollywood's eyes (see also The Matrix for another example of this phenomenon). Some people berated The Hangover Part II for largely repeating the first film's story beat-for-beat, but that mattered little to me. Bottom line: the sequel was still consistently funny and envelope-pushing. Now, with Part III, while the camaraderie of Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) remains fun and easygoing, the uninspired, occasionally dragging "thriller" plot finally becomes the series' undoing.
Phillips wanted to take the Hangover series in a new direction, but this is one of those cases where "new" doesn't necessarily translate to "better." Instead of a bachelor party bringing the Wolfpack back together, we have an intervention staged by Alan's brother-in-law, Doug (Justin Bartha). After an incident where a drunk-driving Alan causes a giraffe to be beheaded on the highway (only in a Hangover movie would this possibly make any sense), his family and friends decide it's finally time to get our bearded friend some serious, life-changing help. Phil, Stu, and Doug drive him toward a mental clinic in Arizona, but they're quickly intercepted by a mafia-type gang led by Marshall (John Goodman). As it turns out, Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), the Chinese criminal from the first two movies, has escaped prison and stolen a large sum of Marshall's money. Knowing the Wolfpack's friendship with Chow, Marshall kidnaps Doug and delivers the other three an ultimatum: bring Chow to justice in three days or Doug dies.
The first two Hangover movies not only delivered laughs throughout their running times, but they were cleverly constructed and never ran low on comedic momentum. The same cannot be said here, where the laughs are only sporadic (and mostly in the movie's first half), and large stretches of the film drag without even provoking a chuckle. Many set pieces here, including a scrap with wild fighting chickens, a madcap car chase in Vegas, and the eventual confrontation with Marshall, are almost yawn-inducing. It's a little like a lesser episode of your favorite TV series, where the story is simply there. It's not painful or poorly made, but neither is it especially entertaining, and the filmmakers mute a lot of the humor in a misguided attempt to develop it. The first two Hangover movies spent a lot of time on the edge, practically daring the MPAA to slap them with an NC-17; this time around, everyone seems to be going through the motions.
Humor is subjective, and while those who found the main characters irritating, dislikable, and chauvinistic in the first two movies are unlikely to change their minds here. I for one like my comedy dark and edgy. Being an asshole is not inherently funny, but for whatever reason or another, Alan and Chow make this type of character work. The funniest material in The Hangover Part III comes not from envelope-pushing sequences (with one notable exception), but from individual lines of dialogue highlighting how clueless Alan is about everyone and everything around him. A scene early in the film where Alan presides over his father's funeral is unquestionably mean, but also laugh-aloud funny. Similar comments can be made about scenes featuring Melissa McCarthy's character. Is it a spoiler to say that she's the perfect match for Alan?
After sputtering through its quasi-thriller plot for about 45 minutes, The Hangover Part III ends with a bang: a hilarious and inspired mid-credit sequence that amazingly succeeds in outdoing the "photo album" credit scenes from the previous two films. More than a few viewers will be wondering why the movie didn't use this little gem as the springboard for a Hangover story instead of the half-baked fluff we're left with for a majority of the running length. If the test of time for comedies is how quotable they are, The Hangover Part III doesn't quite measure up.
Phillips is on the record stating that this is the final installment of the Hangover franchise. Although the movie's final scene allows for more, is there any way that yet another installment wouldn't feel stale and obligatory? Then again, I could have said the same thing after Part II. In the final analysis, while The Hangover Part III isn't the disaster many critics have labelled it, it won't be remembered fondly. Let the Wolfpack gulp down their final shots and rest in peace.
Rating: **1/2 out of ****
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
Review of Star Trek Into Darkness (contains spoilers)
Note: I'm trying to remain as spoiler-free as possible. But reviewing this movie is difficult without at least insinuating potential "spoiler" material. Proceed with caution.
I am not a long-running Star Trek fan. I've never watched the show in any of its iterations nor any of the movies. I made an exception for J.J. Abrams' 2009 reboot, and I didn't regret that decision. The 2009 Star Trek was a fitfully entertaining space opera yarn that succeeded in its goal of breathing new life into a series that, by all accounts, had lost its way. Obviously, a four-year wait between movies is long enough that it allows modest expectations to grow large and high expectations to grow enormous (not to the level of Star Wars or Harry Potter proportions, but close). As for me, I approach a Star Trek movie the same way I settle in to watch a superhero flick; I'm hoping for a good time at the movies without the annoyance of all those comparisons to the past or the source material (with one exception; more on that later). You might say I'm easy to please that way, and Star Trek Into Darkness mostly delivers the goods.
The movie wastes no time jumping into the heart of the action, where Captain James Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. Bones McCoy (Karl Urban) are outrunning warriors from a primitive society. The Enterprise is on a mission to save a planet from an erupting volcano, and in the process, Kirk makes a rash decision to violate a "Prime Directive" in order to save his first officer, Spock (Zachary Quinto), from certain death. In spite of his life being saved, the emotionless, by-the-book Spock nonetheless writes up Kirk in his official report. This results in The Enterprise being given back to Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and Kirk eventually demoted to First Officer. Meanwhile, Commander John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) goes rogue, executes several terrorist attacks, and flees to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos. Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) reluctantly gives Kirk command of his ship back and orders him to track down Harrison and bring him to justice. But the mission is far from as straightforward as it initially appears.
At 140 minutes, Star Trek Into Darkness is lengthy, but the movie's pace is so relentless that it's hard to imagine anyone fidgeting in their seats. The narrative doesn't rely on a single, shocking twist, but instead gradually unveils surprises throughout. I wouldn't go so far as to call this thinking-person's science fiction, but it's always engaging. Even though I'm by no means a Star Trek die-hard, I can safely say that long-time fans will have more than a few goosebump moments. Those moments are driven not just by the numerous shootouts (whether land or space-based) but by the gradual revealing of Harrison's motivations. In the end, I suppose Abrams couldn't resist making a Star Trek reboot without presenting his vision of one of the most famous of all plotlines. Yes, even I was aware of that one.
