The Great Gatsby Review

The Great Gatsby has been acclaimed has been described as one of the great American stories, and has already been adapted to screen so many times but the one director that could probably give the story a proud version is Baz Luhrmann. Good ol’ Baz has shown how he can create a pace driven extravaganza of a film like Romeo+Juliet and Moulin Rouge. However, I felt that even though Luhrmann was born to make this film, I don’t think he gave the story much justice and just made it way too long just to include the grand parties and for some reason Jay Z. 

The Great Gatsby is based on the 1920s novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, where it follows the enigmatic millionaire Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his next door neighbour Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) who serves as the narrator of the whole film, trying to find his first love Daisy, who happens to be Nick’s cousin. Most of the film follows Gatsby and Nick’s blossoming friendship which seems filled with hole with Gatsby’s very mysterious nature, where the film then turns its attention to how Gatsby and Daisy (Carey Mulligan) try to rekindle their past love under the nose of Daisy’s husband and Nick’s friend Tom (Joel Edgerton). 

Throughout the film, you can tell that you are watching a Baz Luhrmann film, with its excessive filmic style where things are flying all around the screen, you sometimes struggle to be able to pay attention to the main points of the film when someone is jumping from one side of a

building to another. Having said this, I did enjoy the film stylistically with its brilliant cinematography it just oozes colour, but another main point I enjoyed about the film is the acting and the cast. With the likes of Tobey Maguire’s performance of a recovering alcoholic Carraway just shows that maybe he isn’t just Spiderman anymore. Maguire brings a very comic side to the story compared to Leonardo DiCaprio’s portrayal of Gatsby more resolved, but I don’t think Maguire is ever going to be able to shake off the Spiderman tag even though that he can put in some great performances. Also, Carey Mulligan’s performance of Daisy just shows that she will be a big player in Hollywood soon, with an Academy Award nomination already under her belt for An Education and being in great films such as Drive just shows that she will go far. But the main focus of the acting and performance for the whole film must be on Leonardo DiCaprio’s depiction of Jay Gatsby. Even though the film may not have been as successful with the critics, there is no way that you could say that DiCaprio’s performance was not great. You may go as far as to say that is Leo actually acting or is this just what he’s like, an angry guy with a mysterious past.

But there is one scene I want to focus on just to show how Leo’s performance overshadows all of the other characters in the film. Leonardo Di Caprio’s performance in The Great Gatsby seems to switch between from him being shown as a confident rich man with an evident swagger in his walk to someone who is overcome with nervousness and rage. In the scene where Jay Gatsby (Di Caprio) firsts meets Daisy, the transition is shown when the regularly cool Gatsby is shown herding a group of men with flowers to bombards Nick Carraway’s (Tobey Maguire) ahead of his reunion with his early love Daisy. We see the usual suave and sophisticated Gatsby turn to what could be described as a nervous wreck by constantly checking the time and rearranging his suit, this shows how Di Caprio has played the character in a nervous way. Also the audience gets the sense that Di Caprio can actually pull off the idea of him playing a character who is also playing a character within the film, as he immerses himself into the character of Gatsby. The audience gets the idea that something isn’t actually fine with the character as a whole as it seems that he can slip into a nervous wreck in a heartbeat.  Di Caprio’s performance of Gatsby is heightened through the use of his voice and how he address’ other characters, with the use of the catchphrase ‘old sport’. Throughout the sequence we get the idea that he was shown to be nervous through the stumbling of his own words when he tries to speak to Daisy, compared to the beginning of the sequence speaking to Carraway. The facial expressions performed by Di Caprio could be said to be quite unconventional as we got the sense of his nervousness seeping through his facial expressions. I got the idea that his face shows more of the Gatsby character than his costume, his posture could be shown as a complete mismatch compared to his facial expressions. This performance choice gives the idea of how he is trying to stay calm by casually swooping his hair back, but this act is shattered through his face and how he stares straight, with more movement shows the chaos of the performance by Di Caprio but it shows how the character was portrayed throughout the film. The physical movement performed by Di Caprio in the sequence is probably the more expressive part of his acting in The Great Gatsby, the way he is showing the audience how his is unsure of himself and the idea that the character himself is a character also, and tries to rearrange himself to which stance and posture will suit better with the scenery shows Di Caprio’s acting abilities.   

