copyright908's Reviews

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

10/10

Continental room service, the way it should be.

16 January 2015

THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL

Mssr. Gustave H. (Ralph Fieness)is the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel in 1932. It is a grand edifice indeed, an ancient artifact of 19th century Imperial Europe, as are most of the clientele including a number of dowagers of various title and status. They go there to reminisce about the good old days of dukes, earls, counts and princes, but mostly they go there because of the "exceptional service" provided to them by M. Gustave H.

Those of you that have a dirty mind will find it an appropriate tool in this particular case.

One of these ladies, Madame Celine Villeneuve Desgoffe und Taxis (Tilda Swinton) is so taken by M. Gustave H's "service" that a valuable painting is to go to him when she dies, which shortly and conveniently she does. This beneficent bequest causes much consternation to her family heirs. Principle among them is her son, Dmitri (Adrien Brody) and his hired thug J.G. (Willem Dafoe). These two should find a comfortable home in the oncoming fascist takeover of Europe as together they elaborately plot to frame M. Gustave H for murder .

And let the adventure begin!

Together with his apprentice and protégé Zero (wonderfully done by Tony Revlori) they will encounter art theft, gunplay, cold blooded murder, jail breaks, Nazis, a ski chase like we haven't seen since James Bond, a network of conciergery (if there is such a word, I wouldn't try it in Words with Friends) with apparent super powers well beyond the Fantastic Four; and German pastry to die for.

Sound absurd? It is. It is at times cartoonish maybe even silly with slapstick and sight gags to accentuate the absurdist dialogue and action. It is an existential comedy that would either make Sartre turn over in his grave or stand up and cheer. I would hope it would be the latter, although I have never detected much of a sense of humor in Sartre.

To continue further with this absurdist binge, this movie, with its distinct European sensibilities, was written and directed by that good ole' boy Texan Wes Anderson. (Academy Award Nomination, screenplay)

Do you recall William Hurt's character in "The Big Chill" stating glumly and pessimistically the existential lament that "Let's face it, we're all alone out there, and tomorrow we got to do it all over again"? Anderson and Fiennes create in M. Gustave H a character who might say that very same line, only with M.Gutave H, it would be said with enthusiasm and gusto.

They have given us a hero with an almost ancient likeness (think Achilles) resourceful, intelligent and courageous; supremely self- confident in his ability to overcome any situation no matter how challenging, dangerous or dire and of course do it with style. It is refreshing that the director and actor bucked the current trend to portray the hero as sociopath.

Don't get me wrong I loved Walter White.

It is hard to recommend this movie because I'm sure there are some people who won't like it. There is a silliness threshold that has to be overcome, and some of the European custom and mores may be a little hard to take. But if you have problems like that, write your own review, this is mine, and the movie invites you to be whisked along on the ride of M. Gustave H's great adventure. I did and had a great time. I think it one of the best movies of the year, and the Academy apparently agrees nominating it for best picture. I was disappointed that Fiennes was not nominated because for me it was the best performance of the year.

By the way, it turns out Sartre was cremated, so I don't know what to do with that metaphor.

PS This film has brief but meaningful appearances by Owen Wilson, Bill Murray (always in an Anderson film) Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Kietel, Ed Norton, F. Murray Abraham and other familiar faces, if you like that sort of thing. Well even if you don't like it, they're in it.

Please click on my name above to read my other reviews, or check out my blog blognmovies/tumblr

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

10/10

Mike Nichols was not afraid

5 December 2014

On December 6 2014, Turner Classic Movies (TCM) is doing a retrospective of the late Mike Nichols film career. Its first offering: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Mike Nichols was special. Some say gifted, but I've never liked that word as it applies to accomplishment; it implies, to me anyway, an elitist privilege that further implies a nonpayment of appropriate dues.

Mike Nichols was born to a Jewish family in Berlin Germany in 1931. In 1939 his father, a doctor, had the means and the foresight to escape the oncoming holocaust just before it was to begin in earnest. There is a hell of a story in there somewhere, but I have never heard it. My point being that escaping from the Nazi's is enough dues paying for a lifetime.

Yeah, he was special, but what astonishes me in reviewing his life work, is how he was apparently able to immediately impress everybody else that he was special. His first directorial assignment was not off –Broadway, not off-off Broadway, not dinner theater in Poughkeepsie, but on Broadway for established writer Neil Simon. The result was" Barefoot in the Park" for which Nichols would win a Tony award as best director. The play would become Simon's longest running play ever (around or above four years) and the 10th longest running non musical production in Broadway history! First at bat: grand slam home run.

Sometime in the 1960's legendary producer Jack Warner (yes that Warner of Warner Bros. Studios or Time-Warner if you prefer) thought the eccentric writings of playwright Edward Albee in his play"Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf" might make a good movie. I don't know how he came to that conclusion, but conclude it he did, and he hired multiple Academy Award nominee Ernest Lehman to write the screen play, and then cast Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton to play the leads.

Just a few words about Liz and Dick; they were the Godmother and Godfather of celebrity pop culture. They weren't just big; they were the biggestby far. They would dominate the tabloid press and intrude into the real news for almost twenty years. To compare them to modern celebrity like the Kardasians is not only ludicrous but blasphemous.

OK, who should direct this spicy hot mélange? Why not someone who's never directed a movie before? Mike Nichols. Success on Broadway is not a guarantee of success in cinema. Bob Fosse's first foray was "Sweet Charity" which is a certifiable catastrophe. In stage craft everybody is always in full shot, in cinema you have to know when to push the camera in, when to pull it back, when to open the story up so it looks like a movie and not a photographed play. There is a certain grammar to cinema and it needs to be used correctly. It is essential in order to create and build the emotional tension that is so necessary for this film's success. In his first attempt, does Nichols succeed? Well, here's the stat line: 13 Academy Award nominations. It was only the second and last film to ever be nominated in all the categories for which it was eligible. It won five, including one for Ms Taylor, surprisingly not one for Mr. Burton, nor one for Mr. Nichols (although that would be remedied shortly.) And! It was a financial success being one of the top 10 grossing movies of 1966. Nichols first at bat for a different team: Grand slam home run.

Pocket Review:

If you didn't know who Virginia Woolf was before you see this movie, you will certainly be afraid of her by the end of it.

George (Richard Burton) is a teacher at some unnamed small college and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) is the daughter of the college president. They are a middle aged married couple who are disappointed in how their lives have turned out, especially since their life together seemed to have started out with so much promise and advantage. Their coping mechanism is to blame each other for their failures both individually and as a couple, and this failure is complete, professional, emotional, and sexual.

Oh, yeah, they also drink a lot, that's always helpful.

