The Great Gatsby

Well Old Sport, let me start by saying, "The Great Gatsby was rather surprising!"  What I mean by this Old Sport is that I was surprised.  I remember when I first saw the preview of this film and I thought that it didn't seem like a film I would be chomping at the bit to see.  Now don't get me wrong Old Sport, I really enjoy a solid storied film, and if any of the recent string of films to hit our screens was to have a solid story it surely would be the timeless classic novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald; but that doesn't mean I would be on the edge of my seat either, Old Sport.

Well if anything was to be certain it was in fact that this films story-line was very good - as assumed.  Like many of you out there, I too was privileged [forced] to read The Great Gatsby.  However, if my memory serves me correct, what I remembered of this book was...nothing.  In fact, my experience with this story prior to viewing the film was rather minuscule.

My version of the book, Old Sport!

I know what you're thinking, and yes; I was a bit of a "slacker" when it came to the force feeding of literature.  To be totally honest with you, even the abridged version I barely read, and to top it off, I think the parts I did read were over a decade ago.  Needless to say, I was a "first-timer" viewing this film.

Even though the words of Fitzgerald were not etched into my brain, I was still able to follow along with a story closely resembling a crazy straw, not a piece of spaghetti.  If those visuals do not help, this will;  The Great Gatsby, for those who don't know, follows along a fictional journey of wealth, power, intrigued deception, mystery, murder, love, Old Sport, etc.  The Protagonist, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is a bonds man/writer who moves in next to a wealthy recluse named Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio).  Across the water from these two lives Carraway's cousin, Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan) and her husband Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton).  Throughout the story, all of the above mentioned become intertwined with one another, leading to a pseudo-love triangle, jealous rage, dangerous acts, etc. etc. etc.

The Great Gatsby... It's Complicated.

Ultimately in the end there are multiple causalities, even more unhappy characters, and some down-and-out relationships; just another typical love story... not.  This story makes Romeo and Juliet seem a little less complicated.

One thing that aided in my following this story Old Sport, was the supreme acting on all levels: key to ancillary characters.  Even though Gatsby was clearly the title character, Nick Carraway was by far the most stellar performance of them all.  Having said that, no one character/actor seemed weak.  Even if you are a fan of the novel, I felt that each actor truly brought their "A" game to this film, thus not letting the viewers down.  I'm not going to jump on my soap-box here Old Sport and say that each and every performance was Oscar worthy, or that their performances will be the standard to which all others be compared, but more so that the cast as a whole was excellent; they all understood their roles, knew their place in the story and played their character's to a "T".  I wouldn't be surprised come next year if we have a name or two from this cast and crew said aloud to the Academy for one thing or another;  Costuming and Production Design would definitely be the categories for which I would most expect to see those names, Old Sport.

Rosebud...wait, that's a different story

Put aside the story; put aside the acting; put aside the power such a famous story brings; and let's focus on the most impressive aspects of this film, and that is the look and feel of this Old Sport.  The term Production Design is a term most people don't know; coined by William Cameron Menzies, for his work on Gone With The Wind, a Production Designer's responsibilities are to:

"collaborates with the director and director of photography to establish the visual feel and specific aesthetic needs of the project. The production designer guides key staff in other departments such as the costume designer, the key hair and make-up stylists, the special effects director and the locations manager (among others) to establish a unified visual appearance to the film."

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_designer

Before Menzies, this position was known as the "Art Director".  The reason Production Designer became so important was because on the set of Gone With The Wind, Menzies was coordinating and leading a much larger scale production and crew far greater than most other Art Directors of that time.  Due to his enormous involvement with the look and feel of GWTW, the Academy decided to create a "position" granted to those who truly went above and beyond the normal required output of Art Directors.  Thus Production Designer was born (The Art Director title was not abandoned and the position still exists on smaller projects today; however, not all Art Directors are seen as Production Designers vice versa).  The more you know Old Sport!!!!!