Much has been made of how this Star Trek, unabashedly a member of the "space opera" brand of sci-fi, is beginning to resemble its chief genre movie rival. Whether that's a change for the better or worse is something Trekkies/Trekkers can decide; I really have no idea. Ultimately, the studio simply had to adapt to audiences' tastes. What I can authoritatively comment on is that these action sequences are suitably intense, suspenseful, and easy to follow. The special effects and production design are not only state-of-the-art, they're immersive. Those who attend a movie like this for shootouts and explosions will certainly savor their money's worth, but the movie is thankfully never dumb or short on logic. With a character like Spock involved, how could it be?
Speaking of Spock, his verbal tussles with Kirk and Uhera (Zoe Saldana) are a highlight. This is primarily a serious science fiction movie (and it does a superb job delving into the reasons for Spock choosing to ignore emotions), but there's plenty of room for witticisms and laughs. Much like the Iron Man films, Star Trek Into Darkness contains plenty of sparkling dialogue for the casual or non-fan to sink his/her teeth into. The difference here is that while Iron Man 3 was dominated largely by one performer, this movie provides everyone multiple opportunities to shine. It's befitting of a team effort, where even the supporting players like Scotty (a manically hilarious Simon Pegg) make memorable contributions. And it's hard to imagine a villain making a better impression this year than Benedict Cumberbatch's Harrison. His voice and presence are awesome to behold.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to discuss Star Trek Into Darkness without confronting the climax. The final action sequence, involving little more than a glorified fist-fight atop a moving vehicle, is a tad anti-climactic and certainly not the culmination of all that precedes it. The near-nonstop adrenaline rush that the movie delivers prior to this moment comes to a screeching halt when the filmmakers essentially write themselves into a corner. What's more, it also takes the movie's most emotionally poignant moment (complete with the scream of a familiar line that even I recognized) and renders it moot. I understand the need for that moment not to play out as it appears because the studio desires a long-running franchise, but still, it reeks of cheating. It's reminiscent of The Hunger Games, where a darkly fascinating conundrum is hinted at before being yanked away at the last moment.
The lackluster ending is easily forgivable, however. Like a good road trip, sometimes the journey leaves a greater impact than the destination. The movie's final scene, which literally promises a long voyage with potentially better adventures to come, is guaranteed to slap a wide grin on even the grumpiest viewer's face. These characters are a joy to spend time with for 2+ hours, and hopefully the wait for their next outing will be shorter than four years. A stronger ending would've made Star Trek Into Darkness an instant Top 10 contender for yours truly, but even as is, it's a thrilling summer blockbuster with heart and soul to spare.
And no, I'm not going to end this review with a certain signature catchphrase, as many have done. That would be too easy.
Rating: *** out of ****
I am not a long-running Star Trek fan. I've never watched the show in any of its iterations nor any of the movies. I made an exception for J.J. Abrams' 2009 reboot, and I didn't regret that decision. The 2009 Star Trek was a fitfully entertaining space opera yarn that succeeded in its goal of breathing new life into a series that, by all accounts, had lost its way. Obviously, a four-year wait between movies is long enough that it allows modest expectations to grow large and high expectations to grow enormous (not to the level of Star Wars or Harry Potter proportions, but close). As for me, I approach a Star Trek movie the same way I settle in to watch a superhero flick; I'm hoping for a good time at the movies without the annoyance of all those comparisons to the past or the source material (with one exception; more on that later). You might say I'm easy to please that way, and Star Trek Into Darkness mostly delivers the goods.
The movie wastes no time jumping into the heart of the action, where Captain James Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. Bones McCoy (Karl Urban) are outrunning warriors from a primitive society. The Enterprise is on a mission to save a planet from an erupting volcano, and in the process, Kirk makes a rash decision to violate a "Prime Directive" in order to save his first officer, Spock (Zachary Quinto), from certain death. In spite of his life being saved, the emotionless, by-the-book Spock nonetheless writes up Kirk in his official report. This results in The Enterprise being given back to Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and Kirk eventually demoted to First Officer. Meanwhile, Commander John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) goes rogue, executes several terrorist attacks, and flees to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos. Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) reluctantly gives Kirk command of his ship back and orders him to track down Harrison and bring him to justice. But the mission is far from as straightforward as it initially appears.
At 140 minutes, Star Trek Into Darkness is lengthy, but the movie's pace is so relentless that it's hard to imagine anyone fidgeting in their seats. The narrative doesn't rely on a single, shocking twist, but instead gradually unveils surprises throughout. I wouldn't go so far as to call this thinking-person's science fiction, but it's always engaging. Even though I'm by no means a Star Trek die-hard, I can safely say that long-time fans will have more than a few goosebump moments. Those moments are driven not just by the numerous shootouts (whether land or space-based) but by the gradual revealing of Harrison's motivations. In the end, I suppose Abrams couldn't resist making a Star Trek reboot without presenting his vision of one of the most famous of all plotlines. Yes, even I was aware of that one.
Much has been made of how this Star Trek, unabashedly a member of the "space opera" brand of sci-fi, is beginning to resemble its chief genre movie rival. Whether that's a change for the better or worse is something Trekkies/Trekkers can decide; I really have no idea. Ultimately, the studio simply had to adapt to audiences' tastes. What I can authoritatively comment on is that these action sequences are suitably intense, suspenseful, and easy to follow. The special effects and production design are not only state-of-the-art, they're immersive. Those who attend a movie like this for shootouts and explosions will certainly savor their money's worth, but the movie is thankfully never dumb or short on logic. With a character like Spock involved, how could it be?
Speaking of Spock, his verbal tussles with Kirk and Uhera (Zoe Saldana) are a highlight. This is primarily a serious science fiction movie (and it does a superb job delving into the reasons for Spock choosing to ignore emotions), but there's plenty of room for witticisms and laughs. Much like the Iron Man films, Star Trek Into Darkness contains plenty of sparkling dialogue for the casual or non-fan to sink his/her teeth into. The difference here is that while Iron Man 3 was dominated largely by one performer, this movie provides everyone multiple opportunities to shine. It's befitting of a team effort, where even the supporting players like Scotty (a manically hilarious Simon Pegg) make memorable contributions. And it's hard to imagine a villain making a better impression this year than Benedict Cumberbatch's Harrison. His voice and presence are awesome to behold.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to discuss Star Trek Into Darkness without confronting the climax. The final action sequence, involving little more than a glorified fist-fight atop a moving vehicle, is a tad anti-climactic and certainly not the culmination of all that precedes it. The near-nonstop adrenaline rush that the movie delivers prior to this moment comes to a screeching halt when the filmmakers essentially write themselves into a corner. What's more, it also takes the movie's most emotionally poignant moment (complete with the scream of a familiar line that even I recognized) and renders it moot. I understand the need for that moment not to play out as it appears because the studio desires a long-running franchise, but still, it reeks of cheating. It's reminiscent of The Hunger Games, where a darkly fascinating conundrum is hinted at before being yanked away at the last moment.
The lackluster ending is easily forgivable, however. Like a good road trip, sometimes the journey leaves a greater impact than the destination. The movie's final scene, which literally promises a long voyage with potentially better adventures to come, is guaranteed to slap a wide grin on even the grumpiest viewer's face. These characters are a joy to spend time with for 2+ hours, and hopefully the wait for their next outing will be shorter than four years. A stronger ending would've made Star Trek Into Darkness an instant Top 10 contender for yours truly, but even as is, it's a thrilling summer blockbuster with heart and soul to spare.
And no, I'm not going to end this review with a certain signature catchphrase, as many have done. That would be too easy.
Rating: *** out of ****
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Review of Mud
Whatever your movie-going habits are, you are unlikely to find a film released in 2013 as unique as director Jeff Nichols' Mud. It's a very affecting coming-of-age story blended with the unpredictable stylings of a slow-burn thriller. Some will be strongly reminded of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer. Others will revel in the southern-gothic vibe that dominated one of actor Matthew McConaughey's previous standout movies, Killer Joe. Regardless of which portions of the film lodge in your mind after it's over, it's yet another example of how worthy drama and entertainment can be found long before the onslaught of Oscar Season. At 130 minutes, it's a little long for a movie with a somewhat limited scope, but it's consistently involving. It defies easy genre pidgeonholeing, and that's refreshing.
Mud opens in a backwater town in Arkansas with two 14-year-old boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan), and Neckbone (Jacob Loffland), who stumble upon quite a discovery: a boat (with cabin) lodged high in a tree on an island along the Mississippi River. They hope to claim it for themselves, but it is already occupied by Mud (McConaughey), a mysterious, disheveled man who is hiding out on the island waiting for his long lost love, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), to meet him there. Mud is wanted for murder and on the run from authorities, and while he refuses to give up the rights to his boat, he offers Neckbone his pistol in exchange for the boys bringing him food and supplies. Neckbone jumps at the opportunity for material gain, but Ellis is motivated more by Mud's story of true love.
Ellis' character arc is captivating and rings true in every scene. He's an easy character to identify with, the idealistic youngster surrounded in every facet of his life by morally ambiguous individuals. I imagine most viewers of this film will have varying degrees of cynicism, yet one of Mud's many strengths is the fact it quickly puts us in the main character's corner. We want to believe in "pure" motives the way Ellis does, even though our better judgement suspects something isn't quite right. Ellis is also clearly maturing at a faster rate than his best friend, although he's forced to learn the hard way how little of a generous spirit others his age have. In one subplot, he stands up for a girl he has a crush on and believes he has found a girlfriend, but her feelings aren't quite reciprocated. The theme of idealism vs cynicism looms large, and it's a theme that Mud consistently and successfully emphasizes.
Additionally, by featuring a fugitive, lawmen, bounty hunters, and an ex-Marine (played at his curmudgeonly best by Sam Shepard), Mud also contains the rhythms of a thriller, albeit a slow-developing one. Aside from one token shootout, there's very little violence here. Without that familiar staple, the movie instead builds tension the old-fashioned way-- with dialogue (half-truths and outright lies abound) and plot developments. Is the title character trustworthy? How much of his story is true and how much is designed to play on the naivete of the two boys? McConaughey is unquestionably the biggest star in the cast, but there's no guarantee he'll be alive by the time the end credits roll. And Nichols makes the most out of the backwater, Deep South atmosphere to generate tension. One could legitimately claim that the locale, with its absence of cell phones and computers, is a character in its own right.
For the past decade, Matthew McConaughey has coasted on numerous romantic comedies where his easygoing charm and good looks have made him a favorite among countless female viewers. Fortunately, with last year's Magic Mike and the aforementioned Killer Joe, he has ascended his career to another level with much-talked-about performances. He is once again superb here; Mud is a well-developed character as written, but his multi-layered portrayal only adds to the character's ability to engage. Tye Sheridan, appearing in his second motion picture (the first was the 2011 Oscar-nominated The Tree of Life) is equally impressive and entirely natural. Jacob Loffland is credible as the adventure-loving, hormone-crazed Neckbone, and Reese Witherspoon turns in a very well-modulated, low-key performance. Like McConaughey, this is a case of a movie star acting as opposed to starring.
Mud arguably runs about 10 minutes too long; the scenes involving Neckbone's father (nonetheless well-played by Michael Shannon) and his clam-fishing outings could have been cut without damaging the flow. Also, while the movie elects to depict the friction between Ellis' parents (who are on the verge of a divorce) largely through his eyes, only his father is given three-dimensional treatment. The mother's side of this subplot remains only half-formed. But these are minor quibbles. Overall, on the strength of a multi-layered coming-of-age story, a surprisingly high amount of tension, and terrific acting all around, Mud is yet another 2013 limited-release motion picture I'll happily and strongly recommend to all audiences. It's one of those movies where you may have difficulty describing it to a friend, but you're unlikely to forget it so easily.
Rating: ***1/2 out of ****
Mud opens in a backwater town in Arkansas with two 14-year-old boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan), and Neckbone (Jacob Loffland), who stumble upon quite a discovery: a boat (with cabin) lodged high in a tree on an island along the Mississippi River. They hope to claim it for themselves, but it is already occupied by Mud (McConaughey), a mysterious, disheveled man who is hiding out on the island waiting for his long lost love, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), to meet him there. Mud is wanted for murder and on the run from authorities, and while he refuses to give up the rights to his boat, he offers Neckbone his pistol in exchange for the boys bringing him food and supplies. Neckbone jumps at the opportunity for material gain, but Ellis is motivated more by Mud's story of true love.
Ellis' character arc is captivating and rings true in every scene. He's an easy character to identify with, the idealistic youngster surrounded in every facet of his life by morally ambiguous individuals. I imagine most viewers of this film will have varying degrees of cynicism, yet one of Mud's many strengths is the fact it quickly puts us in the main character's corner. We want to believe in "pure" motives the way Ellis does, even though our better judgement suspects something isn't quite right. Ellis is also clearly maturing at a faster rate than his best friend, although he's forced to learn the hard way how little of a generous spirit others his age have. In one subplot, he stands up for a girl he has a crush on and believes he has found a girlfriend, but her feelings aren't quite reciprocated. The theme of idealism vs cynicism looms large, and it's a theme that Mud consistently and successfully emphasizes.
Additionally, by featuring a fugitive, lawmen, bounty hunters, and an ex-Marine (played at his curmudgeonly best by Sam Shepard), Mud also contains the rhythms of a thriller, albeit a slow-developing one. Aside from one token shootout, there's very little violence here. Without that familiar staple, the movie instead builds tension the old-fashioned way-- with dialogue (half-truths and outright lies abound) and plot developments. Is the title character trustworthy? How much of his story is true and how much is designed to play on the naivete of the two boys? McConaughey is unquestionably the biggest star in the cast, but there's no guarantee he'll be alive by the time the end credits roll. And Nichols makes the most out of the backwater, Deep South atmosphere to generate tension. One could legitimately claim that the locale, with its absence of cell phones and computers, is a character in its own right.
For the past decade, Matthew McConaughey has coasted on numerous romantic comedies where his easygoing charm and good looks have made him a favorite among countless female viewers. Fortunately, with last year's Magic Mike and the aforementioned Killer Joe, he has ascended his career to another level with much-talked-about performances. He is once again superb here; Mud is a well-developed character as written, but his multi-layered portrayal only adds to the character's ability to engage. Tye Sheridan, appearing in his second motion picture (the first was the 2011 Oscar-nominated The Tree of Life) is equally impressive and entirely natural. Jacob Loffland is credible as the adventure-loving, hormone-crazed Neckbone, and Reese Witherspoon turns in a very well-modulated, low-key performance. Like McConaughey, this is a case of a movie star acting as opposed to starring.
Mud arguably runs about 10 minutes too long; the scenes involving Neckbone's father (nonetheless well-played by Michael Shannon) and his clam-fishing outings could have been cut without damaging the flow. Also, while the movie elects to depict the friction between Ellis' parents (who are on the verge of a divorce) largely through his eyes, only his father is given three-dimensional treatment. The mother's side of this subplot remains only half-formed. But these are minor quibbles. Overall, on the strength of a multi-layered coming-of-age story, a surprisingly high amount of tension, and terrific acting all around, Mud is yet another 2013 limited-release motion picture I'll happily and strongly recommend to all audiences. It's one of those movies where you may have difficulty describing it to a friend, but you're unlikely to forget it so easily.
Rating: ***1/2 out of ****
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Review of The Great Gatsby
Note: I have not read the novel upon which this film is based, although I know the basic story. To some, this will come across as blasphemy, but I will read it soon because it's an inherently interesting story. For now, I thought it would be interesting to provide a perspective from a "newbie."
F. Scott Fitzgerald's landmark novel The Great Gatsby is regarded as one of the greatest American novels ever written. But director Baz Luhrmann version of The Great Gatsby is a spectacular misfire, proving that even a story regarded in the highest esteem won't enrapture viewers on film if the director can't get out of his own way. Much like he did with Moulin Rouge, Luhrmann empties his full bag of tricks, including a wild kaleidoscope of colors, modern music juxtaposed with a time gone by, and relentless high-energy. As appealing as it might sound on paper, the result at times resembles a train wreck. Hammy acting, a romance that keeps us at arms length, a narrator who simply won't shut up, and some extremely questionable stylistic choices combine to form a tale that never feels real at any moment during its 143-minute running time.
F. Scott Fitzgerald's landmark novel The Great Gatsby is regarded as one of the greatest American novels ever written. But director Baz Luhrmann version of The Great Gatsby is a spectacular misfire, proving that even a story regarded in the highest esteem won't enrapture viewers on film if the director can't get out of his own way. Much like he did with Moulin Rouge, Luhrmann empties his full bag of tricks, including a wild kaleidoscope of colors, modern music juxtaposed with a time gone by, and relentless high-energy. As appealing as it might sound on paper, the result at times resembles a train wreck. Hammy acting, a romance that keeps us at arms length, a narrator who simply won't shut up, and some extremely questionable stylistic choices combine to form a tale that never feels real at any moment during its 143-minute running time.
The story begins with Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) telling his story to a psychiatrist in a sanitarium. Flashing back to 1922, where Nick has moved to New York to sell bonds, we meet the main players in the drama. They include Nick's cousin, Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), her husband, Tom (Joel Edgerton), and Daisy's best friend, golfer Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debicki). Finally, there's party organizer extraordinaire, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), who lives at a mansion next to Nick's cottage. He befriends Nick at a lavish party, but he has motives other than friendship. Gatsby and Daisy were once romantically entangled, and Gatsby wants to Nick to a arrange a tea party where he "accidentally" meets Daisy and ignites the first spark to rekindle the former flame. And Tom has a mistress of his own in the person of Myrtle Wilson (Isla Fisher), the wife of gas station owner George Wilson (Jason Clarke).