In to this toxic alcoholic mix comes a young professor at the college Nick (George Segal) and his mousey wife Honey (Sandy Dennis) who Martha has invited over to their on campus house for "a drink". They will serve as audience surrogates as together we will watch as George and Martha's marriage explosively dissolves. As the drama demands, they will also become participants to the wreckage, but more than that, they get to walk through the looking glass and see what bleak future may be in store for them.

It is through the interaction of this fabulous four, that we, the audience, discover that George and Martha have constructed a nest of lies in order to keep themselves at least one hash mark above the median of sanity, and it is through these lies that the deeper psychological truth is revealed.

What does it mean? Why should we care? Honestly I don't know. I have always had trouble figuring this movie out, but I have watched it several times, always with avid fascination. I wouldn't call it one of the best movies ever, but I would certainly call it one of the most extraordinary.

Mike Nichols film directorial debut. It was a doozy. Thanks Mike... I think.

Nichols next offering goes beyond any baseball metaphor I could possibly come up with. It was certifiable, bone fide phenomenon. "The Graduate".

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Boyhood (I) (2014)

9/10

Life Uninterrupted

24 July 2014

BOYHOOD In cinema it is rare to see the word gimmick used in any complementary phrase. It's usually more like "That guy doesn't know how to tell a story, he had to use gimmicks to get it done." Well, director Richard Linklater likes gimmicks.

In his first feature "Slackers" he creates the illusion of continuous action to tell his story of Austin Texas oddballs. As one character moves off screen, a character from the background moves into the foreground and that character takes over the movie for the next ten minutes or so and then the process is repeated for the next character and so on, so that it appears as there is no break of time. It netted Linklater considerable critical praise and a nice chunk of pocket change to boot. Lesson learned: gimmicks can work.

In "Boyhood", Linklater gives us a family saga that spans 12 years. There is the father Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke) the mother Olivia (Patricia Arquette} the two kids Mason Jr. (Ellar Coltrane) and his older sister Samantha (Lorilei Linklater who I believe is the director's daughter). The gimmick here (if it can truly be called a gimmick, and I think I would argue that it isn't) is that the same actors are used to portray the respective characters for the entire twelve years. Not a particularly big deal for the adults, but the kids-- in Mason Jr. case he must age from 6 to 18. How do you do that? Especially, if you intend to chronicle each and every year? Well, in order to keep continuity and maintain audience credulity you would have to wait for the kids to grow into their parts and as a consequence the movie would take twelve years to produce. And that's what Linklater did. Gimmick? Creative Choice? Dramatic device? Whatever, it is interesting don't you think?

The film is set in Texas and opens with the family already in some disarray, Olivia and Mason Sr. are divorced, and Olivia is trying to make it as a single mother with a crappy job trying desperately to make it all work. Not surprisingly she's frazzled and just about on her last nerve. Mason Sr. does finally show up, apparently he's been in Alaska, and now wants to reconnect with his children. It's all too much for Olivia, so she decides to move to Houston with the kids, to be near her mother and start this all over again.

So we have a ne'er-do-well father and a stressed out mother. Typically, Hollywood would take this to dysfunction and maybe even to depravity, but not Linklater. No, the refreshing theme of this movie is that despite the ever changing circumstances, the family, all of them, are steadfastly determined to stay functional as a family, and as individuals. This is a story of people, human beings, trying to make the best play of the cards they were dealt.

We see all of this through the eyes of Mason Jr., an observer, and a stoic. He never has to doubt the love and commitment of his parents even if their ability to provide is limited. He seems to carry with him a since of duty to the family himself. That duty is to grow up, hopefully into a decent human being, with a full realization he's going to have figure out a lot of things for himself.

I can't say too much about the acting individually except give it the highest compliment I can, which is in every case (even the supporting players) it's believable, empathetic and relatable. And it has to be. It is the only way to hold the attention of the viewer for the two hour and forty minute length of the movie. There has to be a moment or moments where the viewer (as I did) can look up at the screen and say to oneself "Oh yeah, I know exactly what that's all about."

Much has been made of the 12 year production of this movie, perhaps even overshadowing the movie itself, but I don't think any of that should make any difference to the viewer. What the viewer is concerned with is what happens within the four corners of the screen. What Linklater has given us here is a rather large slice of life where it may at first glance appear that nothing remarkable or extraordinary happens, except that we watch a boy turn into a man firmly ingrained with the qualities of family, perseverance, duty, endurance, and a wealth of experiences which will make him as prepared as he can be for life's challenges. That's pretty remarkable.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Unknown Known (2013)

7/10

Rumsfeld Unplugged

6 April 2014

The Unknown Known

There is a myth about the documentary film genre that it is some sort of quest for objective truth; when in fact there is no greater and often times no more effective means of subjective film making . No documentarian worth his salt is going to go forward with a project without a point of view.

And so it is with documentarian Errol Morris as he tries to pin down former defense secretary Don Rumsfeld to some objective truths about the war in Iraq. It's slow going.

For Morris this is not without precedent. In his "The Fog of War" he was able to get Lyndon Johnson's (and I should also add John Kennedy's) secretary of defense Robert Mac Namara, a chief architect of the Viet Nam war to show contrition, regret and even self pity about the advice he gave and decisions he made during that turbulent time. To those like Morris who believe that the Viet Nam war was a disaster, this must have proved satisfying. They gave him an Academy Award for it . Morris also believes the Iraq war was a disaster but in Rumsfeld he found a much tougher nut to crack.

The film documents Rumsfeld's rise to power as a career politician and bureaucrat in which he navigated through many a troubled water to become a trusted confidant and administrator for Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush the second, and given a certain set circumstances might have become President of the United States. But he made some enemies too, Nixon chief of staff Bob Haldeman, George Bush the first, and his national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, as well as a very public feud with Condoleezza Rice. And these were his fellow Republicans! Richard Nixon called Rumsfeld "a ruthless little bastard" and I can't imagine a statement like that coming from higher authority.

The long and the short of it is that Rumsfeld has faced off against a lot tougher guys than Errol Morris.

Morris seems now to suspect that Rumsfeld might have got the best of him, since in his post release interviews he emphasizes how Rumsfeld "horrifies' him. However, that doesn't come off in the film. Rumsfeld appears to be a man of considerable charm and wit, with an easy humor about events and himself.

It is well to remember that Rumsfeld fully co-operated with this project, one might even say eagerly co-operated. He wanted his side publicly aired and decided to do it this way, even though he knew Morris's predisposition. To Morris's credit he gives Rumsfeld free reign and ample opportunity to make his case.