The Production Design for The Great Gatsby was top-notch.  This film was a CGI Heavy-Weight; seems to be a common trend these days, however, the look of the buildings, settings and the automobiles was absolutely extraordinary.  The grandiosity of the interiors of Gatsby's mansion, the Buchanan's mansion and the bootlegger club in the barber shop; were quite exquisite and elaborate.  The rave like parties thrown by Gatsby were luxurious and over-the-top and everything they were supposed to be.

As you can see above not a stitch was overlooked.  The characters, costumes, parties, confetti, mansion etc. looked and felt just as the book intended, it portrayed the epitome of The American Dream.  The viewer feels as though they are a member of the 1920's era festivities   

In order to make such an elaborate film with an intricate story full of big names, you have to have a Director who is no stranger to the experience; enter Baz Luhrmann.  Don't worry if the name doesn't sound familiar right away, I'll give you a few titles he has been associated with and we will see where we are at that point: Moulin Rouge!, Romeo + Juliet, Australia.  Old Sport!!  Maybe now his name sounds a little more familiar to you.  It turns out that Luhrmann is the "perfect" candidate to direct such a film of this magnitude; it's pretty evident since he has been behind the wheel of some huge projects with mega success.  Luhrmann was able to create an entirely new vision for this film, a remake of the 1974 version starring Mia Farrow and Robert Redford, and make it stand on its own two feet.  Even though the story isn't original, and the film isn't an original, this version of The Great Gatsby makes it seem as though it is original, and because of that, it will stand out amongst the crowd-all thanks to: the cast, the crew, the look, the direction, and every little detail not mention nor forgotten.

Final Words: Large Popcorn.

Having seen the project from start to finish with little to no memory of the story, and having the ability to see every aspect big and small, I can safely say this film is worth seeing.  Not the best for young children, but maybe a good film for them once they get [forced] the privilege of reading this literary masterpiece.  

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large

                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping

Star Trek Into Darkness

Reviewers blog: these are the writings of the Popcorn or Snore review for Star Trek Into Darkness, the sequel to 2009's Star Trek.  Both films starred the same highly likeable cast of well fit actors to portray a very iconic cast: Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, John Cho as Sulu, Karl Urban as Bones, Simon Pegg as Scotty, etc... you get my point.

 

Into Darkness, the sequel to Star Trek from Director and current Sci-Fi go to man, J.J. Abrams is a film worth watching.  For those who are not familiar with Mr. Abrams work, you will be soon.  Abrams is the most recent "film god" amongst us mere mortals.  His current work includes the Star Trek series for one, he also did a little fan-boy nod of a film to a certain Mr. Speilberg, called Super 8.  Abrams will also be known for yet another project, one with many years of love and loyalty, as well as a big ole budget, the upcoming Episode VII Star Wars!  Now I know this sounds peculiar; the guy behind Star Trek will also be behind Star Wars?  Yes.  Instead of setting your phaser's to stun and hunting down Mr. Abrams for answers, we should all sit back and breathe a sigh of relief.  The reason we shouldn't be going to Def-Con 1 is because it is pretty evident that J.J. Abrams knows what he is doing when it comes to making Science Fiction films no longer a thing of the past but instead the present and future!  So fret not my friends, instead relax, take a deep breathe and enjoy the sweet gifts of great film that J.J. Abrams is mastering.

Into Darkness was similar to Terminator II.  It made the first film look less impressive.  Star Trek was a great film to kick off the re-boot franchise and get fans back into the adventure.  It offered comedy, suspense, action and calm, all to a very solid story.  What Into Darkness gave us was all of that to the 10th degree.  The reason is rather obvious: the characters and the world had already been established in the first, so this film only had to create its own individual story instead of create a world and the people within it.  This allowed the level of intensity to be put into the red.  This film delivered on all fronts to blow your mind.  The acting was superb, even more impressive than the first.  The story was phenomenal with bigger twists and turns, ones even the most avid fan may not predict.  Let's not forget about the directing, well that was pretty much on par with the first: top-notch.  All in all Into Darkness did not disappoint even the slightest.

