The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Despite the substantial amount of fluff, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 boast some impressive action sequences and beautifully unique special effects.

Directed by: Marc Webb

Released: 2013

Staring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHann, & Sally Field 

Rated: PG-13

  In a world of premature reboots developed solely for finical gain, non was more premature than that the Spider-Man franchise. Sam Rami's first adaptation of the popular comic book series was a fun time, but it's subsequent sequels too often repeated the first or, in the case of the third installment, became painfully laughable as a seriously action movie. A miscast Tobey Maguire managed to awkwards (as verb) his way through three films and Kristen Dunst gives what can only be described as her worst series of performances. For the series numerous faults, the first was a fun, exciting action movie; highly enjoyable until followed by a mopey second, and absurd third. One must ask was the utter failure of the third movie really enough to warrant a complete series reboot five short years later? The answer is an obvious no; however, money is money and money speaks louder than any small blogger's opinion. 

  While I didn't think the reboot SHOULD have happened I am happy it did. Marc Webb knows how create thrilling action sequences and although Andrew Garfield is about a decade too old for the role of high school/high school gradate Peter Parker, he plays the role very well. The Amazing Spider-Man did what it's predecessor couldn't, made Spider-Man cool. Rewatching Rami's adaption I realize how dull and uncompelling Maguire was in the role. Andrew Garfield, currently 30 years old, portrays a realistic, believable young teen. He has fun playing this character, in turn making it fun for the audience to watch.

Even I can't say this doesn't look cool.

  Following the 2012 reboot I had high hopes for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and despite a slightly misleading trailer the movie definitely delivers crowd pleasing action sequences and impressively unique special effects. I note the misleading trailer because it truly is...this is not Spiderman vs. Electro vs. Rhino vs. Green Goblin...the later two have a combined screen time of about 20 minutes.  Don't let the trailers deceive you, Paul Giomattee is hardly in the movie but when he is he's incomprehensible. Definitely the most disappointing performance in the movie. Is the majority of this film set up for The Sinister Six? Yes. Does that bother me? Slightly...

  Jamie Foxx's character had the potential to be such an emotionally complex character and I feel as if some of those character possibilities were sidelined to make room for the numerous subplots that clutter this movie. If there's one thing this movie has it's an abundance of subplots. Behind Peter Parker's parents death, girlfriend Gwen Stacey' problems, Harry Osborn's medical condition, the public's opinion of Spider-Man, Aunt May striving to make end's meet, and oh ya...ELECTRO, this is on pack plot and the reason the movie's running time almost exceeds 2 1/2 hours. To be honest, an absurdly huge portion of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is fluff; fluff with brilliant action and glimmers of interesting character's squeezed in-between. Discovering what happened to Peter Parker's parents is nice, but not necessary. What we learned from the closure of that mystery is something the audience is already being told throughout the last and current movie. Oscorp Bad. Got it. Had it since the last movie. Didn't need that extra 20-30 minutes of angsty, and teary-eyed Peter Parker to discover that. 

I wish I could have been MORE annoyed with their drawn out relationship
but it really does play well on screen.

  Andrew Garfield and his leading lady/real life girlfriend Emma Stone have brilliant chemistry and are seemly a perfect couple, but once again, their melodramatic subplot was one that took up far too much screen time. They are adorable and I understand why so much time was devoted to their relationship...building emotional connections...but their scenes went past "aww cute" and entered distracting in length. I loved seeing these two actors play off each other but this relationship and it's drama was frustratingly long...

 Back to the film's main villain, Jamie Foxx gives a slightly exaggerated performance to make up for the lack of screen time and as I said before I feel so much could have been done with his character (psychologically) before & after he's transformed...had Foxx been given more dialog and more screen time he could have stepped up and made this villain into something more than a cool FX opportunity. Special Effects in question, the look of Electro is reason enough to see this movie. Foxx's look was generated with a unique combination of make-up and CGI ingenuity. Watching Electro's face and energies surrounding his physical body is fascinating. The subtleties of the current colors and and sparks of light are entrancing to watch on the big screen.

Jamie Foxx on the set of The Amazing Spider-Man 2
On the left, Make-up before added special effects

Great collaboration of make-up and fx

   Including Electro, the CGI action sequences are AMAZING. The detail put into each action sequence is spectacular and as a long time activist against the inappropriate use of CGI I can honesty say not only was it's use appropriate, but it actually ENHANCED the film. This movie is a testament to the benefits of well done CGI. It's evident time and energy were put into this project and the results are truly thrilling. Usually I find myself distracted by the unrealistic qualities of CGI, but The Amazing Spider-Man 2 doesn't have that flat, over or under saturated look; it feels alive, it feels real.

   I touched on villain Jamie Foxx, as well as leads Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, whose real life chemistry MAKE the relationship. Filling out the supporting cast is King Joffery look-a-like Dane Dehaan whose hair resembles Emo-Donald Trump combover. But honestly, despite being 28, Dehaan looks like an ice-eyed preteen. I shouldn't joke, like Garfield, Dane Dehaan was perfect in this role and knows exactly how to play the character. Harry Osborn, the product of a dysfunctional, wealthy family should act spoiled, have the occasional temper tantrum, and except to always receive what he asks for. Dehaan does all of this while also playing into some of the more sublet and emotional aspects of the character. Surprisingly I throughly enjoyed watching him on screen and wish, as with Jamie Foxx's Electro, his character could have found a more central place in the movie.

Again, that's where The Amazing Spider-Man 2 falls short. There are so many good things in this universe the writers attempted to feature all of them in one movie, resulting any extended run time and bloated plot.

Dane Dehaan's Harry Osborn isn't happy when Spidey won't give him what he wants...BLOOD!

  Adding to the electric atmosphere of the film was it's soundtrack, scored by the great Hanz Zimmer and The Magnificent Six...including Pharrell Williams? I guess now that he's taken over producing and performing music the logical next step would be to enter the movie business. The soundtrack is truly fascinating...it's blend of Zimmer's classical, dramatic motifs, paranoid chanting, and dub step

 ...I guess Zimmer's well known "BWAHS" (think Inception) are the perfect match for dub steps bass dropping...It works with the theme surrounding the film and Electro's character of course. Here's a track from the movie that really stood out to me...the underlying creepy chanting really got under my skin, as I'm sure it was intended to, and elicited a physical response from me. But BRAVO because I LOVE when music, especially in film, does this. Music is not something majority of movie-goers notice or react to. Most of the time music's purpose is to simply accompany the film; but in Spider-Man the music is as much apart of the design of the movie as the visual effects. The score was evidently written to sync with specific moments in the action sequences as well as be a part of Electro's subconscious. The result is a bizarre, yet strong piece that completes the film. *{Apologies for this appearance of this paragraph, we're experiences some technical difficulty}*

  All in all The Amazing Spider-Man 2, despite it's flaws and pack plot, is a good time. The movie is exactly what a Summer blockbuster should be. It's action, it's romance, it's fun. Easy to nit-pick and quite obvious in it's intentions (set up for the next film) it's best if audience members just sit back and enjoy the spectacle. Performances, like the film itself were FUN...it's fun to see Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone playing off each other, Jamie Foxx's obsessive/before Electro character is over-acted but fun! Summer is a difficult season for critiquing film and movies...Summer Blockbuster criteria is completely different than Awards Season and each season's features are enjoyable for different reasons. For reasons of Summer Blockbuster, action-ness The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is an excellent start and one you should check out IN THEATERS. 

Noah

Make it rain

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Russel Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, Logan Lerman, & Douglas Booth
Released: 2014

Reasons I was offended by Noah
-Skinny jeans
-Hooded sweatshirts
-Infinity scarves
-The garish font used in the title card and subsequent credits
-The unnecessary 45 minutes in the 3rd act that completely diverged from the theme and plot set forth  in the first portions of the film.

  Let's get some things out of the way, am I a Christian? Yes. Do I believe the public should avoid and our boycott a film specifically because it "offends" or "alters" Christian beliefs or Biblical events? NO.

  Here is something the Christian viewing public needs to understand, if you're going to tell someone to avoid a film because of its inaccuracies or its misconstruction of Christian beliefs I do hope you go see the film FIRST so you can explain exactly WHY. Enough of these second hand accounts. Just because Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show tells you not to see or read The Golden Compass does NOT mean you should avoid it at all cost...to me any controversy of this fashion generated around a film or book series simply makes it more alluring. (Say the conservatives "Oh it's Satan's temptation!") It was the reason I began reading His Dark Materials series and guess what? It's one of the best written pieces of young adult literature and one of my favorite book series.

  If you're going to campaign so heartily against a film, you better have seen it yourself so you can back up your claims of inaccuracy. Seeing a film you don't agree with also aids in explaining any questions non-Christians may ask their known Christian friends...instead of responding with "Well...Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show saw it and HE says..." No harm ever came from a bit of research...

Director Darren Aronosky & Russel Crowe

Now, of course if you don't find said film in your interest you have every right NOT to see that film, but please don't deter others from expanding their knowledge. I find the fact that a film can get so many people discussing the topic of religion (specifically Christianity) exciting! In this year alone there have been THREE Christian themed/Biblically rooted films released (so far) Noah, is NOT for everyone; director Darren Aronofsky shot it (as all his films) with a very specific theme in mind.
  This is what get's my goat, many strike out at this film, but it was never marketed as something it was not. Noah was never billed as a Biblically accurate account, it was never marketed specifically towards or for a Christian audience. This, I believe, is most important when considering whether Christians should take up arms and fight the religious injustice that is Noah (*cough* sarcasm *cough*) or keep a rational, open mind. I'm not going to dwell on what Noah is, or is not in accordance to religion. The source material for Noah is not THEE Bible, it's a graphic novel written by the film's director and that graphic novel does not boast a strong religious agenda. Just keep that in mind. This is all I want to say on the controversial subject because I'd love to actually REVEIW the film, and after I'm done you can decide for yourself. Will you see Noah so you have an educated stance in the heated discussion of the film, or will you avoid it out of stubborn second hand he-said, she-said accounts OR (Yes there are more than two options) is it possible the film's intriguing aspects were literally drowned by a dismal 3rd act resulting in a dower end product?

Simply put, this is Noah...

Before the flood 8 1/2 out of 10 stars; during/after the flood 3 stars

  I have no problem with how the story was handled, it's artistic license, this is NOT Heaven is For Real, it's Aronofsky (the man who gave us Requiem of a Dream, The Black Swan, The Wrestler) I actually ENJOYED many of the unique, compelling ideas Aronofsky has developed; I became emotionally upset with the three hundred and sixty degrees change the film took after the flood occurred. In the beginning (Ha. Ha.) Noah was the definite hero of the film, his passion and commitment to The Creator (God) frames him as a good man, working against those who have sinned and destroyed the beautiful land they were given. You see how revolting and lost the race of Man has become and why the Earth needs to be cleansed...you shutter and gasp at the atrocities of Man's behavior and but as soon as the Ark shuts its door Aronofsky (who penned the film as well as directing) turns Noah into a completely different character. Gone is the father figure who's dedication to God is inspiring; instead we're left with a bloodthirsty, deranged lunatic who never recovers his respected status obtained in the film's first hour and half. What happened to saving the planet and hopping for a better future? What happened to seeing the best in Noah? Themes of responsibility, hope, and trust in God are completely forgotten and abolished, ending the film in bitter contrast. A feeble attempt to recover them is made in Noah's last scene however the previous change of pace was so dramatic it proved difficult to rebound.

The first hour and half of Noah, brilliant. Gorgeously shot, intriguing and unique, I feel it didn't spit on the actual religion of Christianity at all...simply took a well known story and used it very loosely to construct a new tale of epic proportions. Noah is not a film about staying true to the story in Genesis, it's about environmentalism, saving the world from Man's destructive course (and then some garbage at the end) I found myself willing to suspend disbelief to enjoy the original take Aronofsky presents. If one was to "faithfully" adapt the story of Noah, the film would be roughly 30 minutes long. Fantastic cinematography and expert editing make Noah a pleasing film aesthetically. The images created by cinematographer Matthew Libatique varied from haunting to etherial to painfully realistic...that being said Noah does offer it's fair share of CGI.

The Animals {emit heavy sigh} I understand and agree that it was the only way but I honestly think I saw 5 Moose...the same Moose couple...dispersed throughout the massive hear 5 times...and that Armadillo-Dog.
  The Watchers, another highly contested portion of the film, dare I say it, one of the most fascinated ideas as well as top notch production on the design and creation of these creatures.

Got Moose? Deer? Elk?

  Performances are solid despite some questionable character developments. Is Noah a perfect film? No. Will it be one teachers show in the Sunday school class room? Absolutely not. But what Noah does offer is entertainment. I'm not going to lie, several times I found myself shaking my head at the absurdity of the story, it's characters developments, and comparing/contrasting Bible and Film but I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of the film, however outlandish or "inaccurate" some may call it. Ultimately, a good portion of Noah could have hit the cutting room floor. Had several of the major struggles that occurred on the Ark during the flood been cut out, the films integrity wouldn't have suffered; it actually would have improved. The film didn't need the additional conflicts that drastically tarnished the its title character.  Leaving the theater I contemplated my initial retain to the film and found the film dove so so low there was no way the finale could benefit from its rainbow-ed end. I found myself so upset and depressed at how irrational the last 30-45 had been I didn't feel much hope for a better future. It's been quite some time since I've been so emotionally split by a film; therefore, I defer to my original point, if you'd like to make claims and/or have an opinion about Noah, I suggest you see it for yourself.

I snuck into Captain America the Winter Soldier right after Noah...
    -There is a reason people are calling this the best Marvel movie in years and I can tell you why. It's because a Director FINALLY stopped trying imitate Joss Whedon's crackpot style of directing and actually produced a distinct, quality action film...void of constant jokes and absurd plot lines riddled with gaping holes.

A full review, COMING SOON!

Dracula (1992)

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Released: 1992
Staring: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Clary Ewles
Rated: R
Times Viewed 5+

 There is a moment in film making when the artistic choices go beyond  filling a lot, clothing an actor, and underscoring a scene; the artistic team behind Bram Stoker's Dracula immortalized not only a literary character but multiple periods of art and history, all on screen.

   Nothing dates a film more than bad special effects, whether they be shoddy stop motion or CGI. Francis Ford Coppela's adaption of the iconic novel by Bram Stoker will forever stand the test of time due to his traditional method of special effects and camera technique. When one says "traditional"the usual connotation is old, boring, out of day; however, by using practical effects and no CGI, Dracula is  a back of all treats and no tricks. Coppela's collaboration with costume designer Eiko Ishioka, scenic designer Joseph Hodges, special effects artist Roman Coppola, and composer Wojciech Kilar resulted in a true work of classic, cinematic art. 

  The only thing more engrossing than watching Coppola's adaption is watching the production documentaries and videos following the development of the film. I own a copy of the 15th anniversary edition DVD which is packed with hours of such footage. Absolutely no green screen's were used all sets were built on screen and effects only produced as they would have been in the early 1900's. Magic tricks, reverse photography, and double exposure were all used to create the unique and often haunting effects that give Dracula it's classic flair. In this Coppola really must be applauded, his passion and unrelenting dedication to the classic art of film is something sorely missed in today's Hollywood. There are some truly BRILLIANT effects and sequences created in this film...all of which are addressed in this fantastic short The Naive Visual Effects of Bram Stoker's Dracula. I highly suggest checking it out, it's a great look at the technical craft and ingenuity that goes into practical classic film making. 

  Special Effects included, Bram Stoker's Dracula is wickedly theatrical and full of art history and this is most apparent than in it's costume designs. Eiko Ishioka one of Hollywood's most creative and dramatic costume designer's created looks that not only elude to famous works of art , but become art themselves; Dracula's garments specifically span generations and cultures. Coppola refers to images as "swatches" during the visual production period and the these "swatches" from Klimt to numerous other's are...There are just too many brilliant pieces to choose from, each gorgeous in it's own individual fashion...

 The quality of the production design is beyond words, and let's not forget that the film one best Oscar for Costume Design, Make-up, and Sound Effects/Editing...The old age make-up on Gary Oldman is truly THEE best over put on screen, I've yet to see it's rival...Benjamin Button, eat your heart out. Besides age make-up, the creature prosthetics are incredibly detailed and quite honestly perfection; every line was considered, every hair in place. The costumes are pure theater, and the make-up pure magic.

Wojciech Kilar's melodies are equally haunting as the tale they underscore. A multiple repetition of chords that build and build, creating tension; Kilar compliments these heavy tracks with a light as air romanic theme that twists itself and soon becomes a hair raising refrain.This soundtrack is the perfect mix of horror, danger, and romance.

  Now let's address the one conflicting factor that takes this Art History masterpiece of Romanic Horror and turns it from Oscar gold, to B-film camp. The acting...Specifically Keanu Reeves acting.

  Poor, poor Keanu Reeves...he tried, He really, REALLY tired. While he's one of those actors who's been consistently bad in almost every movie he's in I, due to some unknown force, like his movies. {The Matrix, Constantine, & of course Dracula} Some roles are juste cursed and the role of Jonathan Harker is on of them...first of all, he's like Raoul in The Phantom of the Opera...the writer's try SO desperately to turn him into the romantic lead when it's obviously the opposer. Second, he's a bit of a pussy...he goes to the castle, get's imprisoned, get's out then whines the entire rest of the story...I don't think anyone has every felt badly for Jonathan Harker in Dracula's history. THAT, however, does not excuse the exceptionally painful job that Reeves did in this role. His acting befits that of a high school freshman...who doesn't enjoy theater.

  Keanu Reeves is not the only one having a hard time in their roles...Sadie Frost who plays the part of Lucy Winestra struggles through her character by series of sexual moans and screeches. Winona Ryder as a whole makes a mostly successful transition from child star to leading lady with this role, however she does have a couple awkward moments herself. And if I must be totally honest I have to confess that, while he's brilliant, this is not Sir Anthony Hopkin's best role. He was and is perfect for the part, it's simply falls upon some rather odd physical choices he makes that bring the performance down to a satire level.

  Check out this clip below, it shows not only the faltering attempts of Reeves, but also the levels that Gary Oldman brings to his performance of Dracula as well as the rich costume, set, and sound designs...it's definitely a defining scene of the film.

  The shining star in this sometimes fading constellation without a doubt is Gary Oldman. Oldman's versatility and complete commitment never fails to blow me away, Dracula is no exception. In a performance that could have been weighed down by make-up and costume, Oldman uses them to his advantage and brings a timeless, yet fresh take to the most iconic of Monsters. The performance plays on the subtleties and theatricality of the character of Dracula creating a new character who you are both revolted and attracted to. My personal favorite, of all Gary Oldman's performances.

  So if you haven't see it yet, Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one to watch this Halloween evening. With his stunning costumes, intriguing set and special effects designs and above all Gary Oldman's performance it's not only my pick of  Halloween movie, but also happens to be my FAVORITE movie.

Gravity

This whole problem could have been solved if you had a Time Lord...

Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón
Released: 2013
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Sandra Bullock & George Clooney
Times Viewed: 1

  But all Doctor Who jokes aside, Gravity reiterates a fact embraced by many a Whovian...Space is AWESOME. Not since Kubrick has a director translated the terrifying desolation and beauty that is Space onto the silver screen so spectacularly. Alfonso Cuarón utilizes Space like no other, continuously flirting with varying levels of depth of field as well as sound. The scope of Gravity, at first glimpse, appears vast and daunting but Cuarón brings this epic down to human reaches by interjecting immense cinematography with tight, extreme close-ups of it's leading lady. The director plays with reflections in space suit helmets, POV shots, and even drops nod to Kubrick if you're a cool enough cat to catch it. Alfonso Cuarón's variety, sharpness, and seamless blending of film and CGI creates an irrefutable Sci-Fi classic. The great this about Gravity thought is that it's hardly Sci-Fi at all..no aliens, no laser guns, just real space and real people. 

   Sandra Bullock, who wouldn't have been my (nor I believe the directors) first choice for the role, can be a bit distracting at times...a kinder word than annoying. Bullock was not the worst actress to be cast in a role such as this and did demonstrate great command over her body, hours of trainer where evident in her physical being, but when it came to a vocal presence she's not one I appreciated. She gives literal life to the phrase "Ah, Ahh, Ahhh." This being said, the Academy Award Winner brings a human "real life" presence to the role.

  Opposite Sandra Bullcock, the ever charming George Clooney does what he does best...charms his way through the film. George Clooney plays George Clooney, and the first 10 minutes of the film try so unbelievably hard to establish a (charming) character for Clooney it's somewhat painful. On the verge of cliché, his veteran Matt Kowalski (charmingly) reflects on past missions, mishaps, and memories with Huston as he takes his final walk throughout space, alluding to retirement and lamenting that he'll never surpass the record for most time spent wondering the heavens above.  

  Does anyone remember Michael Clayton? An angry, passionate George Clooney, that's what I'd love to see again...he's a talented actor but I feel he choses roles that too closely reflect him as a person. In that perspective Gravity was a perfect match, but I'd love to see him take a real, unforgiving RISK.

But perhaps I pick on the leads too much...I've yet to decide if my reservations about each actor was due to the performances or a sub-par script; my conscious tells me it's the later. 

  Unfortunately the script (mind you not the story) proved to be the film's weakest attribute. Majority of the film belongs to Bullock who, again, wouldn't have been my first choice for a role like this but my overall impression was she carried many of the scenes well enough. The attempts to build an emotional back story for her character Ryan Stone failed,  transforming from bone dry to down right cliché. Creating back story for a character is important so the audience can develop that emotional connection and, ESPECIALLY in a film like Gravity feel the character's tension, anxieties, fear ex. as they push forward to the climax and an undeterminable end. Again, this was more the writers fault than Bullock's. I do appreciate we didn't get any cheesy flash backs of Stone on earth with her beloved daughter, the accident, and Stone's sedated life afterwards. In the hands of another director, poorly plotted flash backs such as these could have ruined the entire film; thankfully Cuarón keeps us in the now, in the space, and in what's important. Any return to Earth before the finale would have broken the atmosphere and caused utter disaster. For keeping such consistency, I must say bravo Caurón on a bold decision.

  Sound, or the absence of sound surrounds Gravity but doesn't let itself become the most memorable thing about the film...although it does make a sizable impact. Explosions are witnessed in almost complete silence with nothing but Steven Price's haunting and inspiring score to accompany them.

Check it out here!

  

  While the character development and back story may be predictable, the film itself is not. Visually unique, one cannot help but return to Kubrick's game changer 2001: A Space Odyssey and remember the impact it had on audiences and film makers alike. Just consider what Gravity means for this generation? With Star Trek and Star Wars with their own come backs underway, Gravity has certainly forced the sequels to up their game. The CGI is flawless and the use of the 3D is the BEST I've ever seen. The cinematography is unbelievable . Simply unbelievable. I would attempt to describe it but in Gravity's case, the pictures really are worth a thousand words. 

    There's not much else I can or will tell you about Gravity other than GO SEE IT! Go see it in Theaters in 3D. It is without a doubt THEE film to watching this fall season. It's an experience unlike any other that you've had at the theater. Tension, anxiety, and frustration are all felt and shared by the audience. Visually impeccable and emotionally heightened, Gravity simply cannot be missed. 

Life of Pi

...A horror movie in which the ocean is the villain and a 16 year old boy goes 227 days without growing any facial hair.

Directed by: Ang Lee
Released: 2012
Staring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall, & Richard Parker via Rhythm & Hues Studios
Rated: PG
Times Viewed: 1

  Perhaps it's because I watched both A Perfect Storm AND Cast Away at far too young of age, but I have always been TERRIFIED of deadly ocean storm and/or stranded in the ocean type films. Life of Pi, while vividly entertaining and beautifully envisioned, was no exception. If there was ever a film that  would convince me to stay away from ship travel this one would be it; forget Titanic, it's Life of Pi all the way. That being said, I'll do my best to cope with my fear of the open ocean/drowning and review the film without shuttering.

"Better than Disney World Mumbai!!!" 

   Everything you've heard about the amazing CGI in this film is absolutely true. Originally I was completely against the idea of  nearly 100% computer generated animals and visuals(set?) JUST USE A REAL TIGER and some clever trick shots is what I kept saying. Humbly, I must admit I was quite wrong about that and the visual team at Rhythm & Hues Studios did an outstanding job!

The detailed process behind making Richard Parker come to life

  I do believe you will always be able to detect CGI from non-CGI, but what the artist's generated was truly amazing. All of the animals, Richard Parker (the tiger for those of you who don't know) especially were created with such detail, vibrance, and movement when one is engaged in the film it's quite easy to forget they're not real. And for that I take my hat off to the designers and engineers at R&H Studios who were unjustly NOT appreciated or mentioned for their fantastic work during director Ang Lee's acceptance of the Best Director Oscar at this year's show...I'll delve deeper into that later.

A fight for dominance in "Life of Pi"

If they used some shots of a real tiger mixed with CGI I will never be able to tell the difference.

  Back to the animals...Animals which can so often appear flat and cartoonish on screen due to the lack of detail, attention to lighting, and depth, come alive in Life of Pi. As you would in a live animal, you can see every hair on the tigers coat move and ever scale on each fish glisten in the sunlight. The saturated colors of the entire movie help the animals really pop and allow the viewer to see how much work was put into creating these creatures.

  The limitless ocean, dream-like sky, and floating island also must be mention as they are all gorgeous and truly unique. I must say, this is a movie I really wish I would have seen in 3-D. I could tell from watching at home, Life of Pi was a film that was developed to be shot in 3-D and utilize it with the depth of the ocean, lashing tiger, and flying fish. Lee even changed the aspect ratio of the film several times to submerge the viewer even deeper into Pi's beautiful and deadly adventure.

  I  reccomend this film for the sole reason of the outstanding work the special effect team did on the whole film. It's vibrant, fun, sometimes scary, and always stunning. Life of Pi is definitely a feast for the visual senses.

I'm sorry Pi, the tribe has voted; You must either leave the boat or be eaten.  

Richard Parker & Pi have a staring contest to kill time...RP is a sore loser. 

  The story and themes behind Life of Pi, I feel could have been a bit stronger than were presented in the film. What themes you ask? Religion is supposedly the driving force of the story; however, at the end of the tale I felt as if religion had been lost rather than found. Religion is mentioned quite a bit at the beginning of the film as the writer and we the viewers are taken back to Pi's childhood and his induction into three (I believe) religions. I found this part of the tale quite intriguing and enjoyable; Pi telling us how he is able to simultaneously be apart of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. At first I thought the back story telling was a bit excessive but now that I think about it, that's what really connected me to the character of Pi.

  The strong appeal of the three different religions acting as one was perhaps why I felt as if they were missing at the end of the film. The character of the writer himself says the whole reason he was sent to Pi was because he had been told that Pi had a story that would make him believe in God...I felt, as Pi concluded his tale, the shock of the two different scenarios detracted from the major theme that was supposed to be represented in his tale.

A young Pi discovers Christianity.

  This is where the story and review get tricky. Pi revels to the writer that his whole magical journey with Richard Parker might not have even happened. It might have just been his mind's compensation for the tremendous amount of mental and physical strain put upon him by the wreak. I'll just leave it there so I don't spoil too much, but when those dual stories are introduced there will forever be conflict embedded in the story. JUST like THE LADY AND THE TIGER. Which one did she choose? Which one was behind the door? Which story was reality? Will we the reader and/or viewer ever know for sure? The writer chooses to believe the tale featuring Richard Parker because obviously it would make a great book to film adaption (har har) I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy this psychological turn of events, on the contrary I found it added a bit of substance to a rather fanciful film; but it was the intrigue of the two stories that seemed to be of greater interest to the writer and audience rather than religion. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, to me it just seemed to diverge from the original intent of the story.
      -I have never read the book although I've been told to by many...just so you know.

Director Ang Lee on set.

Ang Lee...that man is a strange duck...I'd just like to take the time and remind you all that this is the same Ang Lee who directed 2003's horrendous Hulk, which I think SyFy channel has even stopped playing. That being said, he has also directed some great films like Sense and Sensibility and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon...everyone gasp as I confess I have never seen Brokeback Mountain.

  Range in directing is good, but I feel his is at either end of extreme levels of quality. After finally seeing Life of Pi, can I say that I agree that he should have won the award for best director...eh...the list of directors this year was odd...I personally think Benh Zeitlin should have won for Beast of the Southern Wild (if you haven't seen it yet go NOW) Spielberg is and always will be fantastic, I've yet to see Amour, but then David O'Russell? I did like Silver Linings Play-Book a lot more than I had anticipated, but I didn't see O'Russell getting an award for it. Odd group...just odd. I was shocked when neither Tom Hopper or Quentin Tarantino were nominated; I would have loved to see Tarantino win for Django, but he go his Oscar for original screenplay so that's just as good if not better.
     
  I don't know...best directing? Really academy? Of the whole 2012 year?
Special Effects for sure...but directing? AND I must admit I lost a bit of respect for Ang Lee when he didn't even mention the special effects team in his thank you speech. I know there was a big lock out/the company was shutting down scandal, but those where the men and women who CREATED THE WHOLE FILM. Perhaps now I'm getting too subjective...don't let any of this deter you from watching because it really is a great film.

Life of Pi is no Cast Away. The gritty realism we as viewers have come to know from many a ship wreck film is replaced with spectacle and fantasy. Life of Pi is beautiful, with an fresh story and unbelievable special effects, this one is a must watch. Viewers of all ages will find something to enjoy in this film even if it is just the vivid scenery, glowing fish, or a tiger named Richard Parker.

The Great Gatsby

Because no one ever accused Baz Luhrmann of being subtle....