The Great Gatsby as filtered through Baz Luhrmann wants to be an epic, sweeping romance that also delves deep into the idea of how The American Dream can easily rot from the inside out. The themes of wealth and superficiality are present, but they're delivered with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Luhrmann's method of making this story feel poetic is to have Nick constantly yammering about what certain characters are feeling during key scenes. It's distracting, annoying, and insulting to even a high school-aged viewer, let alone a literary or movie-going veteran. To make matters worse, certain passages of Nick's novel appear as pop-up words on the screen as he's typing and talking. The occasional effective directorial flourish Luhrmann brings to the table (such as keeping the title character's face hidden for several scenes before finally, spectacularly unveiling him) is ultimately lost in a sea of sensory overload.
But it doesn't end there. Much has been made of how this cinematic vision of Gatsby incorporates music from Jay-Z, Kanye West, and Lana del Rey. Some accuse it of shamelessly pandering to the 25-and-under demographic, but I won't go quite that far. There's no denying, however, that whenever one of these songs enters the fray, the viewer is jarred out of the moment with the force of a whiplash. Luhrmann incorporated this sort of thing very inventively in Moulin Rouge, but that movie was set up as a musical/fantasy set in a world intentionally divorced from reality. Here, the setting is undeniably the Roaring Twenties, so a jazzed-up version of Beyonce's "Crazy in Love" is literally the last thing anyone expects or wants. What's even more baffling is that halfway through the film, the film drops all anachronisms and tells the story "straight." Consistency is not a hallmark here; you have to wonder why they bothered with the modern songs at all.
As much as Leonardo DiCaprio looks the part of Jay Gatsby, this is not a performance that the actor can highlight on his resume alongside The Departed, Blood Diamond, and Django Unchained. Even Inception, which wasn't an actors' movie, showcased him better than this. There are far too many instances where this is too obviously a performance, especially when his character repeatedly and listlessly utters the catchphrase, "old sport." I understand that catchphrase is part of who the character is, but in this movie, it comes across as staged. Opposite him, Carey Mulligan, who has been wonderful in a wide variety of roles, is competent but hardly beguiling as Daisy. And Joel Edgerton is embarassingly over-the-top; I kept waiting for him to twirl his pencil-thin mustache and let out a cackle. Together, these three form a romantic triangle that should keep us involved and caring but instead feels like a run-of-the-mill soap opera. Only Tobey Maguire seems at home in his role as the outsider of the drama, but only when actually playing the character. When narrating, it's obvious from the start that he lacks the pipes to pull this off.
The Great Gatsby was moved from a Fall 2012 release date to early summer of 2013, and that's a wise choice on the part of the distributor. Thrown into the fire against a mighty crop of 2012 Oscar hopefuls, Luhrmann's film would've been eaten alive. I'll admit that this movie, from a detached perspective, is a visual feast, and there are individual scenes (like Tom consoling a heartbroken George Wilson and the title character's eventual demise) that work on their own terms. But it's clear from the finished product that the filmmakers spent far too much effort in making the movie look and feel "cool" and not enough on genuine emotion and narrative thrust. Ultimately, Gatsby for Dummies feels like a better title.
Rating: ** out of ****
As much as Leonardo DiCaprio looks the part of Jay Gatsby, this is not a performance that the actor can highlight on his resume alongside The Departed, Blood Diamond, and Django Unchained. Even Inception, which wasn't an actors' movie, showcased him better than this. There are far too many instances where this is too obviously a performance, especially when his character repeatedly and listlessly utters the catchphrase, "old sport." I understand that catchphrase is part of who the character is, but in this movie, it comes across as staged. Opposite him, Carey Mulligan, who has been wonderful in a wide variety of roles, is competent but hardly beguiling as Daisy. And Joel Edgerton is embarassingly over-the-top; I kept waiting for him to twirl his pencil-thin mustache and let out a cackle. Together, these three form a romantic triangle that should keep us involved and caring but instead feels like a run-of-the-mill soap opera. Only Tobey Maguire seems at home in his role as the outsider of the drama, but only when actually playing the character. When narrating, it's obvious from the start that he lacks the pipes to pull this off.
The Great Gatsby was moved from a Fall 2012 release date to early summer of 2013, and that's a wise choice on the part of the distributor. Thrown into the fire against a mighty crop of 2012 Oscar hopefuls, Luhrmann's film would've been eaten alive. I'll admit that this movie, from a detached perspective, is a visual feast, and there are individual scenes (like Tom consoling a heartbroken George Wilson and the title character's eventual demise) that work on their own terms. But it's clear from the finished product that the filmmakers spent far too much effort in making the movie look and feel "cool" and not enough on genuine emotion and narrative thrust. Ultimately, Gatsby for Dummies feels like a better title.
Rating: ** out of ****
Monday, May 6, 2013
Review of Disconnect
Chances are you're reading this review from a Facebook link on your mobile phone, tablet, or computer, and you're probably connected to at least three other activities while doing so. That statement may not mean much as written, but see this movie and you'll understand the significance. Disconnect is documentary filmmaker Henry Alex Rubin's fictional movie debut, and what an announcement to the world it is. Expertly weaving three tales of social dysfunction into a compulsively watchable whole, Rubin's film is a powerful meditation on all of the darker aspects of electronic communication and how what we gain in convenience, we lose exponentially in humanity. It's safe to say this is a movie both defined by and about our Digitial Age.
As the film begins, we're introduced to Kyle (Max Theriot), an 18-year-old runaway who performs sexual acts on his webcam for money. He lives in a house with several other teenage performers under the supervision of Harvey (Marc Jacobs), who runs the operation. But when local TV reporter Nina Dunham (Andrea Riseborough) visits the web site not for a little naughty fun but for a serious investigative piece on the sex cam industry, Kyle is understandably taken aback. He eventually agrees to an interview (with his face in shadow and his voice altered), but when the piece airs and the FBI swoops in, Nina is forced to confront the question of who is really exploiting whom.
Meanwhile, in a story that would certainly give Manti Te'o pause, high school outcast Ben Boyd (Jonah Bobo) becomes the victim of a prank played by bullies Jason (Colin Ford) and Frye (Aviad Bernstein). Posing online as a fictional girl named Jessica Rhony, they pretend to be interested in Ben and strike a meaningful connection with him. When Ben takes the bait, Jason and Frye go for the kill by sending a random naked picture and challenging him to reciprocate. They're delightfully surprised when he does, and they mass-mail Ben's naked photo all over school. The rest of this story focuses on Ben's parents, Rich (Jason Bateman) and Lydia (Hope Davis) as well as his sister, Abby (Haley Ramm) as they grieve over Ben's situation. Rich obsessively carries out an investigation, chatting with Jason (still posing as Jessica) over Facebook while hoping to uncover information. Both characters feel great remorse, Jason for a prank gone terribly awry, and Rich for failing to connect with his own son before it's too late.
Finally, we're introduced to Derek and Cindy Hull (Alexander Skarsgard and Paula Patton), who are both struggling to cope with the death of their infant son. His haven is online gambling, while hers is a chat support group, where she confides in an online "friend" (dealing with similar tragedy-- the passing of his wife) on how she cannot communicate with him effectively anymore. When the Hulls' identities are stolen, they hire detective Mike Dixon (Frank Grillo) to locate the fraudster. He is successful in doing so, but without concrete proof, he cannot act. The Hulls decide to take matters into their own hands by driving to the perpetrator's address and confronting him.
The danger and impersonal nature of online communication lies at the heart of Disconnect, and it hovers ominously while the interpersonal drama plays out. All three of these stories are easy to connect with and evoke powerful emotions, but there's no working around the fact that had this movie been set a mere 20 years earlier, none of this would've happened. The strongest of the stories is unquestionably the one about cyber-bullying. It is steeped in the darkest of irony; it takes an online prank gone wrong for a bully to come to grips with the horror of his actions and an otherwise honorable father to realize he has failed in ways he was utterly oblivious to. Without Facebook and all its alluring conveniences, could the Boyds be a healthier, more communicative family unit? The film, while not demonizing social media, seems to argue "yes."
Nina and Kyle's tale initially focuses on the sex cam industry before ultimately delving into the responsibilities of a reporter with regards to protecting her sources. Suffice it to say that this journalism major was riveted by this story, which asks all the tough questions one expects. Underage pornography is a crime, but Kyle is provided with everything he needs and is never mistreated by his superiors. Nina rightfully asks him what his future holds when he becomes "too old" to draw in as many customers, but once again, a breakdown in communication occurs between these two when it comes to addressing what each party's true motives are. And is the media ultimately just as exploitative? Thankfully, Disconnect is fearless in raising these issues and having the guts to not answer all of them.
The Hulls' predicament is interesting, and it paints a respectful portrait of identity theft victims and how easily otherwise smart people can be so nonchalant with their personal information, but this story falls short of the enthralling nature of the other two. Strong acting from Paula Patton and Alexander Skarsgard (unrecognizable from his popular True Blood persona) is enough to make us understand the characters' grief and keep the story humming along, but there are times when the other two plotlines threaten to overwhelm this one. Disconnect is a kinetic film that never stops moving and criss-crosses its storylines with energy to spare, so it thankfully never lingers on this slightly less enthralling chapter for too long.
Disconnect is first and foremost about social commentary, but it stands tall thanks to several standout performances. Leading the way is Jason Bateman, who steps away from his comedic roles to paint a powerful portrait of a man who is undeniably obsessed, but in a way many fathers can relate to. Up-and-coming British actress Andrea Riseborough (currently also seen in Oblivion) dons a flawless American accent and is entirely believable as an ambitious reporter who is forced to stare down some haunting ethical questions. The two main teenage actors, including Jonah Bobo as an all-too-realistic social outcast, and Colin Ford as a bully who receives true three-dimensional treatment from the screenplay, are exemplary. Finally, two high-energy, scene-stealing performances are turned in by Max Theriot as the cocky, rambunctious Kyle, and Frank Grillo as Jason's stern (albeit for good reasons) father. Grillo in particular has the satisfaction of participating in two of the film's storylines, and he dominates every scene.
LD Entertainment would be wise to re-release Disconnect come Oscar season. This is the kind of movie, with its engrossing narrative and rich ideas, that would play better in the autumn, when the summer blockbusters have long vacated multiplexes. Maybe it will play better on home video, where the ridiculous double-standard of "drama= TV, action and comedy= multiplexes" will once again be italicized. Regardless of when or how you choose to see this movie, I strongly encourage you to seek it out. It's not the least bit artsy-fartsy; in fact, with Rubin's stylistic emphasis of on-screen text blurbs and Facebook message shots, it's easily relatable and digestible even for teenage viewers. Not to mention the fact that there are enough familiar faces to make mainstream movie-goers comfortable. Bottom line: disconnect from your phone/tablet/computer for a few hours and watch this thought-provoking ensemble tale. You can plug back in anytime.
Rating: ***1/2 out of ****
As the film begins, we're introduced to Kyle (Max Theriot), an 18-year-old runaway who performs sexual acts on his webcam for money. He lives in a house with several other teenage performers under the supervision of Harvey (Marc Jacobs), who runs the operation. But when local TV reporter Nina Dunham (Andrea Riseborough) visits the web site not for a little naughty fun but for a serious investigative piece on the sex cam industry, Kyle is understandably taken aback. He eventually agrees to an interview (with his face in shadow and his voice altered), but when the piece airs and the FBI swoops in, Nina is forced to confront the question of who is really exploiting whom.
Meanwhile, in a story that would certainly give Manti Te'o pause, high school outcast Ben Boyd (Jonah Bobo) becomes the victim of a prank played by bullies Jason (Colin Ford) and Frye (Aviad Bernstein). Posing online as a fictional girl named Jessica Rhony, they pretend to be interested in Ben and strike a meaningful connection with him. When Ben takes the bait, Jason and Frye go for the kill by sending a random naked picture and challenging him to reciprocate. They're delightfully surprised when he does, and they mass-mail Ben's naked photo all over school. The rest of this story focuses on Ben's parents, Rich (Jason Bateman) and Lydia (Hope Davis) as well as his sister, Abby (Haley Ramm) as they grieve over Ben's situation. Rich obsessively carries out an investigation, chatting with Jason (still posing as Jessica) over Facebook while hoping to uncover information. Both characters feel great remorse, Jason for a prank gone terribly awry, and Rich for failing to connect with his own son before it's too late.
Finally, we're introduced to Derek and Cindy Hull (Alexander Skarsgard and Paula Patton), who are both struggling to cope with the death of their infant son. His haven is online gambling, while hers is a chat support group, where she confides in an online "friend" (dealing with similar tragedy-- the passing of his wife) on how she cannot communicate with him effectively anymore. When the Hulls' identities are stolen, they hire detective Mike Dixon (Frank Grillo) to locate the fraudster. He is successful in doing so, but without concrete proof, he cannot act. The Hulls decide to take matters into their own hands by driving to the perpetrator's address and confronting him.
The danger and impersonal nature of online communication lies at the heart of Disconnect, and it hovers ominously while the interpersonal drama plays out. All three of these stories are easy to connect with and evoke powerful emotions, but there's no working around the fact that had this movie been set a mere 20 years earlier, none of this would've happened. The strongest of the stories is unquestionably the one about cyber-bullying. It is steeped in the darkest of irony; it takes an online prank gone wrong for a bully to come to grips with the horror of his actions and an otherwise honorable father to realize he has failed in ways he was utterly oblivious to. Without Facebook and all its alluring conveniences, could the Boyds be a healthier, more communicative family unit? The film, while not demonizing social media, seems to argue "yes."
Nina and Kyle's tale initially focuses on the sex cam industry before ultimately delving into the responsibilities of a reporter with regards to protecting her sources. Suffice it to say that this journalism major was riveted by this story, which asks all the tough questions one expects. Underage pornography is a crime, but Kyle is provided with everything he needs and is never mistreated by his superiors. Nina rightfully asks him what his future holds when he becomes "too old" to draw in as many customers, but once again, a breakdown in communication occurs between these two when it comes to addressing what each party's true motives are. And is the media ultimately just as exploitative? Thankfully, Disconnect is fearless in raising these issues and having the guts to not answer all of them.
The Hulls' predicament is interesting, and it paints a respectful portrait of identity theft victims and how easily otherwise smart people can be so nonchalant with their personal information, but this story falls short of the enthralling nature of the other two. Strong acting from Paula Patton and Alexander Skarsgard (unrecognizable from his popular True Blood persona) is enough to make us understand the characters' grief and keep the story humming along, but there are times when the other two plotlines threaten to overwhelm this one. Disconnect is a kinetic film that never stops moving and criss-crosses its storylines with energy to spare, so it thankfully never lingers on this slightly less enthralling chapter for too long.
Disconnect is first and foremost about social commentary, but it stands tall thanks to several standout performances. Leading the way is Jason Bateman, who steps away from his comedic roles to paint a powerful portrait of a man who is undeniably obsessed, but in a way many fathers can relate to. Up-and-coming British actress Andrea Riseborough (currently also seen in Oblivion) dons a flawless American accent and is entirely believable as an ambitious reporter who is forced to stare down some haunting ethical questions. The two main teenage actors, including Jonah Bobo as an all-too-realistic social outcast, and Colin Ford as a bully who receives true three-dimensional treatment from the screenplay, are exemplary. Finally, two high-energy, scene-stealing performances are turned in by Max Theriot as the cocky, rambunctious Kyle, and Frank Grillo as Jason's stern (albeit for good reasons) father. Grillo in particular has the satisfaction of participating in two of the film's storylines, and he dominates every scene.
LD Entertainment would be wise to re-release Disconnect come Oscar season. This is the kind of movie, with its engrossing narrative and rich ideas, that would play better in the autumn, when the summer blockbusters have long vacated multiplexes. Maybe it will play better on home video, where the ridiculous double-standard of "drama= TV, action and comedy= multiplexes" will once again be italicized. Regardless of when or how you choose to see this movie, I strongly encourage you to seek it out. It's not the least bit artsy-fartsy; in fact, with Rubin's stylistic emphasis of on-screen text blurbs and Facebook message shots, it's easily relatable and digestible even for teenage viewers. Not to mention the fact that there are enough familiar faces to make mainstream movie-goers comfortable. Bottom line: disconnect from your phone/tablet/computer for a few hours and watch this thought-provoking ensemble tale. You can plug back in anytime.
Rating: ***1/2 out of ****
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Review of Iron Man 3
As the curtain rises on another summer movie-going season, I can't help but harken back to the year before and how two particular superhero movies-- The Avengers and Dark Knight Rises-- have changed the genre forever. For a comic-book-inspired film to work, something special must be present just to deliver a solid experience, let alone a great one. Some of the high-tech action of the former movie is present here, as is a little of the social commentary that marked the latter, but Iron Man 3 isn't trying to top either. But it still has that one special ingredient in spades: a memorable hero. Putting aside The Avengers and simply looking at the three Iron Man movies, it's easy to make the claim that they're more about Tony Stark's (Robert Downey Jr.) character development than about metal-on-metal action, although there's plenty of that to satisfy fans. Stark has far more scenes sans-metal suit than ever before, and believe it or not, it works to the film's benefit.
Iron Man 3 begins not long after the smackdown depicted in The Avengers. Stark is suffering from a serious case of insomnia and anxiety, constantly tinkering with new versions of his suit while his girlfriend, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) sleeps without him. When an attack from a terrorist calling himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) places Stark's good friend Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) in a coma, he vows revenge on live TV, even going so far as to revealing his address and inviting the Mandarin to bring it on. Obviously, this isn't a smart move. The Mandarin answers the call, and the resulting destruction leaves Stark for dead and Pepper in the hands of the terrorist's henchman, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce). Killian, long sore after Stark rebuffed his business proposal over a decade ago, has figured out the ultimate breed of terrorist. And not even the efforts of the newly-monikered Iron Patriot (Don Cheadle) may be enough to stop this threat.
One of the minor irritants of Iron Man 2 was that the main story often took "timeouts" to provide setup material for The Avengers. Not so here, where S.H.I.E.L.D. and the other Avengers are set aside to provide these characters more opportunities to shine. The story is better paced and more tightly focused here, and there's a twist involving one character that many will not see coming. Hardcore Iron Man fans may take issue with this particular turn of events (much the way some reacted to the ending of Dark Knight Rises), but who cares? Movies are more interesting when they're allowed to occasionally deviate from the printed page.
Clearly, all movies of this sort must deliver the goods when a climactic battle arises, and that's where Iron Man 3 runs into some turbulence. Don't get me wrong, the action here is high-octane, well-choreographed, and creative (thankfully it all doesn't come down to the familiar motif of Iron Man once again facing a guy in a stronger, fancier suit), but it's hard to ignore the fact that it's founded on a contrivance that an eight-year-old might find flaws with. There's also the nagging question of where the other Avengers are during this crisis and why S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't keeping closer tabs on Tony Stark. The events of New York are certainly mentioned often enough to make us wonder. Perhaps the events in the other heroes' upcoming movies will run concurrently? We'll see. Still, these inconsistencies can (and probably should) be forgiven in the name of fun, and it's important to realize that summer blockbusters like this work best when we care about the individuals involved.
Once upon a time, acting mattered little for superhero films. With this series, however, a single performance constantly elevates it. Robert Downey Jr is at his charismatic, sarcastic best, and his work in these movies is rightfully cited as the main reason non-fanboys gladly line up to see them. Ben Kingsley dominates every scene he's in, as does Guy Pearce as the oily, snaky Killian. Much like the first Iron Man, this movie provides some interesting variations on the standard Bad Guy formula. Paltrow's role has been significantly expanded, which is more than can be said for Rebecca Hall, who is so lively here that she deserves more screen time than what she ultimately receives. And Cheadle seems more at home here than in Iron Man 2. Finally, it's worth nothing that while the story introduces a young boy (Ty Simpkins) as Stark's sidekick, this subplot is anything but annoying. Downey has a lot of fun playing off the "mismatched buddy" material in this portion of the movie.
Shane Black replaces Jon Favreau in the director's chair, but the transition is seamless. The tone strikes the right balance between being too serious and too jokey. In a way, the movie apes its star; always ready with a humorous one-liner, but equally efficient in getting the job done. If this is the final appearance for Downey in this iconic role, it's a respectable way to go out. Iron Man 3 doesn't have the "wow" factor that The Avengers did last summer, but I respect the filmmakers for not trying to outdo it. Instead, it's a slightly smaller, more personal story, and while it's not without its flaws, I imagine die-hards, critics, and casual movie-goers alike will be pleased with the result.
Rating: *** out of ****
Iron Man 3 begins not long after the smackdown depicted in The Avengers. Stark is suffering from a serious case of insomnia and anxiety, constantly tinkering with new versions of his suit while his girlfriend, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) sleeps without him. When an attack from a terrorist calling himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) places Stark's good friend Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) in a coma, he vows revenge on live TV, even going so far as to revealing his address and inviting the Mandarin to bring it on. Obviously, this isn't a smart move. The Mandarin answers the call, and the resulting destruction leaves Stark for dead and Pepper in the hands of the terrorist's henchman, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce). Killian, long sore after Stark rebuffed his business proposal over a decade ago, has figured out the ultimate breed of terrorist. And not even the efforts of the newly-monikered Iron Patriot (Don Cheadle) may be enough to stop this threat.
One of the minor irritants of Iron Man 2 was that the main story often took "timeouts" to provide setup material for The Avengers. Not so here, where S.H.I.E.L.D. and the other Avengers are set aside to provide these characters more opportunities to shine. The story is better paced and more tightly focused here, and there's a twist involving one character that many will not see coming. Hardcore Iron Man fans may take issue with this particular turn of events (much the way some reacted to the ending of Dark Knight Rises), but who cares? Movies are more interesting when they're allowed to occasionally deviate from the printed page.
Clearly, all movies of this sort must deliver the goods when a climactic battle arises, and that's where Iron Man 3 runs into some turbulence. Don't get me wrong, the action here is high-octane, well-choreographed, and creative (thankfully it all doesn't come down to the familiar motif of Iron Man once again facing a guy in a stronger, fancier suit), but it's hard to ignore the fact that it's founded on a contrivance that an eight-year-old might find flaws with. There's also the nagging question of where the other Avengers are during this crisis and why S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't keeping closer tabs on Tony Stark. The events of New York are certainly mentioned often enough to make us wonder. Perhaps the events in the other heroes' upcoming movies will run concurrently? We'll see. Still, these inconsistencies can (and probably should) be forgiven in the name of fun, and it's important to realize that summer blockbusters like this work best when we care about the individuals involved.
Once upon a time, acting mattered little for superhero films. With this series, however, a single performance constantly elevates it. Robert Downey Jr is at his charismatic, sarcastic best, and his work in these movies is rightfully cited as the main reason non-fanboys gladly line up to see them. Ben Kingsley dominates every scene he's in, as does Guy Pearce as the oily, snaky Killian. Much like the first Iron Man, this movie provides some interesting variations on the standard Bad Guy formula. Paltrow's role has been significantly expanded, which is more than can be said for Rebecca Hall, who is so lively here that she deserves more screen time than what she ultimately receives. And Cheadle seems more at home here than in Iron Man 2. Finally, it's worth nothing that while the story introduces a young boy (Ty Simpkins) as Stark's sidekick, this subplot is anything but annoying. Downey has a lot of fun playing off the "mismatched buddy" material in this portion of the movie.
Shane Black replaces Jon Favreau in the director's chair, but the transition is seamless. The tone strikes the right balance between being too serious and too jokey. In a way, the movie apes its star; always ready with a humorous one-liner, but equally efficient in getting the job done. If this is the final appearance for Downey in this iconic role, it's a respectable way to go out. Iron Man 3 doesn't have the "wow" factor that The Avengers did last summer, but I respect the filmmakers for not trying to outdo it. Instead, it's a slightly smaller, more personal story, and while it's not without its flaws, I imagine die-hards, critics, and casual movie-goers alike will be pleased with the result.
Rating: *** out of ****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)