This film allowed so much more character development than the first film ever gave allowing the viewer the sink into the suspense and feel what the characters were feeling.  Into Darkness really grabs the viewer and forces them behind the entire crew of the USS Enterprise, in fact, you even get behind a certain throwback character and have no problem being there, hopefully by this point I am not spoiling anything since the characters name has been released-Khan.

Khan is an ultimate baddie with super-human strengths.  He is a genetically engineered human who was revived from a 300 year cryogenic sleep and is trying to rescue his fellow cryo'd crew.  He was utilized to create advanced weapons and spacecraft by Star Fleet, then betrayed which forced him to become the antagonist he always was.  This leads to altercations between himself and Kirk, a rather infamous hatred from one to the other, and the pulse which moves Into Darkness forward.  In this film Khan was played by Benedict Cumberbatch (Tinker Tailor Soldier, Atonement) and is actually one of the best characters in this film.  His acting and portrayal of someone who is so supremely superior yet vulnerable was very powerful.  You wanted to root for him while needing to loathe his presence; he was the perfect villain, equal parts strength and smarts.  A perfect fit and match to the smarts of Spock and the drive of Kirk. 

One of the things I find the most entertaining about this franchise is its ability to harness bits and pieces of the original series and previous story-lines; like having Kahn for instance, or tribbles, or certain green tinted females for which Kirk has a certain affinity.

 

Being able to utilize these prior storyline gives this film a satisfying feeling.  It allows for a bigger picture to the story, one that bridges generations of the Star Trek franchises: film and television.  It's a little nod to those who have been fans since the beginning without excluding those recently baptized in the wold of Trekkies.

As can be expected from any and all Sci-Fi films, the use of CGI was overly present in this film.  I have been on my soap-box for a while now about how CGI is no good, however, in this film I think even I have to bite my own tongue.  Without CGI this film would have been a lot harder to make...good.  They could have used miniatures, but I can be realistic and say that a film of this magnitude in this setting was not offensive to me, the self proclaimed LOATHER of CGI.  In fact, I found myself almost oblivious to the fact that so much of this film was fake.  Bad Robot Productions, the company behind J.J. Abrams and vice-versa, did a bang-up job on the look of this film.  I truly feel that the production design on both Star Trek films was about as good as can be expected.  The costumes, the special effects, the "feel" of this world was above and beyond the final frontier of film making.  Star Trek into Darkness was the perfect sequel to an otherwise perfect franchise's starting film.  

Final Words: Extra-Large Popcorn.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a complete film: story, character, look and feel.  It was an impressive undertaking only shadowed by its impressive everything else.  This film will not disappoint the longtime fan or the first time Trekkie.  This film has many intense sequences, both with violence as well as language.  Most likely not the best film for a younger person to see, at least no unattended by an adult assuming full responsibility. 

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large

                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping

The Big "waste of time" Wedding

I saw The Big Wedding recently and I was left puzzled. I'm sure you are also puzzled as to why I saw The Big Wedding, "But Popcorn or Snore, this film doesn't exactly fit with the past numerous films you have reviewed.  We're there explosions, or car chases? Blood and guts and gore? Was the film inappropriate at all?" Lets be fair, I need to review films of all genres, and I honestly thought this film would be more clever and fun, similar to It's Complicated. So to answer your inquires simply: No, No, Yes. You are right reader, The Big Wedding wasn't exactly a heart pounding thrill ride or a nail biting thriller, however this film offered so much more and even less, leaving me speechless at the end, but not in a good way. 

For starters as you can tell from the title of this review, and I'm sure you are all very intuitive, this film was, how might I put this, no bueno-no good-a bust! Not worth yours or your enemies time and troubles. The main problem was with the most important aspect, you guessed it: its story.  This film was written/directed by Justin Zackham (wrote The Bucket List)  Zackham was trying to create a fun story full of numerous plots all intertwining until ultimately terminating in one big happy resolution. This sounds convoluted because it seems like too much is happening for the resolution to be clean and easy. Another issue is that the film is 90 minutes, this doesn't exactly promote realistic emphasis on each character's problems. Instead of a film revolving around one issue, let's say being a wallflower, and having that issue pan out over the films duration leading towards the characters epiphany about his role in society, we instead follow multiple people each with unique dilemmas and a very down and dirty quick fix. 

Basically what I am getting at is, it is too much too little time. This film had what I like to call the "Woody Allen Phenomena" It's an overload problem in the end, To Rome With Love anyone?  Worst of all a lot of the problems are rather typical: divorced parents, love life issues, morality issues, etc.  As you can assume these all lead to very obvious and predictable resolutions. In other words a 90 minute snore.  The film unfortunately was never able to take off, instead it kept getting held down by the chunky typical story line. 

The cast ensemble was rather amazing which is why it is so disappointing that the story line was problematic: Robert DeNiro, Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon, Robin Williams, Katherine Heigl, Amanda Seyfried, Topher Grace. Okay, so the last few names are significantly less impressive than the first four names, whatever, my point is that an ensemble cast was put together to help draw in audiences, to this I say, "shame on you."  How dare someone put together this many names drawing from so many demographics and then put them into such a sub-mediocre film. I hope those actors got payed in full and weren't hoping to get a percentage of the overall take, I think they would have been just as disappointed as me. 

Let me try to convey to you the disappointment and shock I felt with this film: I was shocked!!!!

Not enough? Okay, how about the fact that for thirty minutes or so after the film I felt as though I was in a daze. I kept trying to make sense of what happened, sadly to no avail.  I felt like i just woke up to an earthquake, yet had no clue what was happening. This film fell flatter than a potato's heart-rate monitor.

Oddly enough the acting wasn't atrocious, the location wasn't atrocious, even the directing from such an unaccomplished director wasn't atrocious, just the poor story WAS atrocious. I think that if the film was longer and was given more of an opportunity to expand with the individual story lines that this movie could have been more interesting; instead the whole thing was boring. The issue, besides the bad plot, was that you never felt an urgency to get behind the characters.  I felt less attached to any of the characters and their lives in The Big Wedding than I did for Mark Wahlberg and/or The Rock in Pain & Gain. That may have been due to the predictability of the story, the "typical" issues faced by the characters, the lack of sticking with any one plot line, the quick paced back-and-forth between all of these issues, or all of it; I say all of it most likely aided to the bore.  So when you add up all of these issues you get one big "WHAT?!" and very little desire to see how it plays out. Literally this film loses you before you ever sit down in the theater. 

The film tried its best to be funny and provide comedic relief, however the "comedy" was not LOL worthy and there was no "relief" in the comedic relief, just a sense of awkwardness among the viewers.  Instead of chuckling from the one-liners and the situations in which these characters were thrown, all I could think was "awkward" and then all I could hear were crickets chirping.  About the funniest thing this film had to offer was that it presented itself as a legitimate film. Hilarious!!! Another part that added to the eternal awkwardness was that The Big Wedding had similar language problems as any and every episode of SouthPark.  If I was born in a different era, I would say this film needs a big 'ole bar of soap in its mouth.  Literally it sounded like a conversation between fraternity brothers.  Lot's of sexual innuendos and perverse language.  The film also had its fair share of sexuality, both in nudity as well as sexual references and acts.  Now I know, I get it, The Big Wedding wanted to be more realistic, and perhaps it was.  Perhaps it achieved said realism because no life is story book perfect.  Of all the weddings how many go smoothly?  How many start and end without some form of a hiccup?  So to this one extent I can give a ton of credit, because it cannot be an easy undertaking to make a film where things don't necessarily happen because they can, but more because it makes more sense.  But come on!!!  Can you at least make the story entertaining?  I mean it was like the film version of Murphy's Guide: everything that can go wrong will go wrong.

Final words: ZZZ

This film was not worthy of a budget certainly not worth your time and money.  Even if you happen to be the biggest fan of any one of these people, I assure you you will be left with a sour taste in your brain.  This film contains nudity, adult situations and language.  No kids, or any human for that matter, should see this film. 

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping  

IRON MAN 3

One word: EPIC!  This was quite the fantastic ending to a trilogy spanning the past 5 years.  One thing that has never been overlooked in these films is the ability to have a very present comical aspect while also having adrenaline pumped action sequences and top notch special effects.  This franchise has allowed the Marvel community to breathe easily all by itself.  Unlike most of the previous Marvel films, Iron Man hit a home run right out of the gate.  While the muscle bound Hulk struggled to make any impact, and Fantastic 4 was far less than fantastic, and let's not even talk about Daredevil or Electra, Iron Man gave the comic book fan something to celebrate.  In fact, once Iron Man's successful formula was found, it was quickly thrown into the writer's mill and shot out the other side in the successful Thor and even more successful Avengers.

What was this algorithmic formula I'm speaking of?  Well to be honest with you a lot of that starts with casting.  Originally Robert Downey Jr. was not the studio focus for the playboy billionaire mechanic Tony Stark.  Downey Jr. wasn't even in the original picture until John Favreau (Dir of Iron Man 1 & 2, Exec. Producer for Iron Man 3) insisted that Robby was absolutely ideal for the role.  This disagreement apparently lasted for a while, ultimately proving Favreau to be the correct judge of character.  The reason the casting of Tony Stark was so successful was the ability by Downey Jr. to convey a realistic self-centered richy rich.  In fact throughout the franchises run RDJr. has been stellar.  He has left no doubts in my mind as to what Tony Starks motivations, fears, accomplishments, or ego stem from and how they all intertwine to feed off one another.  I mean come on people, "I am Ironman."  If that doesn't sum up Tony Stark in these films then I don't know what does.

One of the best parts about this franchise has been the ever evolving storyline of Tony Stark and his assistant, successor, girl friend, one true love, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow).  From the first introduction of these characters to the final bow, we have seen a full transformation of Tony Stark from ladies ladies ladies to I can't live without Pepper.  Now this of course sounds as though it may complicate Tony Stark's drive, but it instead allows for depth of the characters and story.  It gives Stark something to come back for over and over again.  It is known however, that if you are dating a superhero you will be used as bait against said superhero, and with Pepper Potts that was the case.  This relationship growth has allowed Tony Stark to have such a powerful arc as far as growth and maturity.  It gives him focus and makes him more relatable to the masses.

As I said in the opening of this review, this franchise has been on top of it's game since the opening sequence to the final credits.  It has never faltered or wavered.  It has never left you questioning the motivations or driving forces behind the characters.  You have never left the theater thinking, "Wow, that was interesting." or "Not the best I've seen."  Instead every one of the Iron Man films leaves you more pumped than the last.  It really is unfortunate that this franchise is going to end at 3 films...or is it?

I for one would hope that RDJr. is re-contracted to continue as the man in the suit.  I have tried to think about this topic and implore you reader to do so as well.  Here is the question,

"If Robert Downey Jr. was never Iron Man, or doesn't get re-signed, who would have been/be a suitable replacement?"

Think about this.  We have all been a part of a series of films when they have mid-run changed the cast.  Spider Man is a good example.  I for one hate when the main character, or any character changes.  Imagine if Harry Potter was recasted in the 3rd film, or if Luke Skywalker wasn't Mark Hamill in Return of the Jedi.  Or what about Col. James Rhodes?  You know the unofficial exoskeleton sidekick to IronMan, War Machine.  Terrence Howard owned that title in Iron Man one, but was replaced for 2 & 3 by Don Cheadle.  The lack of consistency is bothersome when watching films in a continuous story.  Sadly these things happen all the time, and unfortunately not every show or film can have as loose a plot as Dr. Who, allowing for the newly cast Dr. to be readily accepted into the fans embrace.  So I am here saying it now, "Bring back Robert Downey Jr. !"  I mean the guy has two more Avengers films to make anyway.

Speaking of Avengers, the storyline in Iron Man 3 was rather interesting.  All throughout the film, Tony Stark was constantly plagued with questions, anxieties, fears, and remorse about the actions which took place in New York.  What I of course mean by New York is the intense intergalactic showdown between the Avengers, for those who don't know Iron Man is one of the Avengers, and the evil alien race attempting to take over Earth.  This storyline crossover was very interesting to me.  I believe the film Thor, also an Avenger, was another film like that, as well as Captain America, yet another Avenger.  All of these films utilized the individual story, or the story from the Avengers movie, to supplement one another.  It's a unique situation Marvel finds itself in, because they have such a huge world of superheroes with so many interweaving characters and stories.  This makes each individual franchise: Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and The Incredible Hulk (rumored), stand alone as well as part of a bigger picture.  So to sum things up, I would expect each of the above mentioned Marvel franchises to utilize more of the common Avengers storyline to aid in their individual storylines.  Avengers was a hit so it shouldn't be a burden but a privilege.........................................Sorry, I'm back now, had to get some sustenance inside me.

Yum, a little PB&J action

As mentioned above, Jon Favreau did not direct this "final installment" <---(fingers crossed for more) and the reasoning behind it is not so clear.  From what I've read, it sounds like Marvel's budget didn't cover the cost of Favreau; this is disappointing to hear, because it was Favreau who was behind the helm with Iron Man, thus helping Marvel rake in all the dough from the first two films.  Favreau brought together the entirety of Iron Man and made it a worldwide success.  Tisk tisk Marvel, good thing you covered your buns by hiring Shane Black.  Who?  Shane Black, the writer responsible for Lethal Weapon 1 through 4, as well as the film relaunching Robert Downey Jr. back into the lives of movie-goers, 2005s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.  Now he has the chops for writing, I think that is evident.  He has written some classic one liners and plot twists in the quad franchise Lethal Weapon, he even at one point in time was one of the highest sought after writers, the problem is that his directoral chops are still made up of baby teeth.  What I mean by that is prior to directing Iron Man 3, his only directing credit was for Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.  So needless to say, this can leave us film critics a little skeptical as to his skill.  Now I really enjoyed Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, it had a smart script, and the acting was good and the story was good, but let's not kid ourselves, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was nothing like the CGI special effects heavy Iron Man 3, however, he seemed to have no problem picking up where Favreau left off, and delivering a mighty entertaining flick.  Welcome to the directing club Shane Black, don't let us down.

As for the overall experience of this film, I would have to say it was exactly what it needed to be without going over-the-top, as if an exoskeletal flying robot housing a man isn't over-the-top.  As with most films in a long running franchise, new characters good and bad are introduced and thusly dealt with accordingly; Iron Man 3 was no exception.  New to join the ranks of evil-doers in Marvel's world were two actors both known rather well, Guy Pierce (Memento & King's Speech) and Sir Ben Kingsley (Ghandi & Schindler's List).  These two bad guys worked in conjunction to create a rather interesting team.  Kingsley's character was the Mandarin:

"The Mandarin is portrayed as a genius scientist and a superhumanly skilled amrtial artist.  However, his primary sources of power are ten power rings that he adapted from an alien technology of a crashed space ship.  Each ring has a different power and is worn on a specific finger."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandarin_(comics)

His character in the film was much different.  In Iron Man 3 the Mandarin was portrayed as a terrorist, with ties to the middle east.  Propaganda much?  Political agenda much?  Too much?  Sounds like something out of todays newspapers.  Even though they changed the Madarin for this film, I feel as though he plays better to the naturalistic feel of this franchise.  When Favreau set out to make these films he wanted them to have a more realistic feel, and less spectacular.  Iron Man in fact was just a man who understood mechanics and physics and had the monetary resources to achieve such a mechanical marvel.  Where Guy Pierce played into the story was as the handler for the Mandarin, as well as a scientist trying to create super soldiers with regenerative properties.  Now I will not say much more since this dynamic of the two badies is very important to the story, but know this...they are awesome!

Final Words: Extra-Large Popcorn.

I can only rate this film as a whole with the franchise.  I feel since the stories are continuous, to an extent, that the popcorn must be representative of the whole trilogy. That is only fair.  Extra-Large popcorn is only fair to give since this franchise has not disappointed or faltered.  These films were a Marvel to watch and learn about.  They are entertaining and fun.  The acting was solid, the stories solid, they were a rock in the otherwise iffy world of comic book/superhero films.   

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large

                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping