The Great Gatsby ****

Short Take: Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s iconic novel is a Roaring Twenties extravaganza and assault of the senses, befitting Fitzgerald’s own world of excess.

Reel Take: A little leeway must be granted with any film adaptation of a great novel. In the case of Baz Luhrmann’s recent adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, I reminded myself of this repeatedly. I didn’t particularly think the world needed another version of Gatsby, but if it was going to be done, one would need to make theirs stand out from the others. Indeed, Luhrmann’s creativity is given a wide berth in his roaring twenties flapper extravaganza, and it certainly stands apart from its predecessors.

Visually Luhrmann’s Gatsby is a feast for the eyes and an assault on the senses. He upfits it for a 21st Century audience with a sound track produced by Jay Z. Story-wise, Luhrmann actually stays pretty true to the source material, but takes one liberty in particular for framing purposes. In his interpretation, Fitzgerald’s narrative voice, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), is a Fitzgerald-like would-be writer. He relates the story of his friend, Jay Gatsby, while being treated for alcoholism at an asylum.

In the summer of 1922 Nick rents an old gardener’s cottage on in the Hamptons on Long Island. Unbeknownst to him, he has moved next door to the most elusive and most talked about man in New York City—Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Nick and Gatsby live directly across the bay from Nick’s socialite cousin, Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). Also unbeknownst to him, Gatsby has long been in love with his beautiful [and now married] cousin. Nick is befriended by Gatsby and is drawn into a world of wealth and extravagance and a story of obsession, hope and tragedy.

The cast gives it their all. Toby Maguire is quite effective as Nick, though I never remember thinking of that character as weak and whiny in the book or in Sam Waterston’s portrayal in the 1974 version. That said, in Maguire’s portrayal, his love and admiration for his friend shines almost as brightly as the green light at the end of Daisy’s dock does for Gatsby.

In the book (and in the ’74 version) Gatsby’s parties are legendary, but Gatsby himself is even more so. DiCaprio delivers a great performance (he was well practiced after affecting such gentlemanly manners as Calvin Candie in Django Unchained), but is slightly overshadowed by Luhrmann’s production values.

Also overshadowed is the romance and affair between Gatsby and Daisy, which [perhaps done intentionally] makes it more of an illusion than a reality and in turn diminishes Gatsby’s unwavering hope and optimism and any emotional depth.

The characters perhaps best served by the production’s lavish values are Daisy and Tom. She is a difficult character—annoyingly vapid, loved beyond measure by one man, betrayed by another, but ultimately cowardly, materialistic and status quo. Tom (Joel Edgerton) is perfectly caddish as the Daisy’s philandering, bigoted and self serving, blue blooded husband. Rounding out the cast in smaller parts, but in no small measure, are Isla Fisher as Tom’s vulgar mistress Myrtle Wilson, Jason Clarke as Myrtle’s duped husband George, and finally Elizabeth Dibicki as Daisy’s fellow socialite friend Jordan.

I believe Luhrmann’s right hand in the spectacular visuals and beguiling artifice is production designer Catherine Martin. Their vision is over the top and I think exactly as they intended it. The effervescence of watching the film in 3-D certainly suits the desired effect. The interior shots of Gatsby’s home are truly spectacular, but [IMHO] the computer generated exterior was just too ridiculous for words. To me it looked like Hogwarts meets Robert Kincaid—a cozily lit fanciful castle.

The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite books. I will never forget being riveted and devastated by its pages the first time I read it. Luhrmann’s Gatsby entertained me, but it did not move me. While Luhrmann stays true to his source material, the story is upstaged by razzmatazz, and the film ultimately lacks the essence that is, in a word, Gatsby. For me, The Great Gatsby still remains greatest on the page.

Rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language.
Review by Michelle Keenan

Iron Man 3 ***1/2

Short Take: Iron Man 3 is everything a sequel seems to be these days… bigger, longer, louder, darker in tone, but unfortunately not better.

Reel Take: After a restful month off where the movies were good and watching and reviewing them even better, it’s back to business as usual. The Summer blockbusters are upon us, and Iron Man 3 gets the ball rolling in typical overkill fashion.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first Iron Man movie. It struck just the right balance between storyline, characterization, humor and pyrotechnics. It also had a refreshingly droll antagonist in Jeff Bridges who grew in villainy and delivered the goods in the end. Iron Man 2 had the look of a hastily put together follow-up which planted the seeds of the bigger is better scenario which bears fruit here. It also had Mickey Rourke as a more classic comic book villain teamed up with evil CEO Sam Rockwell (Rourke shines in Java Heat, see review this issue)..

For the third go-round, in addition to the tandem villain combo (Guy Pearce and Ben Kingsley) and the significant increase in CGI explosions, we get the curse of Christopher Nolan’s Batman series and that is serious title character angst. It works with Batman because it fits the profile of Bruce Wayne and Christopher Nolan is a remarkable director. Unfortunately, director Shane Black is no Christopher Nolan and he and co-author Drew Pearce lack Nolan’s writing skills as well.

Iron Man 3 has a convoluted plot that takes too long to unfold and then is hard to follow when it does. Suffering panic attacks after nearly dying in The Avengers (some tie-in eh?), Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) builds several Iron Man suits alienating him from girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Terrorist attacks by the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) bring him around but after his home is destroyed and he is believed dead, he then discovers the truth with the help of a rural boy in Tennessee (Ty Simkins). The real Mandarin is a rogue scientist (Guy Pearce) and he has plans to kill the President and rule through the puppet Vice-President.

That is only a basic, watered down version of the storyline and leaves out most of the explosions but you get the idea. Comic book material “elevated” to the level of modern day dysfunctional family drama. Pretty soon all the joy will be gone from the genre and superhero movies won’t be that different from reality based television (I can hardly wait for Man of Steel where kryptonite is replaced by crying).

In the end my biggest beef with Iron Man 3 was that I really didn’t have any fun and I couldn’t wait for it to be over. If I had known in advance about a post-credits gag, I would have stayed to see it. It appears to have summed up the movie perfectly.

Having said all that, I have to admit that the movie wasn’t a total washout. It is well photographed, the pyrotechnics really are spectacular and the characterizations, for the most part, were solid enough especially Pearce and Kingsley who know precisely what to do with this type of material. Chances are you already know whether or not this type of movie is, to use the quaint old phrase, your cup of tea. Unfortunately since I am both old and quaint (as I have been told on more than one occasion), this is no longer my kind of film.

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence and brief suggestive content.
Review by Chip Kaufmann

Java Heat ****

Short Take: This mid-price Indonesian action film is slickly made with quality editing and cinematography, and solid if not spectacular  performances, with the exception of Mickey Rourke who is a classic villain in the grand tradition.

Reel Take: It’s a safe bet to assume that the same audience for Renoir won’t be going out of their way to see Java Heat but those who do go will find a well made crime thriller/buddy movie with a touch of the exotic and an inside look at Indonesia’s people and its customs. This is old school filmmaking recalling the medium budget International thrillers of the late 1960s and early 1970s but successfully retooled here for the 21st century.

Java Heat is part of the new approach to ActionFest at the Carolina Cinemas. Rather than have a weekend glut of “the film festival with a body count”, the theater will screen one selected action film on the third Friday of each month. Last month it was Beyond Outrage. Both films benefitted local charity Homeward Bound. Java Heat scored well at its special showing last month and has settled in for a regular run although I don’t expect it to be here long trying to compete among the Summer heavyweights unless word of mouth gets out.

The film opens with a suicide bombing at a lavish party resulting in the death of a Javanese sultan’s daughter. An American graduate student (Kellan Lutz) and an Indonesian detective (Ario Bayu) join forces to discover who’s behind the bombing. It turns out that the student is really an undercover marine and the daughter (Atiquah Hasiholan) isn’t dead but is being held for ransom by a ruthless criminal (Mickey Rourke) with ties to terrorists. The duo then set out to rescue the girl and the policeman’s family who have also been kidnapped.

No need to tell you how it turns out although you should go and see for yourself. The storyline may be predictable but the surprising use of split screen (echoes of Brian De Palma), a refreshing lack of computer generated effects, a normal running time and the exotic Indonesian locales make Java Heat more than just an effective way to spend a couple of hours at the local moviehouse.

Kellan Lutz as the American lead is more than adequate for his role. Kind of like a young Arnold Schwarzenegger minus the accent. He looks great in the buff as well. There’s even an amusing joke that pokes fun at his having been in the Twilight saga.

Indonesian performers Ario Bayu and Atiquah Hasiholan, however, are the heart and soul of the picture and are a real pleasure to watch. Of course the villain in a film like this is the plum role and Mickey Rourke doesn’t disappoint. In fact he was as much fun to watch as Javier Bardem was in Skyfall. He even gets to deliver several lines in Javanese (WARNING: subtitle alert!).

Java Heat isn’t a great film and it has no pretenses about being one. It is simply good old fashioned entertainment that achieves its thrills for less than 1/10th the budget of Iron Man 3. Although IM3 is obviously a better movie in every department, I have to say that I enjoyed Java Heat much more and unlike IM3, I didn’t start to forget it the moment I left the theater.

In fact it has had surprising staying power which only confirms the lesson that Hollywood needs to learn once more and that lesson is that money isn’t everything. But until the megabuck franchises start to tank at the box office, there’s just no hope of that.

Rated R for violence throughout, language, and sexual references.
Review by Chip Kaufmann

The Reluctant Fundamentalist ****

Short Take: A young Pakastani living the American dream finds himself drawn back to his homeland in the wake of 9/11.

Reel Take: My apologies, dear readers. The full review for The Reluctant Fundamentalist was lost in technical glitch between my new [much smarter than I am phone] and my computer—operator error to be sure! With our deadline at hand, I recreated an abbreviated version of the review.

Based on a novel by Moshin Hamid,The Reluctant Fundamentalist is a well intended and timely story, a crisis of conscience ripped right out of the headlines. The film starts off in 2011 with a young Pakistani man named Changez (Riz Ahmed) trying to tell his story to an American journalist (Liev Schriber).

Ten years earlier Changez was a young man on Wall Street with the American dream within his grasp when 9/11 occurred, forever changing the world and his life forever. In the wake of attacks, Changez found himself under suspicion and scrutiny on the basis of his ethnicity. Eventually he finds himself torn between the American dream, a hostage crisis and the draw of his homeland.

The movie is beautifully filmed. It gets a little cluttered and is less than subtle as a message movie, but it is truly compelling and worthwhile. Ahmed gives a wonderfully layered and dynamic performance. Kiefer Sutherland, as Changez’s Wall Street boss, is steely perfection.

No one in the cast really misses a note. However, while the characters in this film are interesting, various forms of fundamentalism are what’s really being explored and the characters are merely a backdrop for the conversation. Clearly director Mira Nair is hoping to instigate a healthy debate and dialogue.

Rated R for language, some violence and brief sexuality.
Review by Michelle Keenan

Renoir *****

Short Take: A leisurely paced but remarkably beautiful film about the final years of French painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir, his son Jean who would become a famous film director, and the young woman who inspired both of them.

Reel Take: It has been way too long since I have seen a film that managed to push all the right buttons in me but Renoir was it. This makes the 5 star rating something of a subjective one for if you’re not into Impressionist art or classic art in general then you’ll probably find it slow and boring.

On the surface it has all the qualifications that should make up a 5 star film. It’s well acted even down to the smallest bit part, the script is well written revealing layers to the characters over the course of time, the musical background enhances the setting and the cinematography is breathtaking as it should be in a film about an artist. It’s just not a film for most American tastes.

The year is 1915. World War I is just starting to shift into high gear and the Impressionist painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir (Michel Bouquet), now 74 and crippled by arthritis, has moved to the Riviera so that he can continue to paint. His middle son Jean (Vincent Rottiers) has just come back from the Front with a severe leg injury. He discovers that his father has hired a new model, Andree Heuschling known as Deedee (Christa Theret), who embodies the elder Renoir’s ideas about truth and beauty. He paints her not as she is but as he sees her.

At first this concept is alien to her but slowly she begins to understand. When the son asks Renoir why he refuses to use black, he explains that his paintings are all about color and not about form. The world is dark enough so why should he add to it. He has even surrounded himself with many of his former models to constantly be reminded of the beauty of life. He also needs them to perform the daily tasks he no longer can because of his deteriorating physical condition.

Eventually Jean becomes involved with Andree and she enables him to reexamine his father and his work as well as himself and his place in the world. After Jean decides to return to the Front, she leaves in despair, plunging the household into chaos. The father cannot paint, Jean cannot sleep, and the rest realize just how much she meant to everyone. Jean searches for her, finds her and brings her back. They would eventually marry and as Catherine Hessling she would appear in his earliest films. After 1931, when they divorced, she disappeared from public view and would die in 1979, the same year as Jean.

Along with the basic storyline it’s the little details that keep Renoir so fascinating. I had no idea that brushes had to be taped to his hands so that the elder Renoir could paint. I may have known but had forgotten that Jean Renoir was seriously wounded during the war. No wonder his Grand Illusion of 20 years later (see this month’s DVD pick) is so powerful. It was also fascinating to learn that Father Renoir’s last model, immortalized in his paintings, would also be preserved on film by his son.

Renoir is obviously not a film for the mainstream but it has its audience. When I saw it, 8 days after it opened, the showing was sold out. The vast majority of the people in attendance were much older than the usual target demographic but even the younger ones stayed until the lights came up. In our ultra busy media saturated world, it’s refreshing and exhilarating to watch people forget time and actually sit, absorb, and enjoy something.

Rated R for art-related nudity and language.
Review by Chip Kaufmann

Star Trek Into Darkness ****

Short Take: Beam me some popcorn and set phasers to fun as Kirk and Spock and the rest of the Star Trek Enterprise new [old] crew take on a new [old] foe in the latest installment of the franchise.

Reel Take: J.J. Abrams scores a crowd pleasing hit with Star Trek Into Darkness. Yes, in the second installment of the latest incarnation of the franchise, Abrams can coast a bit on the nostalgic legacy and popularity of the Enterprise’s original crew, but that only gets you so far. Led by Chris Pine as a young Captain Kirk and Zachary Quinto as a young Mr. Spock, this redux of the original Star Trek characters is building their own following, while ever tipping the hat to their predecessors.

In this installment, the Enterprise has returned to Earth and the young Capt. Kirk has failed yet again to follow procedures to the letter of the law and disobeyed the Federation’s Prime Directive, with his superior citing, “You’re not ready for command yet.” Just as this goes down, a suicide bombing (current day parallels dually noted), leads Kirk not only back to the Enterprise but in hot pursuit of a villain who is, of all things, a Starfleet officer, or so it seems. ‘John Harrison’ (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a formidable foe. Best of all, he is a villain who needs not an ounce of prosthetic make up or CGI effects. He turns out to be someone whose [spoiler alert] wrath Capt. Kirk will come to know well. Cumberbatch throws himself into the role with wicked abandon.

In the 2009 Star Trek, Abrams and his team weirdly, but, in hindsight, smartly, integrated the original [and now aged] Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy), by having him change the past. I can’t even begin to explain how they explained it, but in doing so it allows future integration with the original Mr. Spock and allows the younger version of him and his fellow crew members to chart a different destiny. Kind of genius albeit highly illogical, don’t you think? But as these prequel Enterprisers hit their own stride, the ties to the original create a harmonious and effective synergy.

Pine and Quinto have big shoes to fill and are pitch perfect. The rest of the cast is spot on and extremely likeable as well. The only thing that just seems totally out of step [with or without] the altered past is an affair between Mr. Spock and Lt. Uhura, but perhaps that’s why they did it.

What really makes the film more than just enjoyable and will solidify this incarnation of the franchise are the moments when the crew is bickering, bantering and bonding with one another. Sci-fi blockbuster with action and special effects aside, human relationships is what Abrams does best in his work, and it’s the camaraderie between these characters that will take this crew where no man has been before and beyond. May they live long and prosper.

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Review by Michelle Keenan