But Rumsfeld does not control the editing process and it here that Morris strikes back. Using cross cutting, graphics, and archival footage Morris exposes Rumsfeld's renowned candor as a smokescreen for obfuscation and evasion. Most particularly, in Rumsfeld's now famous, or infamous if you prefer, philosophical rumination on what could be known or unknown , or whatever the hell he said, in response to a direct question as to whether he (Rumsfeld) had any evidence that Sadam Hussein had participated or assisted in the 9/11 attacks. This was called by the press at the time (rather admiringly I might add) as "Rummy speak".

In the film Rumsfeld admits there wasn't then and isn't now any such evidence.

Even more telling to me was his mastery of expressing a limited truth and passing it off as candor. In summing up the Viet Nam War Rumsfeld says this: "Some things work out, some things don't .That one didn't." Hard to argue with that. True, as far as it goes, but it does not illuminate. Hell, I could have come up with that over a couple of Irish Whiskeys at the local tavern, and maybe even thought to be pretty profound by my fellow inebriates at the bar, but I think we have a right to expect more than that from our public officials. Did we learn anything? Would we do anything differently? In listening to Rumsfeld's echo the answer is apparently and depressingly, no. Given the perceived threats at the respective times in Iraq and Viet Nam, our policy makers did exactly the same thing.

Author Evan S. Connell in his book "Son of the Morning Star" recounts how General Philip Sheridan as one of the key policy makers leading to the destruction of the Plains Indian tribes after the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn, reflected on his role. Sheridan seemed to empathize with the Indians and implied that had the situations been reversed, he would have acted in the very same way the Indians had. He would have resisted. To which Connell comments: "Like other generals, bureaucrats and private citizens who contribute to some irrevocable disaster, he wondered about it afterward."

Not Donald Rumsfeld, no qualms, no regrets, no apologies. He did his duty and history can sort it out. And of course it will.

Morris ends the film with a shot of an empty ocean which I took to be metaphor and interpreted thus: It is shimmering and shiny, even magnificent to look at but who knows what horrors lie beneath the surface. Like Donald Rumsfeld, it covers the "Unknown Knowns".

46 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Philomena (2013)

8/10

To Forgive Is Devine

16 January 2014

PHILOMENA Young Philomena Lee goes to the carnival one night, meets a young man, commits an indiscretion with said young man that will produce issue some nine months later. A devout Catholic, Philomena turns to her church for help and a local convent accepts her. However the nuns do not regard Philomena's pregnancy as an indiscretion, they regard it as a sin, and Philomena must do pertinence in the form of slavery to the abbey and her child must be given up for an adoption brokered by the nuns.

These horrific events are vividly portrayed in the movie's prologue. With a single cut the film moves forward 50 years, and the now the retired Philomena, still with a picture of her 3 year old son close at hand, resolves to find out what happened to him.

By fortuitous happenstance she meets Martin a journalist,looking to give his career a jolt with a human interest story that has some sensational aspects. Martin is a smug, well –educated, snob, who had been humiliatingly fired from a prestigious government position (unjustly it seems) and now has to find a job.

Martin clearly condescends to the sweet, provincial,and naïve Philomena looking at her as only another rung of his career ladder, but as the inevitable road trip ensues, Martin grows (as is necessary in any road trip movie)to respect and admire Philomena's determination, honesty, and spiritual purity.

Although Martin is the character that needs to grow, Philomena also progresses from a woman who has been stripped of all dignity, not to mention her child, to a woman, thanks in no small part to Martin, who comes to believe that at least to some extent, she can control events. In short she becomes empowered.

Judy Dench is a DBE that is Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire. Sounds impressive doesn't it? It is. They don't give that to just anybody, not without a long history of accomplishment and Dame Judy certainly has that. With honors and awards that are literally too numerous to mention you don't need this poor reviewer to tell you what a great actor she is. You just need to go see it, and her craftsmanship and artistry will speak for itself.

Steve Coogan is a man of many talents which includes being the co-writer of this script, for which he has just received an Academy Award Nomination. He has some work to do standing toe to toe with Dench, as well as turning Martin from upper crust intellectual snot into becoming what is essentially Philomena's avenging angel. .

The ultimate tribute to these two actors is that it is their performance that sells this movie because the story, the actual quest for the long lost son, which is certainly compelling subject matter, seems to me a bit forced. Plot points, reversal and denouement all occur exactly on cue. The script seems focused on accomplishing these academic points rather than letting the story unfold organically. It is a case of advancing the form at the expense of the substance.

It is also unnecessarily political, not oppressively so, but it's there, you can't miss it. It all seemed a little film studentish to me.

It's been said many times in many places, it's not the destination it's the journey, and because of Dench and Coogan this is a journey worth taking.

Director Stephen Frears came out of a film movement known as the British New Wave of the late 1950's and early 60's. This new wave used a cinematic social realism to depict an oppressive and claustrophobic trap the British working class found itself in (according to the filmmakers) and suggested that the only escape was a complete rejection of middle class standards and morality. It was extremely class conscious and exceedingly grim. If you ever want a couple of hours of unbroken depression, check out a little number called "This Sporting Life". (Not directed by Frears)

Frears punctuated or perhaps killed this movement with "My Beautiful Launderette (1985)in which he maintained the social realism, but added a touch of humor,thus entertaining an audience while profoundly commenting on racism,and social attitudes toward homosexuality.

I bring this up now because Frears still uses the element of social realism in Philomena, but instead of the dark pessimism of the early New Wave, he suggests that perhaps the upper middle class Martin and the decidedly working class Philomena can form common cause in exposing the world's ills, and maybe just maybe, do something about them. After all this time Frears appears to have become an optimist.

This movie has received criticism as an Anti-Catholic screed, and I can see where that argument can be made.This movie is pretty hard on the Church, but the record shows that it is the Church's own actions that have brought on this public scrutiny and public rebuke. The body of the Church will endure and survive these current slings and arrows that it has brought onto itself, but the spirit of the Church with its core beliefs of forgiveness and redemption seem to be in good hands with characters like Philomena.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)

8/10

Absurdity, the spice of life

10 January 2014

The Everly Brothers, The Andrews Sisters, The Carter Family, even Karen and Richard Carpenter; there has always been something special about family harmonies, something that separates them from all the rest no matter how good.

The Coen Brothers, in their filmmaking harmonies, have clearly separated themselves from all the rest. With now a body of work spanning almost 30 years, they rival the accomplishments of any filmmakers anytime, anywhere, and in the vague and general category of Americana, I don't think they can be touched.

" Inside Llewyn Davis" is yet another foray into a character's existential journey into a Coen Brother's absurdist reality. Unlike most other Coen Brothers heroes which have a plan they attempt to execute and are resisted by absurd external forces, Llewyn Davis's biggest problem is himself.

A talented singer/musician Davis tries to make his mark in the pre-Dylan Greenwich Village folk scene of the early 1960s. But he can't get out of his own way. He alienates his family and friends; he misses opportunities; and makes careless decisions that will haunt him in the future. He commits to no one and no thing. In fact he's a bit of an A..hole.

Oscar Isaac has the difficult task of creating enough empathy for this extremely flawed character so that the audience will follow his journey through the length of the movie. With a certain quiet intensity, he pulls it off.

Isaac fashions the character who is not so much following his own star, but is doing the best he knows how with the talents given to him. In the process of day to day life, Llewyn makes rash and expedient decisions that are largely determined by exigent circumstances that require that decision right now, and invariably those decisions are not so much wrong, but more they just don't work out.

Opportunities are often best seen in hindsight.

The Coen Brothers always create great supporting roles and this is no exception. Justin Timberlake plays Jim Berky a friend and fellow musician of Llewyn who does his best to help Llewyn out. I continue to be amazed at Timberlake's range as an actor.

If you remember his cynical hustler in "Social Media", here he plays the exact polar opposite as a naïve stereotypical 60's pre Kennedy Assassination idealist who is absolutely certain that everything is going to turn out alright.

Carrie Mulligan plays Jean Berky (Jim's wife) who has had an adulterous relationship with Llewyn. Mulligan gives a one note performance, always angry and berating Llewyn at every opportunity. It becomes a bit tiresome after a while, especially considering that she takes none of the responsibility for her own condition, but it seems to be what the script calls for so it's hard to blame Mulligan.

John Goodman has his customary role in a Coen Brothers movie, here he plays a bombastic (what else could Goodman play?) passenger in Llewyns car pool to Chicago. I have no idea as to the purpose of this character and its relationship to the rest of the movie, but it's Goodman so it's entertaining to watch.

Just as an aside, I often don't get what's going on in a Coen Brothers movie. To this day I don't really get "No Country for Old Men", but I liked it.

F. Murry Abraham has one scene, and he dominates it. A great screen presence, I wish I could see more of him.

And I would be remiss if I did not give the brothers credit for managing a great performance out a big orange tabby cat named Ulysses. It is Ulysses who probably elicits the biggest laugh of the movie.

Coen Brothers fan that I am, this effort is a little too ambiguous for me. I like my characters to have a little direction, whereas the point of this movie seems to be the lack of direction. The brothers admit that there is no real plot to this movie,it is a character study, and the character is not all that appealing.

It's the story of a screw up, but a not degenerate screw up, but a sort of "everyman" screw up. Our egos would have to be pretty high and mighty if we were to think that given the circumstances Llewyn found himself in that we might not make the same choices. It is this distinctly Coen Brothers touch that kept me interested in the movie.

Still, in the end Llewyn is a character who one could say gets exactly what he deserves. That he is reaping that which he has sown.

Of course you could say the same thing about "Citizen Kane". So there's that.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fruitvale Station (2013)

6/10

Can't we all get along?

5 August 2013

Warning: Spoilers

FRUITVALE STATION This is not a spoiler. It is public record and well known.

Fruitvale Station is a stop on the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) just one stop north of the Oakland Coliseum. It was there on or about 2:00 am January 1, 2009 a ruckus broke out in one of the passenger cars. BART's own police force responded and determined that a group of black men, that included 22 year old Oscar Grant, were responsible for the melee. What happened next is confused and disputed, but what is certain, is that the unarmed Oscar Grant was being restrained by a BART police officer and laying face down and prone on the Fruitvale Station's concrete platform when another BART police officer pulled out his weapon and fired once into Grant's back. At 9:00 am January 1, 2009 Oscar Grant died on his hospital bed.

This movie purports to chronicle Oscar Grant's last day on earth.

As we get to know Oscar we clearly see he is no angel. A philanderer, drug dealer, and an ex con with an explosive temper who can't hold a job. He wrestles with his checkered past and uncertain future, but he's no throwaway. He has a chance. He has a strong support system in a mother, girlfriend and daughter that love him, and he returns that love.

Whether or not Oscar will live up to his responsibility for his family or revert to the life of a street thug we will never know. The movie tells us he didn't get that chance because of a racial profiling that assumes that if there is trouble, and there are a couple of black guys standing around,then they must be the cause of it. The ultimate act, although I think the movie is muddled on this point, is not the act of some Aryan redneck racist, but of a societal norm that automatically assumes black male guilt and reflects that assumption through societal protective functionaries (the police et al) and which can't help but create a situation like Oscar Grant found himself in, with inevitable tragic results.

This is writer/director Ryan Coogler first feature. It's an impressive start for what is an apparently very impressive young man. An athlete and a scholar with an aptitude for math and science, he decided to go to USC film school. He came to the attention of Forrest Whittaker to whom he got to partner in this production, as well as picking up Harvey Weinstein to distribute. That's a pair of heavy hitters there. He is, in that unfortunate Hollywood adjective "gifted". I am reminded of Michael Caine's line in "Deathtrap" that "This play is so good even a gifted director couldn't ruin it." In any case he seems to have the talent and drive that will put him in good stead with Hollywood for a long time.

The cast is uniformly convincing with Michael B Jordan (the B so as not to be confused with the basketball player) giving us an Oscar that is tortured by his past mistakes but remains hopeful for his future. Melonie Diaz plays Oscar's girlfriend and mother of his child that Oscar clearly dotes over. Although Oscar has let her down and committed transgressions she must forgive, she refuses to have Oscar defined by a police blotter. The same is true of his mother in a powerful performance by Octavia Spencer who knows that her son has good possibilities and she will not forsake her faith in him.

Performance aside, this is Ryan Coogler's movie. It is a true expression of the auteur. It is his message; his statement. There comes a time when one has to decide how well that message is delivered.

This movie has received almost universal critical praise, but for me the message is a bit mixed. Coogler's starts the movie with actual cell phone footage (apparently there is quite a lot of it) of the incident and he moves the story along in docudrama fashion with an influence of Italian neo-realism. There is no question that Coogler is trying to tell us "this is real life". Yet, in the middle of the movie, he includes a rather disturbing scene with a dog which is plain use of the literary conceits of foreshadowing and metaphor. This scene does nothing to either advance the story or further define the character, and is the apparent invention of Coogler.

In the final scene two remarkable coincidences occur in the train car. It is here that the "real life" train car jumps the tracks, with an end result that confuses, obscures, and dilutes the powerful point he wants to make. As a consequence, it mutes my emotional response to the ending.

It's probably better to let the story to bring out the point, rather than let the point bring out the story.

Nevertheless and make no mistake about it, Coogler captures the tension and chaos on that train platform as a master filmmaker.

Despite my objections to some of his cinematic choices, I admire Ryan Coogler's film. The conversation on race here in America, if indeed it can be called a conversation, has created a lot of heat and not much light, and much of it is just pure nonsense. Coogler has for the most part forsaken ideology and focused on the humanity of Oscar Grant. He has created a character that all of us can identify with. At least to those of us who have screwed up sometime in our lives and fought for a second chance.

I think that's most of us.

To see all my reviews just click on my name above, or see my blog Bloggin' Movies.

7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Still Mine (2012)

10/10

Rage against the machine

20 July 2013

STILL MINE It's funny, that for all the hubub about liberalism in Hollywood, some of the greatest achievements in cinema have been decidedly libertarian. From Chaplin's "Modern Times" to Nicholson's McMurtry in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" we have watched our heroes adhere to their own personal codes, battle against the inherent dehumanizing repression of the institutions we create, ostensibly to serve the public good. Our heroes don't always win,but it always makes compelling drama.

Comes now to this cinematic tradition is the Canadian production "Still Mine" written, produced and directed by Michael McGowan which is shot in New Brunswick where the actual events on which this story is based,took place.

Craig Morrison (James Cromwell) is a remarkably robust octogenarian. Irene (Genevieve Bujold)his wife of sixty years is sinking into that long, slow descent toward the abyss that is dementia/Alzheimer's. Craig decides that their old house is clearly unsuitable for Irene as she declines,so he decides to build a new, smaller house, on their own land, and by his own hand, since they don't have the money to hire a contractor.

Craig embarks on his project with considerable enthusiasm, but that is soon overwhelmed by the local building code bureaucrat Rick Daigle(Jonathan Potts) who buries Craig with permits, plans, standards, and regulations. He intends to enforce those codes with the soulless tenacity of Les Miserable's Javert.

If Craig does not correct and comply with all the violations cited (26 I believe) Daigle tells Craig that he will bulldoze the house.

"Is that a threat," says Craig

"No," says Daigle with a chilling bureaucratic assuredness, "it's the law."

As Craig fights, haggles, and cajoles the powers that be; Craig and their grown children must watch and endure as they see their wife and mother slip ever farther away from them. This is not a dysfunctional family, it is a very close family in a community full of friends and neighbors. However, that doesn't mean there are no conflicts, tensions and angst as together they face the difficult circumstances and decisions that lie ahead.

Those of us who saw Bujold those many years ago in "Ann of a Thousand Days", remember, aside from her obvious beauty, those expressive eyes. Now well into her 70's without a hint of plastic surgery, she still projects the powerful inner strength that is so critical to this character; as she faces the certainty of a bleak future while still maintaining the mental wherewithal to cherish the moments she still has left. It is through those eyes that we will see the anger, the frustration, and the fear of the oncoming oblivion, but we will also see the loyalty and the love she has for her friends, her family and most of all her husband.

James Cromwell has become something of a national treasure with movies like "The Artist", "LA Confidential" and "Babe"; TV shows like "ER" and "The West Wing", the list is truly astonishing. I remember him in a commercial where he played a Marine gunnery sergeant. He looks down (he's 6'7") at some nerdy little dude and says "Were you ever in the Corps?" The nerdy dude says "no", and with the confident arrogance of veteran Corps drill instructor Cromwell says "I didn't think so." I don't remember the product, but I remember him. He has that kind of presence and it is well used here.

I was struck when I walked into the theater by the possibility that I may have been the youngest guy in there, and I assure you that I am not a young man. I hope that despite the obvious tag lines that go with this movie, that this doesn't become known as a geezer flick, because it is much more than that.

I can't remember a movie that affected me more emotionally. It is true, as they say, I have some skin in this game, as I am growing older and I watched my own mother ravaged by this cruel and unjust disease. When Irene cries out, "What if I forget everything!? " My lips mouthed the words, "You will, you will." So it was pretty close to home, and some viewers may not have as strong a reaction as I did, but I can tell you that the audience I sat with was greatly moved.

Nevertheless, as we inexorably march toward the curing of societal ills with institutional remedy; we give scant notice to the corresponding loss of liberty, freedom, individuality, and our identity. Key elements all, in making the decisions and choices that are best for ourselves. Or they could be the worst for ourselves, but that is of no matter, the important thing is that they are our choices. Craig and the whole Morrison clan are an inspiration to remember that in times of trouble or crisis our most reliable ally to carry us through will be the faith we have in ourselves to call on our own inner strength.

35 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Man of Steel (2013)

5/10

In Nonsense There Is Strength Redeux

20 June 2013

Warning: Spoilers

MAN OF STEEL Is there anyone who doesn't know this story? Just to recap, the planet Krypton is about to explode due to short-sighted politicians and bad energy/environmental policy. Just afore the Armageddon, the planets leading scientist Jor-el (Russell Crowe) and his wife (Aylet Zurer) intend to launch a pod containing their new born son into the cosmos and with appropriate directional aides the pod will land on or near Jonathan Kent's farm in Kansas, USA, planet Earth. Nice shot. Kent, played by Kevin Costner has brought his Field of Dreams cornfield with him. You know if you put Costner near a cornfield something other worldly is going to walk out of it.

But that's not all, Jor-el has bundled his little bundle of joy as it were with all the genetic material necessary for the preservation of the Kryptonian race. How the filmmakers intend to handle that little tidbit of information in future episodes, I assure you I will follow with great interest. Fellow Kryptonian, General Zod (Michael Shannon) disagrees with Jor-el's plan, and in the subsequent argument, Zod kills Jor-el, but just his body, Jor-els consciousness lives on. It's a good thing too, because this consciousness will show up in the rest of the movie and usually just in the nick of time.

Also, if you are going to all the trouble and expense of hiring Russell Crowe you are going to want to use him, and I say this without a hint of sarcasm, the man's screen presence is astonishing.

Once in Kansas young Clark/Kal-el/Superman will undergo some natural teenage angst. He's not sure he wants to save the world. Still, he can't help himself when his school bus skids off a bridge and does a header into the river below. The prepubescent Clark saves his classmates by pushing the bus up on to the river bank. Pretty impressive stuff, most would think, but not to Clark's surrogate father. No, Mr. Kent will scold young Clark, telling him it is more important that he, Clark/Kal-el/Superman, keep his secret identity until such indefinite time and place in the future when it's revelation is really needed, and this ostentatious display of super heroism is only going to scare people, so knock it off. No, really, I don't remember the exact words, I'm paraphrasing, but really, he said that. So what if a dozen kids drown on the bottom of some murky Midwestern river, greater opportunities will later arise, Honestly, I don't know what to make of that kind of nonsense. But it is by no means the last of it.

Mr., Kent will go on to tell young Clark that "his father" has sent him to earth "for a purpose" and it's up to Clark to discover what "that purpose is" and I realize that what I'm watching is an exercise in (to coin a word) Christography, that is assigning the experiences, characteristics and attributes of Jesus Christ to a fictional or literary character. It's pervasive. Clark tells Lois that he is 33 years old, generally the age attributed to Christ at the time of his crucifixion. Early in the film, Clark is floating in water and photographed from below, he clearly assumes the position of Christ on the cross. In Superman's first appearance to anyone but Lois, he hovers in the air over a military contingent, evocative of Christ's ascension into heaven. Finally (I shouldn't say finally, I may have missed a few) as Zod demands that Clark, Kal-el, Superman be turned over to him, Clark goes into a church and seeks the counsel of a priest. As Clark sits in the pew, not exactly praying, but contemplating his future challenges, behind him is a stained glass image of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane praying to God for guidance as he faces his last and greatest passion.

OK, this isn't new, academics have been postulating on the Christ like attributes of Superman for years. Christ comparisons have been used in other films (Cool Hand Luke) and literature (The World According to Garp) Zack Snyder did not make it up out of whole cloth for this movie. I understand. I get it. What I don't get is the point of it. Not in this movie anyway.

The Christ like similarities will vanish in the final battle royal between Superman and Zod. No loving your neighbor here, as they crash headlong into the sides of buildings, causing their subsequent collapse thus creating unfortunate images and unpleasant memories of 9/11. So, not only do I question the nonsensical theology of this movie, I question its good taste.

Henry Cavill as Superman is certainly an impressive looking man, and he gives hints that he could bring some of the easy charm and humor that Christopher Reeve brought to the character a generation ago. Amy Adams brings appropriate feminist update to Lois Lane. She doesn't fawn over Superman, she stands as a ready, willing and able ally in his fight against evil. Michael Shannon once again proves he is incapable of giving anything but a powerful performance. When he stands toe to toe with Russell Crowe, it is a battle of equals.

I saw Zach Snyder and his wife on a TV show promoting this movie, and they seem like nice, good natured, well intended people, and I find they are fellow Pasadeneans so I want to cut them as much slack as I can. I don't think they meant any harm with this movie. Perhaps I am being harder on this movie than it deserves. As an entertainment, I would have to say the movie succeeds. But this movie doesn't have much of a sense of humor about itself, so intent is it in solidifying the iconic myth, that it puts aside the humanity, and most grievously forgets that after all, it is a comic book character.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Much Ado About Nothing (I) (2012)

8/10

In Love with Shakespeare

20 June 2013

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING Full disclosure: I'm a Shakespeare geek. I read Shakespeare for pleasure. Really. I just finished Othello and slogged through Richard II. I've seen a number of performances, and many of the movies. I'm game for Shakespeare anytime, anyplace, anywhere. So if some Hollywood big shot wants to make a movie based on a Shakespeare play, I am likely to go see it, and enjoy it. So I went, and I did.

More full disclosure, I had never seen a performance of Much Ado nor had I ever read it, but I hope you will find the following synopsis helpful. Don Pedro, the Prince of Aragon, which is in Spain, has just defeated his bastard brother Don John in Sicily. The issues of the conflict and why in Sicily, is not much explained, but it is helpful to remember the Europeans are a quarrelsome lot. Try to think of it this way: A rich guy from Pasadena, goes down to Beverly Hills to slap down his bratty little brother, and after resolving their differences, they decide to have a party in Santa Monica.

None of that's important by the way, It's all back-story, but it does give me the opportunity to say that the movie is set in Santa Monica, apparently at director Joss Whedon's house (very Mediterranean so it fits) and in the present day. I do think it will give the newbie viewer a bit of an anchor because for the first 20 minutes of the movie I was doing a lot of who the hell are these people and what are they doing.

The Peoples Republic of Santa Monica should have a governor and it does Leonato (Clark Gregg) who has a daughter Hero (Jillian Morgese) and a niece Beatrice (Amy Acker) and together they extend their hospitality to Don Pedro, (Reed Diamond) his trusted aides Claudio (Fran Kranz) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) and of course the dissolute bastard brother Don John (Sean Maher).

Claudio falls in love with Hero at first sight, and vice versa. Too shy to pursue the young lady, Don Pedro intervenes on Claudio's behalf and in no time, they are engaged and a wedding planed forthwith. This relationship between Claudio and Hero is the through line of the play but the fireworks are provided by Benedick and Beatrice.

These two will set the template for romantic comedy for the next few centuries and undoubtedly beyond. Of course, they hate each other at first, or rather they want everyone to think they hate each other, but by the end of scene one we, the audience know, and all of the characters in the play know, that these two got to get together.

Much of the comedy of Much Ado is derived from the contrivances, schemes, and deceptions (there is a lot of deception in this movie) of all the characters as they try to make Benedick and Beatrice see the truth about each other.

The piker in all this merriment is Don John who seems to be a generally nasty sort, conspires with his aides to impugn the integrity of Hero's virginity.

Shakespeare can't seem to resist a dark turn when one presents itself, but this gives him the opportunity to introduce one of his classic comic characters, Dogberry (Nathan Fillion) the local constable. A marvelous satire of minor bureaucratic pomposity, Dogberry will mangle the language,confuse the issues, and befuddle all those around him. Nevertheless, he will bumble and stumble toward the truth of the goings on at Casa Leonato.

Story has it that director Joss Whedon and his friends used to sit around the house and read Shakespeare, and finally decided to make a movie of one of his plays. This story is a little cringe worthy because it suggests a self indulgent march of the dilettantes, but I don't think that happened here. This is a bunch of professional actors and filmmakers that put this piece together (in twelve days I'm told) and I for one am glad they did.

Whedon knows that a successful romantic comedy must be funny, and Whedon uses a confident hand with the staging to supplement Shakespeare's comic scenes and witty dialogue with sight gags and even slapstick. He does this with aplomb and panache. And it's funny.

The acting is first rate really, but I suppose Amy Acker's Beatrice is the most fetching. She has sensual good looks and she shows she can dominate a scene, and if you are going to play Beatrice you better be able to. Diamond's Don Pedro is notable, especially since the last I saw Diamond was as a street tough detective in "Homicide". It just shows that an actor can be versatile if he stays dedicated to his craft. Denisof's Benedick is also admirable; I particularly liked his scene on the back steps trying to compose his poem to Beatrice and being frustrated by a bad rhyming pattern. I think Shakespeare may have been laughing at himself a little, since he was known to make a bad rhyme from time to time.

People are intimidated by Shakespeare, they are afraid of his usage of the language, that they won't understand it. I don't understand all of it either, but I do know that Shakespeare was enough of a dramatist to know how to keep things moving. He can even be abrupt, and this is a pretty complicated story, but the action speaks for itself.Give Whedon credit too, you will know what's going on. You may miss a few words but you have to be sleeping if you don't get the gist of each and every scene.

People, all kinds of people, have loved this play for 400 years. Give it a chance, you will too.

7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Iceman (2012)

6/10

The Banality of Evil?

30 May 2013

THE ICEMAN Richard Kuklinski was a real guy. He claims to have killed at least 100 people. He later claimed it was 250 including Jimmy Hoffa. He was a sociopath so believe what you want, but there doesn't seem to be much doubt that in his time, which fortunately for all of us ran out in 2006, he killed a lot of people.

Kuklinski (Michael Shannon) apparently had an active amateur career as a serial killer before his talents are discovered by mob boss Roy DeMeo (Ray Liotta) who employs Kuklinski to kill on his order anytime, anyplace, anywhere. It's steady work.

With this trade, Kuklinski finds financial stability and takes his wife (Wynona Ryder) and kids out to the suburbs to live a life of bourgeoisie splendor, with his family none the wiser about what he really does. (I mean think about it, what could he tell them?)

Director/writer/producer Ariel Vromen's resume is a little thin with only two feature films to his credit neither of which I have seen or even heard of, but he apparently had enough juice to get this thing made, and with a pretty impressive cast as well. His style is grimly straight forward, no editing gimmicks, obtuse camera angles, or slow motion stylized death. Vromen portrays the violence with the illusion of real time. It's quick and it it's brutal, and fair warning leads me to comment the there is a depiction of post mortem dismemberment, nevertheless this movie isn't even in the same league with your average Quentin Tarantino movie in either visuals or body count.

What Vromen has given us is a gangster movie, without the grand ambitions of "The Godfather" or the quirky black humor of the Sopranos. It's about who whacks who, when, where and how. There will be betrayals, double crosses, car chases and all the mobsters will really love their families. So if you like gangster movies, and I do, you'll probably like this one and I did.

Ray Liotta has been a favorite of mine since he lit up the screen in "Something Wild." He has never broken out into the superstardom I thought he was bound for, and he seems to be hopelessly typecast as a gangster, but when faced with the facts, nobody does it better. He's a treat to watch. He has a couple of scenes with fellow evil doing character actor Robert Davi, that together with Shannon form a trio that you would definitely not want to meet in a dark alley. Just ask some of the victims in the movie. The three of them lift the portrayal of menace to an art form.

Wynona Ryder continues on the comeback trail with a solid performance. It's not a big part but she gets a chance to show some chops. Some have commented she looks a little too regal to be a Jersey house wife, but she's not trying to be Snookie, so I think she's alright.

I will point out that James Franco has one scene in this movie, because there are James Franco fans out there that might want to know that, but it is Chris Evans who probably has the best supporting role as the Frostee Ice Cream truck driver who after selling ice cream bars to the kiddies, is probably a more twisted serial killer than Kuklinski. Like Kuklinski, he too is a devoted father.

There is one exceptional thing about this movie, and clearly that is the performance of Michael Shannon. This guy has been a working actor for about 20 years so to presume that this could be a "breakout" role would indeed be presumptuous. I fell in love with this guy when as the nutty (not nutty eccentric, but nutty certifiable) neighbor who brought humor and life to the relentlessly depressing DeCaprio/Winslet vehicle "Revolutionary Road". He does the same thing in a supporting role for the recent release "Mud", which is a movie I liked, but it needed a kick in the ass from time to time, and Shannon provided it. He also received great critical praise as the lead in Jeff Nichols' "Take Shelter."

A role of an amoral remorseless killer is unfortunately, well worn ground in Hollywood these days. The tendency is to create a character that is more apropos of a video game like Grand Theft Auto. Shannon is much better than that. I don't want to say he gives the character empathy, but he does give him a point of view that has a certain perverted logic to it. Shannon, as Kuklinski is certainly cold, cruel, and calculating but is tender to his family. As Kuklinski's world starts to collapse around him he becomes emotional, desperate, abusive, and panicky. If Shannon doesn't pull this off, this movie fails, miserably.

Shannon is a pretty big guy (about 6'4" I'd judge) and he occasionally affects some stiff movements which kind of put me in mind of Frankenstein, and I don't say that as a knock, I say it as a compliment that Shannon can remind us that Kuklinski is a real scary monster, but that's not the really scary part.

The really scary part is that he is a human being.

Note: Shannon's star may ascend this summer as General Zod in the upcoming Superman reload "Man of Steel".

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mud (2012)

7/10

Muddy Waters

15 May 2013

MUD Matthew McConaughey plays the title character Mud who is living or at least inhabiting an otherwise uninhabited island in the middle of the Mississippi River somewhere between Arkansas and Mississippi. He is discovered by two 14 year old boys Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) who have boated out to the island to lay claim to what appears to be about a 14 ft pleasure boat, that somehow got itself caught up in the branches of a rather large tree, undoubtedly through the vicissitudes of one of the great river's frequent floods.

Mud is full of both mysticism, and philosophy, a true southern Gothic. He attributes supernatural powers to his shirt and bonfires. He waxes on at length on the causes and nature of good and bad luck, the latter being the one he is currently experiencing, and he has a claim and a plan for the boat of his own. So the competing claims must be negotiated. Mud regales the boys with his tale of woe and his lost love, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). Mud believes with all his heart that he will reunite with Juniper and together they will sail or motor down the mighty Mississip to the Gulf of Mexico, where Mud believes he will attain some measure of freedom. But he needs the boys help to act as a go-between for him and Juniper, and of course to get the boat out of the tree and make it sea worthy.

Ellis, the romantic, stands ready immediately, but Neckbone the practical one, desires a tangible reward. He bargains for Mud's .45 that he keeps tucked in his belt.

With the introduction of the gun, the story takes an ominous turn. As it turns out, Mud has indeed used this weapon on the flesh of another human being, and has thus garnered the attention of all officialdom, complete with roadblocks and wanted posters. In addition, he has earned the ire of the dead man's family, whose patriarch (old friend, Walking Tall's Joe Don Baker) has organized a posse of miscreants and cutthroats to track Mud down, and not for the purpose of a fair trial.

All that being said the story is really about Ellis, a boy whose rustic way of life along the river is threatened to be subsumed by a modern culture that has little truck for such quaint anachronisms. Yet, Ellis remains a chivalrous romantic who sees his main purpose in life as the rescue of damsels in distress. When he puts his romanticism to the test in the real world, as all us romantics afore him know, he is bound for some disappointment. Nevertheless, he endures and perseveres.

Director Jeff Nichols has become a darling of the critics with his movies (Shotgun Stories & Take Shelter). His thematic approach seems to be the psychological effect on people of traditional value pitted against a society that seems to demand that they change these values on any current popular whim. He is to be admired in my view, for eschewing the typical Hollywood condescension of small town America as an insignificant voting bloc, possibly worthy of some future anthropological study, and giving his characters a distinct individuality; a sense of humor about the world and themselves; and most of all, dignity.

The fact that the movie stars Mathew McConaughey and Reese Witherspoon says a lot about Nichols growing reputation. This is not a big movie but it certainly attracted big stars. The casting of the two boys shows good eye and a director that knows what he wants.

Other supporting players of note note, Sam Sheppard as Ellis's eccentric, grumpy old man,across the river neighbor (He likes to shoot river snakes from hisporch) and Nichols favorite Michael Shannon (who may soon make a big splash in the upcoming "Iceman") as Neckbone's uncle and ill prepared but sincere caretaker.

Like the great river itself the movie does meander a bit.It is southern you know. The dialog accompanied by numerous meaningful looks arguably could be tightened up a bit, but big time actors require big time parts. So, there's that.There are some questions that pop up, like where does Mud get his cigarettes? He doesn't have any food, but he always has plenty of smokes. How does Ellis communicate so easily with Juniper when she is so obviously being watched? And there is some violence that didn't seem to me fitting with the tone of the movie, but these are quibbles. The film has the look and feel of a labor of love, so it's sins (if in fact they can be called sins), can easily be forgiven. But some may find the movie overly long. I however did not; it kept my interest the entire way.

So we have a coming of age story, with homage to Mark Twain and a sprinkling of Southern Gothic. With character names like Mud and Neckbone you might suspect that it's not your normal coming of age movie, and it's not, thank God. Ellis clearly has hormonal urges, but unlike most Hollywood efforts of this kind, it will not lead him to banal inanity and bathroom humor, but rather to a journey of self realization that is both satisfying to the character and to the audience.

It is a good story well told.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Great Gatsby (2013)

9/10

Nothing exceeds like excess

14 May 2013

THE GREAT GATSBY There is no movie I have been more prepared to dislike than this one. How dare some Aussie come over here and tell us about the meaning of one of the great works of American literature. Especially this Aussie, Baz Luhrmann, who is known to overload, over-hype and overcook his theatrical product into a glittery miasma of small meaning and little consequence. (i.e. Moulin Rouge)

But I was wrong.

Jay Gatsby has achieved success in a fashion beyond most imaginations, excepting his own. In true Horatio Alger tradition he has worked hard to improve himself, but when his past creeps up on him and threatens his well crafted self image, he suavely and effortlessly changes it, his past, and he inhabits the change until it becomes the reality. He is the self made American man in every way. He is the American success myth both personified and perverted.

Unlike Alger's heroes, he has not followed the straight and narrow. He has acquired his fabulous wealth through bootlegging and stock swindles.

This belief, that he can change his past, to correct it as it were, has given him a veneer of respectability that has put him in good stead with his underworld connections. But it is not for them that Gatsby has made this remarkable metamorphosis. No, he did everything, and I mean everything, for the love of a woman.

Daisy was Gatsby's great love, but he lost her, and now in one final herculean effort he is going to correct his past this one last time. He is going to win her back and make things as they should have been.

Leo DeCaprio is the only actor of this generation that could play Gatsby, just as Robert Redford could only play Gatsby the previous generation. Redford's Gatsby seemed reticent and insecure about his past; regretful that he must live a lie in order to accomplish his goal. DeCaprio's Gatsby is forceful, decisive; he is a determined man of significant accomplishment and great ability. He has a plan and he is going to execute it and as far as he is concerned, for all the right reasons. For myself, it is DeCaprio's best and most powerful performance.

This decision (both DeCaprio's and Luhrmann's) to take Gatsby down from some ethereal literary icon into a flesh and blood human being gives the movie an intensity that the 1974 version and most of the literary criticism of the book that I have ever read, never perceived. This is not a shining white knight rescuing a damsel in distress; this is a bare knuckles brawl for the hand of Daisy, and she is going to have to choose.

Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) is Gatsby's antagonist. He and Daisy were married when Daisy could no longer wait for Gatsby to prove himself worthy of her. Tom is as rich, maybe even richer than Gatsby, but his money is old, he is an aristocrat with a deep sense of entitlement. He has status and wealth because he's supposed to have status and wealth, and he's not about to give up all that, and certainly not his wife, to this new money usurper Gatsby, without a fight.

Bruce Dern played Tom as a kind of loopy (Dern's specialty) racial conspiracy nut, but Edgerton gives Tom a much harder edge. When Tom espouses his vile racial philosophies one might think that someday he might actually do something about it.

Daisy (Carey Mulligan) is a tough role. For all the time that Gatsby spends trying to prove he is good enough for Daisy, the audience, for the book or the film, is led down the path that she is not good enough for him. Mia Farrow played Daisy as an airhead and a dingbat, but Mulligan gives Daisy a bit more spine, and fashions a character that has a pretty good idea where her self-interests lay.

Luhrmann and co-writer Craig Pearse stay pretty close to the text with a few additions and devices, most notably, to those of us who read the book, know that it is Nick Caraway (Tobey Maguire) who tells the story, and is a firsthand witness to all the events, but we never knew from where he tells the story. Luhrmann tells us it is from a sanitarium where Nick is drying out from excessive alcoholism.

As for Luhrmann's reputation for excess: Well, he certainly visualizes Gatsby's parties as excess, but they are supposed to be excessive, excessive materialism is part of the point of the story. There are times when Luhrmann can't resist himself and feels the compulsion to punctuate matters with some visual flourish, but I did not find it too distracting. His decision to go 3D however, I think was wise. The characters seem to come out of the screen and get next to you. You get to know them personally, and after all this is a very personal story.

I think this story has survived the test of time so well because it is basically a love story. Whatever the viewers or readers opinion of the characters are, Gatsby and Daisy do love each other, but Fitzgerald was not interested in boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl and they all live happily ever after. Where Fitzgerald reached his own aspiration of creating high art is in wondering if living happily ever after is even possible in an age of class consciousness, even class warfare, that is driven by a compulsive materialism in a world changing so fast that we can't even formulate the question before we have to come up with an answer. Luhrmann stays true to these themes and displays an avid curiosity about them himself.

What he has created is a work of art that stands very well on its own.

check out http://blognmovies.tumblr.com/

313 out of 433 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

copyright908

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed