Showing posts with label Film Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film Review. Show all posts
Saturday, May 18, 2013
The Great Gatsby
As with all ambitious adaptations of great american literature, and certainly most especially for something as highbrow as The Great Gatsby -- possibly America's most precious literary gem to date, one can expect a polarizing reaction from the audience.
Indeed, with society's penchant for book purism and nitpicking at the slightest deviation, The Great Gatsby is sure to illicit strong negative reactions for seemingly little to no reason at all. If Francis Scott Fitzgerald could hear us all, I'm sure he will find the irony that his take on the great American dream -- the lust for power, and beauty, and money, and glamour, and fame at whatever cost -- can bring to fore the ugliest traits in individuals of our time, an age less than a decade short of a century later, supposedly advanced and modern in all possibly ways.
As a reader, and as one of Baz Luhrmann's biggest supporters, I could not help but think back on certain scenes both in and out of the novel and of the film. While most literary academics will spit out words like "gauche", "crass", "unsubtle", "loud", "gaudy", and "tawdry" to describe this film, I choose to use words like "dazzling", "spectacular", "riveting", "awe-inspiring", and "magical". I feel like the decadence and sleaziness of the film can attribute itself to the fact that the 20's, though more conservative than we in many ways, was an age of pure and carnal lust for living on the edge. The prohibition, the speakeasies, the general drunkenness of New York and the rich and illustrious at the time was nothing short of jaw-dropping in one of the world's most pivotal moments.
Tobey Maguire provided the rock solid foundation through his narrative that one feels like he is engaged in a conversation with the actual Nick Carraway confiding about his summer mingling with the gliteratti, the rich, the famous, the powerful, and the beautiful in all of their love, deceits, and half-truths. You feel inspired as he talks about The Great Jay Gatsby (Leo di Caprio), and just as soon feel the disillusionment provided by [SPOILER ALERT] his selfish and careless cousin, the beautiful and unreachable Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), and her philandering blue blooded husband, Tom (Joel Edgerton).
Leonardo diCaprio's take as the enigmatic Jay Gatsby is nothing short of brilliant and Carey Mulligan's performance as shallow yet beautiful Daisy is magical. One can certainly see how she managed to capture and imprison the heart of Gatsby for long after they first meet. Their chemistry sizzles and one cannot help but be reminded of diCaprio's turn as Romeo Montague in Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. His face, so beautiful and hopeful and expressive provides the perfect canvas for the spectacle of Luhrmann's vivid imagination.
While many may compare The Great Gatsby to Moulin Rouge and Romeo + Juliet, certainly the tale of circumstance, bad timing, and tragic love from the voice of a disillusioned writer is cause for comparison, Gatsby is, in its purest sense, very far indeed from being about star-crossed lovers. While Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge is, in its core, a story of true and unapologetic love, Gatsby is the tale of the death of hope. While the love story of Fitzgerald's scharacters is certainly tragic, it is more heartbreaking that it is all seen through the eyes of innocent and naive Nick Carraway, who, at the very end, was the only one who saw the true greatness of Gatsby's character.
The Great Gatsby is summed up perfectly by Carraway's (and the novels!) parting lines: “Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther... And one fine morning — So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
Nothing could be closer to the truth to both Fitzgerald's and Luhrmann's productions.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Jane Eyre

I just finished watching Cary Fukunaga's take on the timeless Charlotte Bronte novel, Jane Eyre.
While Toby Stephens remains my favorite Edward Rochester, I have to say that Michel Fassbender comes a close second. Where Stephens' Rochester is this wild, tameless, beast, a man made crazy by the sins of his youth, Fassbender delivers a much more brooding, mercurial and bitter performance - a man plagued and haunted by (SPOILER!) his crazy wife and his honor. Both depictions, different as they may be, were wildly captivating, yet the difference of Toby Stephens' portrayal tipped the scale to his favor for me. Sorry Fassy, but there are way too many other brooding heroes out there. Ruth Wilson, on the other hand, has been kicked to second place by the wonderful Mia Wasikowska! Her quiet and subtle resilience translates so well on film. The range of emotion she is able to convey with just one look is enough to make me want to get down on my knees and apologize for the wrong that have been done to her in the past.
Another aspect of the film that deeply impressed me was how director Fukunaga and scriptwriter Buffini managed to condense this compelling drama into just 2 short hours. One of the main reasons I loved the BBC version so much is that there was enough time to be able to stay so close and respectful of the novel, and the 4 hour tv series did just that. However, to have stayed so religious to the book yet manage to condense that to half the time is testament to both Buffini's skill as a writer and Fukunaga's skill as a director. For certain, there will be scenes missed, yet nothing that stood out so much to be noted. Purists may also have something to say about the timeline, but I truly believe that by starting the movie with the older Jane, you are able to establish a deeper connection with her.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this adaptation of Jane Eyre and I'm sure we can expect great things from director Fukunaga, as well as rising stars Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
MOVIE IN REVIEW: Red Riding Hood
Not even the combined beauty and talent of Amanda Seyfried, Max Irons, and Gary Oldman could save Catherine Hardwicke's recent adaptation of Red Riding Hood.Perhaps it is because of my irascible temper already piqued by Hardwicke's unforgivable Twilight film that I find it difficult to find any saving grace in this re-telling of a classic beloved by many. To be fair to Hardwicke though, Stephenie Meyer's novels didn't really provide too good a material for her to work with anyways. But what then is her excuse for Red Riding Hood?
Much to the chagrin of fairy tale and folklore fans the world over, Hardwicke's take on the movie has become less of a fantastic world and more on the world of hormonal and randy teenagers everywhere. While the original tale stands as an allegory to sexual awakenings and how it affects young ones, and there are certain allusions to that in every cover, Hardwicke crosses the boundaries and removes all form of subtlety in the film.
Ethereal beauty Amanda Seyfriend stars as Valerie, the young woman in the center of this tale. She finds herself torn between her first love, the bad boy Peter, and the man she is to wed, all around good guy Henry. Despite the range of acting in Seyfried, proven by her impressive resume, Hardwicke must have a thing for monotonous and bland women. She must have mistaken boring for resilience. All darling Amanda does is open her already remarkably humongous doe eyes and release a quick exhale of breath. Well, it is one up from Kristen Stewart's blank faces. Nevertheless, apart from looking gorgeous and "tying" the film together, she really doesn't do much. That is, if you don't count her frolicking in the hay with Peter or leading Henry on as much.
The supporting cast, including her two leading men, as well as the always fabulous Gary Oldman, don't really do anything as well. Shiloh Fernandez's Peter and Max Irons's Henry have roughly one line each repeated all throughout the movie. Gary Oldman's Father Solomon randomly bursts into screams and sermons worthy of a homeless New Yorker screaming "The end is nigh" present in every Armageddon-centered film, while all the rest fade into the background.
Presented as a whodunit, Hardwicke employs tricks in every cliched mystery handbook. The camera suddenly zooms in on Seyfried's face, as if to sneak up on her as she gives one of her numerous "gasps!", the lighting, the location, hell, even the vacantly shocked expressions of everyone in the film.
While I can see why people compare this to Twilight, because there are certain elements that surround both films, I think the blame at this point rests solely on Madame Director's shoulders. The story is very different, and I think had it been presented differently, this could have gone amazingly well. However, they didn't and the end result was one of the most droll films to have ever graced cinema. Save your money. Please.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
HP & The Deathly Hallows P.1
Usually, when I go into a movie house to watch a film adaptation of a novel I've already read, I expect to leave feeling a little shortchanged. Fortunately, this is not the case with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, the penultimate film in a series of books and films beloved by many.David Yates, the director who helmed the 2nd half of 8 films in the Harry Potter world, must be applauded for his visual masterpiece. While we have yet to see the final installment in this magical saga, it is safe to assume, from what we've seen in Part 1 of the Deathly Hallows, that he, along with the scriptwriters, have stuck as close to the novels as possible. It is not often that directors and scriptwriters abstain from making "creative" changes to the film version of book adaptations. While minor changes have been made, even a book purist such as I must admit that while it may not necessarily be for the better, it was not for the worst as well.
Daniel Radcliffe started out as the weakest actor amongst the famous trio, but he certainly did not finish that way. What might have been brought by years of training and experience have shaped him into a believable Harry Potter - one we root for and want to stand behind. His portrayal of Harry as a bestfriend and would-be-hero was inspiring, to say the least. My favorite scene of Daniel Radcliffe has to be the 7 Potters. He seemed to adapt the little idiosyncrasies that make it easy to tell whom he is supposed to be. From the twins' comfortable and laughing manner, to Fleur's shallow one, to Mundungus's reluctance at participating, and Hermione's forthright manner, he has given us something to laugh at before we cry at the tragedy that will soon follow.
Rupert Grint, on the other hand, makes it seem like he IS Ron Weasley. He manages to capture Ron's obvious jealousy and frustration with Harry, while not overdoing it in a manner where we become annoyed with him. We see instances that might have influenced his judgment, and we sympathize with his situation. Removed from his family early on in the film, as with the novel, Ron clings to a radio that announces Wizards and Muggles that have been captured and/ or killed by the Death Eaters at the Ministry of Magic, in the hopes of not hearing names of his loved ones. A scene to applaud is his argument with Harry as he screams "You want to know why I listen to that radio so much? It's because I don't want to hear Ginny's name, or Fred's, or George's, or Mum's and you don't understand. Your parents are dead. You have no family!" While obviously under the influence of the cursed locket, we are able to understand where his frustrations come from. Rupert's performance and delivery was fantastic.
Emma Watson's Hermione Granger is also not a performance to scoff at. While lots of people have called her bland, she is able to bring to the scene a sense of foundation for the trio - almost as if she was the rock holding them together. Emma's no-nonsense manner is perfect for Hermione's quick thinking and girl scout preparedness, which has enabled the famous 3 to survive out on the run as long as they did. I concur with Ron's "We wouldn't last 2 days without Hermione." line. They really wouldn't have. And Daniel and Rupert wouldn't have made it without Emma as well. My 2 favorite scenes of Emma has to be her narrative as she recites the tale of the 3 brothers and her heartwrenching screams as Helena Bonham Carter's Bellatrix Lestrange tortures her for information. It was short, but it was well done.
Not much scenes were given to the others as Part 1 of the Deathly Hallows is largely centered on the trio as they evade Death Eaters and search for Horcruxes. However, in their brief scenes, the rest of the cast delivered performances so wonderfully made that it is hard to pinpoint who stood out the most. As an ensemble, the casting directors of the Harry Potter franchise did a splendid job. The actors seem to be perfect for their roles.
Rhys Ifans's performance as Loony Luna's father, Xenophilius, was brilliant. His broken hearted speech about having to trade Harry for Luna was nothing short of gut-wrenching. Helena Bonham Carter once again proves how effective she is as bloodthirsty Bellatrix Lestrange and Jason Isaac's Lucius Malfoy is so believable that you can see the frustration over what will become of his family mingled with fear of the Dark Lord in his eyes. James and Oliver Phelps as Fred and George were perfectly casted as the comic relief of the series.
I also have to single out the performances of David O'Hara, Steffan Rhodri, and Sophie Thompson as Albert Runcorn, Reg Cattermole, and Mafalda Hopkirk, respectively. For those who aren't familiar with them, they are the 3 officials of the Ministry of Magic that Harry, Ron, and Hermione impersonated. They were hilarious! I swear I could see Hermione's face in the various expressions of Mafalda Hopkirk.
Of course, who could forget the tears brought about by some of the scenes? From Hedwig's death, to the news of Mad-Eye's, to Neville Longbottom standing up to death eaters and referring to them as "Losers", many a tears were shed with this movie. The hardest one to bear, however, belongs to Dobby. I couldn't contain my sobs as I saw Bellatrix throw the dagger that will take Dobby's life, and eventually, Dobby calling out to Harry as he lays there in Harry's arms proclaiming what a beautiful place it was to be with friends. As I type, tears fill my eyes. He is, indeed, a free elf.
While 2 and a half hours might be long for a single movie, I can honestly speak for everyone when I say that the movie was horribly cut short. I could've stayed for another 2 and a half just to finish the film. Unfortunately, we have to wait another year before the series concludes, but hey, on the bright side, that's one more year of Harry Potter being with us. 2 thumbs up, plus my toes, to everyone who made this film. It was, as it well should be, magical.
All good things,
Essa.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
MOVIE IN REVIEW: Percy Jackson & The Lightning Thief

For a movie that was so obviously targeted to a younger demographic, Percy Jackson & The Lightning Thief came out a pleasant surprise.
With films like Eragon, The Spiderwick Chronicles, A Series of Unfortunate Events, and even the illustrious The Golden Compass bombing and turning out as big flops, would-be pilots that ended up as nothing more than false starts and amazing CGIs, Percy Jackson has proven that it might be one of the few that'll come through to blockbuster heights -- just as the Chosen One has. While it isn't in the same caliber as the Harry Potter films, I think it has a fair chance of giving the Narnia series a run for its money.
Fans of the book might find it a little difficult to take in and accept the changes and plotholes they've made with this film. As an avid reader myself, I expected to be disappointed with the movie adaptation just as I first was after seeing the Harry Potter films (first is the watchword). Coming in to the theatre, I thought I'd be leaving with a sour taste in my mouth; pissed and disappointed with what I would normally consider a ruination and unjustification of the novels.
However, just as I had braced myself, I found that looking past the often unforgiving and unrelenting close-mindedness of readers that are greatly attached to the novels, it was quite an enjoyable film. Sweet, soft fluff akin to cotton candy enjoyment while being cooped up in the dark for 2 barely there hours. Not once did I find a scene too boring, too dragging, too overmade. I didn't check the time, nor had any inclination to get off my seat in pretense of using the lavatory or buying food from the concession stand. I simply didn't want to miss a scene.
Don't get me wrong, there are still reasons to ridicule this movie, and those who go in having already made up their minds that they won't enjoy it, will definitely get what they bargained for. Certainly, it has its faults. Adjustments have been made, some not for the better. Scenes vital to the first book have been cut for no reasons, and added in lieu of them were moments that didn't seem important to the main storyline. I try to avoid spoilers since it's so early on in the release, so I'll just leave it at that.
One of the really great things about this adaptation though is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. It dares to add wit and sarcasm to the roles, almost mocking Greek Mythology & modern culture while parodying other fantasy films. The cast, while not perfect for their characters, delivered well.
The verdict? A delight to watch if you're open enough with the changes. 7/10
NOTE: THIS IS STILL A ROUGH DRAFT. TOO LAZY TO EDIT. WILL ADD MORE THOUGHTS TO IT TOMORROW. He he.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