Even though most films have to have at least good performances from their cast, I mean The Great Gatsby’s cast was really good and all of the characters were played really well, however, DiCaprio just ran the show for most of the film. However, I don’t think that the film should have just banked on Leo’s performance with the film not having a lot of substance but just crazy parties. So overall, I did enjoy the film and you can really tell that it is a Baz Luhrmann film but I felt that a lot of the film was filler until DiCaprio came on screen and the inclusion of random Jay Z songs in a film set in the 1920’s really baffled me and I think an adaption more set to the times may have been more successful. 

Moonrise Kingdom, a very strange place.

To be honest, I can say that before watching Moonrise Kingdom, I’ve only ever watched one Wes Anderson film, and that was his acclaimed The Royal Tenenbaums which I did really enjoy, but in all fairness, there is a certain point where you have to look yourself in the mirror and say ‘can I take any more of this whimsical stuff?’ Well that’s what you get whenever you sit down to watch an Anderson film. A lot of fairy-tale and whimsical stuff flying out at you from the screen and you just seem to go along with it. You could say that the main synopsis of this film is quite simple, two people who fall in love and meet up and go into a forest to spend the rest of their lives together, there’s nothing wrong here until you find out that the star crossed lovers are actually 13. Although I did enjoy the film as a whole, you kind of feel really weird when you finish the film and think, did I actually just watch a film where two thirteen year olds were half naked for at least 20 minutes of the film. At this point you realise that even though it wasn’t intended, there may be something quite wrong with this film.

However, I will continue with the plot of the film which follows young Sam, played by newcomer Jared Gilman, missing from his scout troupe and has been revealed to be an orphan and who’s leader, played magnificently by Edward Norton, goes on a hunt to be able to find him. It is revealed that Sam is running away from the scouts to be able to be with oddball Suzy (Kara Haywood) who also seems to have family troubles, with a family run by Bill Murray (but in my opinion, why would you want to run away from a family who’s run by Bill Murray?) As the story goes along, we follow how Sam and Suzy become friends and form a relationship whilst most of the scouts and the towns policeman, who is portrayed by Bruce Willis, try to track them down. All this while one of the biggest storms in the town’s history is about to hit. Although the story is shown to just be a template of a regular love story, I think the spin Anderson tries to put on it gives it more of an edge compared to other so called love stories where it tries to show that falling in love is a big thing and shouldn’t be taken lightly.

In terms of style, I believe that this has been the main focus on the productions mind as even from the first scenes of Norton patrolling his troops. You get the feel that the style is very controlled and ordered and seems to be split into three parts with the main focus on what is in the middle of the screen. This idea has been used in countless Anderson films and just adds to the whimsy to the whole picture, and we get the idea that a natural force will disrupt what happens to the characters static and ordered lives. The cinematography in this film could be said to be classic Anderson as he rarely uses cuts or transitions to move along the story but instead favouring to a tracking shot of the whole scene, also you get the sense of a very nostalgic feel to the whole film, with it being set in the 60s, we get the idea that the camera has been tinted to give the feel of a home video or a very 60s style film. Also, with the idea that kids are involved, I get the sense that it is looking back for people who may have been children at that time and the nostalgic feel to the picture is justified with the pastel colours of setting shows what the 60s may have looked like. With style, I had the impression that the style of the film was determined by what character was on screen, for example, whenever we see Sam, Suzy or Ed Norton’s character. I felt that the style was heightened to show what the character was like, as they are shown to be quite childlike but with Bill Murray’s character, the style was shown to be darker and more melodramatic to suit the character’s depressing nature.

Probably what I most enjoyed about the film is the cast, the performances from Ed Norton, Bill Murray and Bruce Willis. They just had this certain feel about it that they actually were the characters played on screen, especially with Willis’ character as audiences are usually only associate him with blockbuster action films, so it was quite a surprise to see him in quite a quirky movie like this. I think his performance suited what the character was trying to get across, which is that growing up too fast isn’t always the right thing to do and that enjoying childhood whilst you can should be praised. Now, if I was going to criticise this film in any way would be the more, shall we say romantically charged scenes between Sam and Suzy. At the time of production, the actors used to play these characters were only 12 years old, and for some reason, Wes Anderson thought it would be a good idea to have them to be half naked for at least 20 minutes of the film and have them kiss numerous times whilst Sam ‘cops a feel’. I’m not saying that its perverted in any way but it may seem a bit seedy to people who actually haven’t watched the film, like if I showed a random person that 20 minutes, they would want Wes Andersons’ head on a pike but in the context of the film, I suppose it isn’t too bad. I’m not saying I enjoyed that part because out of the whole film, it made me feel quite uncomfortable, with the idea that Anderson actually asked them to do this, and on film but you know, if you want to make a quirky film, you have to work with some strange people.

So overall, I did enjoy the film to a certain extent, with the films overarching style and sort of mocking pastiche of the 60s America. With the performances by some of the actors, notably Edward’s Norton portrayal of a scout leader just sort of shows that even adults still want to be like kids or how Bill Murray is just amazing as usually. Also the use of nostalgic camera movement and colours to give the feel of the 60s should be given praise but the one flaw are those really strange 20 minutes which well, just made it feel like a really strange experience. To recommend this film may seem like an odd task now by saying that there are some really bizarre moments in it but just give it a chance, you may actually think that there is a meaning to it, but I don’t really see it myself. 

Things will get better but Safety Not Guaranteed

Firstly debuted at the Sundance Film Festival and picked up by Sony, Safety Not Guaranteed is a snappy picture that the Indie film scene can be proud of, with its brilliant framing and oddball characters makes it an indie classic. The indie genre has grown throughout the past decade into a powerhouse of the film industry and just shows how people with the strangest imagination can now become major players in Hollywood with the director, Colin Trevorrow being confirmed as the director for Jurassic World showing how he has come so far. The film is ultimately about loss, which is something we can all relate to. I mean everyone has lost something in their life haven’t they?

Safety Not Guaranteed is directed by Colin Trevorrow and written by Derek Connolly and focuses on Darius, played by Aubrey Plaza, and her journey to be able to get the right story for her internship at the local newspaper, but also trying overcome the death of her mother. Darius accompanied with Jeff (Jake Johnson) and Arnau (Karan Soli) attempt to interview a man who put in a classified advertisement for a companion on his quest to go back in time. So basically the most indie and quirky film that could be thought up. The story follows how Darius is in training with the wannabe time traveller, Kenneth, played by Mark Duplass, and how she is going in too deep with the assignment, the film then creates many tangents within the film, with Darius and Kenneth forming a relationship and Jeff trying to get Arnau ‘laid’. Mixing the two very different genres of action and romance together to create something in which could be enjoyed by the niche indie audiences and the mainstream.

The themes within Safety Not Guaranteed follow the sense of loss which is shown with each of the characters. For example, the loss of life between Darius and Kenneth losing someone close to them but also the loss of confidence suffered by Arnau who is shown to be the stereotypical nerdy intern who just cannot seem to talk to girls but with one pep talk with Jeff turns into a suave and fully confident sex connoisseur. The idea of loss could be seen as a major theme throughout the whole film as almost every character seems to suffer with it in a certain way and the simplistic generalisation that people should not be judged by their looks. To be honest, most people come across as weird within real life but may be some of the best people that you may speak to, and this is shown in this film with Kenneth talking about time travel but shown in a childlike state. Another major theme within the film could be said to be the repairing or overcoming past mistakes with the idea that Kenneth wants to go back in time to stop his girlfriend from dying but is revealed to not actually be dead; but also it could be shown that characters need to understand that moving on is an important part of life, and being young should be celebrated and not to live in regret.  

Where Safety Not Guaranteed champions is its relatable charm to the socially awkward of the world with the idea that they can be shown to be ‘normal’ people (but what is normal?) The idea that the themes may relate to many people in the world just show that the film industry big shots can be just like regular people, like the idea that Tom Cruise can be shown to be socially awkward and shy can give everyone a better sense of confidence. However, I do believe that the film tends to dwell on the idea that it is an indie film and tries too hard to be edgy, like the idea that time travel in real life is a possibility, it just seems to whimsical compared to its more realistic past chapters.

In conclusion, Safety Not Guaranteed could be seen as a triumph in film to the point where we the audience seems to feel a bit better about themselves with the feeling that time travel may actually happen with the film giving the ultimate theme message that everything is not that bad and being socially awkward can be overcome, or something like that anyway, I’m just getting past the idea that Kenneth actually put an advertisement in the newspaper for a companion for time travel. 

Confusing is an understatement: Trance review

You can always count on Danny Boyle bringing out a great film, with his 90s masterpiece Trainspotting and multi-Oscar winning Slumdog Millionaire just showing that this guy oozes talent, he can jump from genre to genre from trying to shock everyone with Trainspotting to trying to confuse the hell out of the audience with the most non-linear narrative since Inception with his newest release Trance (2013) starring James McAvoy. Now, don’t get me wrong with Trance, I do believe that it is up there with many of Boyle’s very high quality of films and the cinematography is just immensely beautiful, but on the other hand, the narrative just way too overly confusing. It’s like he is trying to compete with the trend of films at the minute where it just disregards the conventions of narrative structure and just want to make the audience wonder what on Earth just happened during the 101 minutes the film goes on for.

The story of Trance follows Simon Newton (McAvoy) who is a gambler who is in deep trouble with the wrong type of people and has to repay his debt. To be able to do this, he sets up a heist to steal a priceless painting with the help of Franck, played by the undervalued Vincent Cassel, however, during the heist, Franck knocks out Simon with a simple swoop of his shotgun. This then creates a new chain of events, as Simon has now lost his memory, and more importantly, the part of his memory where he hid the painting for Franck and his gang of criminals. To be able to get the painting back, Franck suggests using hypnosis (yep, that’s right hypnosis) to be able to get Simon’s memory back about the painting and are connected to hypnotist Elizabeth Lamb played by Rosario Dawson. The narrative then follows the numerous hypnotic sessions between Elizabeth and Simon where she puts Simon under a trance (did you see what Boyle did there) to be able to find out where Simon has left the painting. Now this is where the narrative gets a little confusing, it is revealed that through the sessions that Simon and Elizabeth have already met and the things that they have done together after the sessions may have already happened, this then leads up to one of the most confusing twists in recent cinema history which involves a red car, a painting and erm….a shaven vagina.

All though I have said that the narrative would be impossible to follow if you just missed even a minute of it, overall the film is very strong and I did really enjoyed it, however, the narrative is just so rich and strong, it is impossible to talk about it without giving a lot of the plot points away, but I will try to not give a lot away. The narrative of the film seems to follow McAvoy’s character Simon and throughout most of the film, the audience believes that the film is for Simon, but that is thrown out of the window once you are faced with the twist near the end of the film. The film then sort of shifts towards Franck and Elizabeth as characters and Simon is shown to be the antagonist of the film, this completely disorientates the audience so much that we all just seem to go with what Boyle has put up on screen.

Within the film, I do believe that the visuals are very strong and do match up with the narrative, the way the visuals within the trance sessions just give it a very mythical and hypnotic look. This then gives the audience the sense that the visuals are trying to match up with the narrative but also trying to make it seem realistic, this may seem impossible within a trance sequence because essentially when you are in a trance, it is just a dream so this could create any sort of visual. I think when of the best visual effects within the film is when Simon is shown to go on a unstoppable killing spree and kills Franck and his criminal gang, but it is revealed that this is a trance session as Franck speaking with half of his head blown off.

Like I said earlier in this review, I do believe that Danny Boyle is trying to top the trend of non-linear and confusing films, it also seems that by trying to do this, it shows in the narrative that maybe Boyle tried a little too hard to try and make the film as non-linear as possible. The twists that I do understand within the film, I believe were portrayed on screen extremely well and it did play well within the narrative, but I also think that the twists that took me a while to understand may have been just too confusing. However, this may just be a reason to say that the film was just too confusing for me.

In conclusion, I believe that Trance is a very good film, it may not be Oscar winning quality but I did really enjoy it overall, and with the performance of James McAvoy as practically a very disturbed individual was inspired. The plot is highly entertaining, even if it may not be very easy to follow, it feels like such a weight off your shoulders once you figure out what has actually happened through the 101 minute film. So overall, I did enjoy the film but if you aren’t into films where you may actually have to think, I wouldn’t choose this film as a starting point as it will mess with your mind.

And, if you are interested, here is an article I did for my university's website http://www.demon-media.co.uk/film-and-tv/head-scratching-cinema/

I just hope that the true story is more interesting....

Gangster Squad (2013) is based on the true story of how the LAPD create a group of cops, which includes Sgt John O'Mara (Josh Brolin) and Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling), try and take down Micky Cohen's (Sean Penn) mafia group within the city. On this basis, this film would probably be right up my street with the idea that its based on a true story and that it includes a stellar cast, with rising stars like Emma Stone. However, I felt that throughout the film that, even though its based on a true story, it doesn't seem believable at all, would the LAPD really allow a cop to just set up a group to try and take down Micky Cohen who was the biggest mafia boss at the time. Also, I didn't particularly enjoy this film because it just seemed to pedantically go on and on with the hope that the visuals and the all star cast would be able to carry the film. To be honest, in a cinema of attractions point of view, the film would be really entertaining, with the stylisation of what it would have been like in the 40s and the inclusion of unnecessary gore, really in the first scene, a guy gets ripped apart by too cars in a homage to the old hung drawn and quartered way of punishment. But I did not realise that the script and whole story would of been so stale, I think its one of those films where there is a great cast but a bad script, like I think Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are great actors and Crazy, Stupid Love is a terrific film but Gangster Squad will be a film that will not live long in their memory.

The film does however, have some quite good performances from some of its principle cast, like Josh Brolin who has sort of revived his career in recent years into some kind of leading man from the shadows and obviously Gosling puts in a great performance but I'm not too sure what his accent is meant to be. I felt that the whole film is a way to see if they could pass off the film just on the back of its stars, like a lot of films nowadays. To be honest, the film did sort of bore me after a while and I stopped paying attention for maybe a minute but this didn't seem too much of a problem, as the plot was so basic and predictable, I probably didn't have to watch the film and I could guess what would happen.

On the other hand, there were parts in this film that I did actually enjoy, obviously being a fan Tarantino films, I would be fine with the violence within the film, like the punishment scenes performed by Cohen's goons and the cinematography of the film was so magical it just showed how far we have came in the world of film by showing that we can make a mediocre film look like a masterpiece in visuals. Also with audiences who don't mind recycled 40s gangster characters like the psychopathic mob boss and the disillusioned police officer who has a pregnant wife to worry about, then Gangster Squad will give the cinema time of your life. But if you are a person who actually likes it when directors and writers actually try to create a non cliché film out of a true story, well I have to say that Gangster Squad will disappoint you deeply, I had an open mind when watching this film and hoping that its going to be a good film with the great premise and the basis of the story, however, it just misses it for me. I will say this though, I really hope that the true story would be more interesting than this film.

They don’t make comedies like this anymore.

 

Over the past few years and maybe even decades, the comedy genre has seemed to be in a rut in which it just can’t seem to get out of. I mean, there have been a few great comedy films that have now grown into cult status, for example, Napoleon Dynamite and Anchorman just to name two, but in my own opinion, I don’t believe that any have them have even gone into the level of comedy genius compared to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The film just oozes the appeal of a comedy great, from Graham Chapman’s portrayal of King Arthur of Britons to the dread Knights of Ni, it just seems as if, this film could be seen as the perfect comedy film.

The basic plot of the film is King Arthur, who is portrayed by Graham Chapman, trying to gather his knights of the roundtable in order to complete God’s quest of finding the Holy Grail, but it doesn’t seem to go as easy as that with many trials and tribulations for each of Arthur’s Knights of the Roundtable which includes Sir Lancelot (John Cleese) and Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-as-Sir Lancelot (Eric Idle). In my opinion, The Holy Grail should be considered as one of the greatest comedies to come out of Britain, with satirical look of what it may have been like in early centuries England. I think what was good about this film is that the comedy is not shown to be intelligent but is just a surreal comedy which doesn’t actually make sense but the audience doesn’t really understand, this is shown with one of my personal favourite parts of the film with each character not having a horse but a servant who clicks two coconuts together to signify the sounds of horse shows. I believe I rate Monty Python and the Holy Grail so highly is the simplicity of the whole production and its eclectic and parodist nature, for example, with the idea of having a whole part of the story continue with just a song and dance, showing a parody of many musical films of having the whole plot device of singing to carry the narrative.

Even though I am a self-confused Python fan, I do have a few negative points about the film as a whole, with the nature of the film shown to be quite lacklustre with the idea that it is not the usual Python comedy from the original Flying Circus series. Also, the idea of having a periodic story telling through a book does go with the whole ethos of the story, however, I believe this was just to show off the witticisms of each of the pythons. But this use of juxtaposing each characters journey with zany one liners and the whole beginning credits with what looks like Swedish instantly catapults the film into cult classic status, with the idea of the different story lines may have influenced some of the more intelligent films of today like Memento with its impossible storyline.

I suppose, the film just shows the importance of the whole Python era in the 60s and 70s and how influential they have been, even the very mention of the ‘rabbit scene’ from this film will get any regular comedy and Python fan into hysterical laughter just thinking about it, but alas, the film industry is not as it once was by recycling the norm within Hollywood like Adam Sandler and friends making even more hand banging-ly bad Grown Up films where the characters are actually laughing at their own jokes. On the other hand, with Holy Grail, it creates, what Baudrillard would call, ‘hyperreailty’ where it doesn’t actually follow the real story of King Arthur as they decide not to go to Camelot because ‘it is a silly place’. It just shows the comedic genius of each of the Pythons as they can create their own branch of comedy films and can keep even more generations laughing 40 years on. For me to be able to rate this film in just five stars would be an understatement to the Python’s genius, but it’s at least five out of five. You don’t have to take my advice but just go by what the creators said themselves, ‘You can do worse than see it’.