Directed by: Baz Luhrmann

Released: 2013

Staring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, & Elizabeth Debicki

Rated: PG-13

Times Viewed: 1

  We have been awaiting this film for quite some time, oh yes we have. It seemed every time we were teased with the promise that it was near it's release date, Gatsby would get pushed back even farther. With all the drama surrounding the nearly six month delay I can say old spot, it was worth the wait.

Baz Luhrmann's adaption of The Great Gatsby not only stays true to the book, but infuses the energy and spirit of the jazz age through out every frame, costume, and song. 

One of the first stills released, Tobey Maguire, Leonardo Dicaprio, Carrey Mulligan, & Joel Edgerton in "The Great Gatsby"

  So far Gatsby hasn't been the hit with critics as many thought it would be. But why? Majority of reactions can be summed up in this quote from a review by David Denby 

    

     "Luhrmann’s vulgarity is designed to win over the young audience, and it suggests that he’s less a filmmaker than a music-video director with endless resources and a stunning absence of taste."

         

    Ouch, David, Ouch. 

  

First of all I'd like to ask...Have any of these reviewers seen Moulin Rouge? A fabulous feast for the senses and successful with a wide range of audiences, I can not only see, but feel Baz Luhrmann's presence in Gatsby just as strongly as in Moulin Rouge! Over the top, lavish musical productions is what Baz Luhrmann DOES. That's his creative style. As with any great director, Chris Nolan to Woody Allen, there is a definite style and creative choices that are made that make that director one of notoriety. When I see words like "vulgarity" and "absence of taste" associated with Baz I truly question wether these critics knew what they were getting in to when they entered Gatsby. 

  

  Now, had Baz deviated far from the original source material, THAT would garner scrutiny and scorn. But when a film stays so true to the novel, and clearly expresses F. Scott Fitzgerald's commentary on the Jazz Age I see nothing wrong. I find his over the top production enjoyable because through it he uses Fitzgerald's own words to tell this tale. I mean this quite literally, most of the movie is word for word from the book. And there is a reason The Great Gatsby is THE great American novel. 

Statue of F. Scott Fitzgerald (Rice Park in St. Paul)- taken by yours truly.

  The Great Gatsby is not a love story, I mean it is but  let's put on our freshman high school caps and analyze what this story is about. The Great Gatsby is MINNESOTA author F. Scott Fitzgerald's critique of his own generation. On the outside it seems all about the glitz and glamour. Cheap booze and fast women. Soaring stalks and underground parties. Deep down though, Fitzgerald see a generation decomposing from within. No new thoughts. No progression. No hope. The Great Gatsby is a commentary on basically everything Fitzgerald thought was wrong with the 20's. Old money vs. New money, corruption of young bright minds and so one. Fitzgerald focus' on the positives through the character of Gatsby who represents hope and the American Dream. I can honestly say since I read it in eighth grade, The Great Gatsby has been one of my favorite books. If you haven't read it, buck up and do it....it's only 218 pages.

  Back to the film. Everything that Fitzgerald so passionately put in his novel, Baz puts into the film and illustrates with vivid imagery and narration. The few changes Baz incorporates only aid the ORIGINAL story and justifies the narration throughout the film. 

Now that I'm done boring you with my obsessive analysis (even though I love analysis) I'll get to the pretty parts. 

  This movie is visually intoxicating. The pristine colors, sparkle and shine of each and every frame envelope the audience in the world of Gatsby. I said before, some critics are calling it vulgar and tasteless but it's the excitement, the expensiveness, and the lavish lives lived in the 20's that Luhrmann is trying so hard to communicate with the audiences. And for me it worked! By using such saturated colors, shining diamond accessories and rich materials there was not a dull moment therefore no time for me to become distracted from the story. In my opinion, the more I have to look at in a film, the more entranced and focused I'll be. Perhaps for some critics it's the exact opposite, perhaps it's my theatrical background, but I loved the design production on this film.

Director Baz Luhrmann on the set of "The Great Gatsby"

  Now you all know I have a long standing love hate relationship with CGI/3D. When it's needed USE it, when it's not, GET IT THE HECK AWAY. In Gatsby, the 3D and CGI work MADE this film. You're not just watching party goers bustled through a corridor straining to join the festivities, you ARE one of those party goers. These party scenes are where the 3D is truly justified; with flying confetti and popping champagne bottles the effect was mesmerizing and exciting!  

"I thought you knew old sport! I'm afraid I'm not a very good host...I'm Gatsby"
And the entire theater internally screamed.

The Music

  I, as many did, reacted rather hesitantly when I discover hip-hop star Jay-Z would be producing the music for Gatsby. Don't get me wrong, over the years I've expanded my musical tastes and Jay-Z is actually now a favorite of mine as far as hip-hop goes, but it was just the idea of him working with the iconic music of the 20's that concerned me. However, when I finally heard a sample from the film all my reserves were blown away. I am a huge fan of post juke box swing and jazz that has been popping up from the likes of Parov Stelar ect. and the music of Gatsby seemed to follow the same lines. By blending classics like "Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Go That Swing" "Ain't Misbehaving" "Bang, Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)" with modern club beats, Jay-Z creates a sound that shows the younger audiences the energy felt by the people of the Jazz Age. I know that energy because the 1920's is one of my favorite time periods musically, but in today's generation, there are so few young people who are aware of how amazing and vivacious the music was in the 20's.  Craig Armstrong also contributes a BEAUTIFUL original score that I'll look forward to purchasing as well. Armstrong is a clever devil utilizing not only modern, but classical tunes into the score. The use of "Toccata and Fudge in D minor" as the party goers enter Gatsby's house and George Gershwin's, who I might add is the original fuser of classical music and modern jazz, "Rhapsody in Blue" to reveal our hero were definite high points that I looved.  Here's a sampler of some of the music used in the film. I highly suggest that you purchase it for yourself. It'll have to dancing like it's 1922 for sure.

The Costumes

  Costumes, uh Costumes were BEAUTIFUL! As with many period pieces, designers choose to incorporate either a later or earlier decade along with the one they're working in i.e. my review of Anna Karenina. Catherine Martin (Baz Luhrmann's wife) was not only the costume designer, but head of the production design. This, I believe, is why the film had such a great continuity to it. Costumes, in my opinion are second players to all the actors; dress one character incorrectly and it can throw off not only the character, but the whole show. The costumes of Gatsby, like the music, has a taste of modern edge. The reason? Catherine Martin collaborated with Miuccia Prada!

   The colors as I mentioned before are brilliant, and also the use of accessories and make-up; it's almost like all the 1920's themed shoots Vogue as ever done have exploded in mansion. And I loved it. The amount of time and effort to creating, producing and clothing that many extras must have been colossal. Not to mention hair and make-up as well...and there were no half-assed jobs. I look for that a lot in period piece films, especially during large party or ball scenes. Gatsby's costume and make-up department went all out, didn't miss a fingernail flawless. I wish beyond wish I could get a Polaroid of each extra in full blow costume and hair because there were soo many and they were all soo good I want to see each one in detail. 

  Look how cute! I want to married to an overly theatric (and actually quite attractive) director and make costumes for his lavish films!

The continuity in the Production Design for The Great Gatsby is incredible and I really do hope it's enough to gain it an Academy Award for Costume and Production Design...Or a nomination at least!

The Ensemble

Everyone (with the exception of Tobey Maguire) did how I expected them to do! Quite brilliantly. 

  Leo is, of course, spot on. He brings not only the pomp to Gatsby, but also the humanity that is so desperately important to his character. For those saying he's going to get an Oscar nom...sorry I don't foresee that happening. If it didn't get one for THE BEST SUPPORTING PERFORMANCE of the year in Django, I highly doubt he'll be recognized for Gatsby. Trust me, I want Leo to win an Oscar probably more than most, but it won't be with this role. 

  Carrey Mulligan...good, solid. She doesn't make Daisy as much of a ditz as Mia Farrow did in the 1974 production, which is such a relief, but she doesn't make her over likable either. Which is also good. We are NOT suppose to LIKE Daisy. I see all this "Channel you're inner Daisy" online and I just keep thinking NO! She is the rotted core of the corrupted, decomposing apple that is the 1920's Jazz Age. So no, you do not want to be like Daisy....just saying...I'd rather be like Jordan...she's not much better, but I always connected with her in the book. 

Super sassy, somewhat detached and a little bit sneaky

  Joel Edgerton where do you hide? I mean really, I love you in pretty much everthing (WARRIOR!) then you hide away and reappear to my delight a year later! So odd...Edgerton is physical and chose the perfect disposition for the character. He is exactly how I envisioned him in the book. 

Secret brothers. Jason Clake & Joel Edgerton

Then we have discount Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke who is ALSO almost always brilliant. You and Joel Edgerton need to stop doing films together (Zero Dark Thirty) I always get you two confused! 

But on a seriously, everyone in this film was EXACTLY how I envisioned them in the book. Even Tobey Maguire character. When I heard Maguire was cast as leading man Nick Caraway I thought 'NOOOOOO!' Because, well solely because of Spiderman. I didn't want Spiderman as the most important character in the film! Thankfully, as he did in Seabiscuit, Tobey surprised me! Character was spot on. There was an innocence but also enough of a devil in him to go along with the party, but make it believable. In the end I really enjoyed his performance. 

Final Thoughts 

  For once, I'm have to arduously disagree with many critics on their harsh treatment of The Great Gatsby. This film is a treat for the senses and an experience that really must be enjoyed in a large theater in 3D Trust me old sport, it'll be well worth your money. Baz Luhrmann returns to the theatrically arousing style of film making that made him such a great success. He uses the source material expertly and blends the magic of the old world with the technology of the new. I hope to soon see The Great Gatsby a second time and relish in it's splendor and innovation. They say it's a film that only young audiences will enjoy? Good. Because maybe, just maybe that love for the movie will spark a love for the original novel and the more young people reading classic literature the better. I see nothing wrong with a film that has a wider appeal to the younger audiences, especially if it's one like The Great Gatsby.