REVIEW: The Great Gatsby

6/10 - At least Pitbull wasn't on the soundtrack.

“In my younger and more vulnerable years
my father gave me some advice that I've been
turning over in my mind ever since.

"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,"
he told me, "just remember that all the people
in this world haven't had the advantages
that you've had.”

I do have a great fondness for The Great Gatsby. I disliked the book when I was forced to read it in school but I've grown to really love it over the years. There's something beautiful, and poetic about the writing of F. Scott Fitzgerald.

With far less poetic subtly, Baz Luhrmann adapted the novel into a visual showcase that is The Great Gatsby in 3D. I'm not the biggest fan of his films. I find they peak in the first act and I lose interest by the end. A a trend that continues with The Great Gatsby.

Gatsby is a tale of romance and heartache in the roaring 20's. The narrator, Nick Carraway (Toby Maguire), recounts the summer he spent reuniting with his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) and discovering just who the mysterious and legendary Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) is.

The first half of this movie is really a spectacular. It opens on the legendary parties that Gatsby's reputation was built on. This is where Baz Luhrmann shines. The frantic pace works well, showing Nick getting swept away by the idealistic lifestyle of his upper class neighbors. But then the movie crawls to a stop. The Great Gatsby isn't a fast paced novel, it's a slow character story that shows how Nick grows disenchanted with the idols he once held in high regard. For the film that means an hour in there's a clunky halt to the once fast pacing, and suddenly it's a movie about long tea parties filled with subtext. Suddenly the lush environment becomes jarring, and distracting to the story. Suddenly the movie feels about 90 minutes too long.

The best reason to see this film, is without question for the fantastic cast. It's not often Leonardo DiCaprio plays a role where he's mostly happy. He embraces all of that Gatsby mystery, with a smile  that oozes charm and charisma, but with fear brewing beneath the facade. Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton as Daisy and Tom Buchanan are a terrific individually. They both bring dimension to their otherwise shallow characters. The missing element is the chemistry that pulls them together or pushes them apart, but that doesn't seem so necessary in this film as the relationships seem to take a back seat to the production design.

Baz Luhrmann's style is really appealing. He creates fantastic images that are better than the imagination. That scene from the trailer with Leonardo DiCaprio raising his glass with the fireworks behind him is stunning. It's a style that needs an operatic story, which Gatsby is far from. I'm not opposed to changing the original story, regardless of how revered it is. In this case even the most dramatic story changes wouldn't make the aesthetic and novel more compatible. Instead of being engaged in the characters, I found myself disappointed in how flat out boring the movie was. Perhaps that's a good reflection for the tragic elements of the story, but the audience should feel for the characters, not feel like they wasted their time.

"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."

IMDb - The Great Gatsby (7.3)
Wikipedia - The Great Gatsby
Rotten Tomatoes - The Great Gatsby (48%)
Amazon.ca - The Great Gatsby

REVIEW: Mr. Holmes

6/10 - Wasps?! Not in my backyard. 

Sherlock Holmes has become a massive media icon. The modern day BBC miniseries, Sherlock stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes. Elementary, a CBS procedural features Johnny Lee Miller portraying Holmes in NYC. Other shows like House, Forever, and The Mentalist are essentially re-imaginings of Sherlock Holmes. Among the absolutely massive list of Sherlock Holmes films that have been created over the years, the 2009 Guy Richie franchise Sherlock Holmes was a recent success starring Robert Downey Jr. It's hard to get away from Holmes, whether it's in a summer blockbuster, straight to DVD movie, or a Japanese puppet show. The list of actors who have portrayed Sherlock Holmes is both impressive and infinite.

Added to that list is now Sir Ian McKellen.

Mr. Holmes is a family film about Holmes during his retirement. He returns to a home where he is cared for by his housekeeper, the underutilized Laura Linney, and her young son played by Milo Parker. Two immediate things came to mind when I began watching this film.

The first was "My GOD Ian McKellen has aged!" which I felt was a sentiment shared by many in the audience. Don't fret, he's actually playing older than he is in real life, if you can believe that. They hired a 70 year old actor to portray a man in his 90's. Hollywood has some fabulous makeup artists, and Ian McKellen is not as fragile as he appears in this film.

The second thing that struck me as unusual was that this was a live-action family film. Do those even get made anymore? Animated films have become so wildly popular (thanks to Pixar) that they have really swamped the kids film market. When I think back to all the great family films from the 90's it becomes really clear that they aren't being made anymore, just big budget blockbusters with a PG rating. Mr. Holmes is somewhat of a call back to that old fashioned idea of a family movie. Not a cheesy comedic kids movie, but a family film for everyone.

If you're wondering why I've spent most of this review talking about the context of Mr. Holmes as a movie, and not the movie itself it's because I found this film utterly forgettable. The characters were quite limited, and the emotional story for the leads was a bit strange to me. Holmes evokes images of the detective, someone only interested in cold hard facts. This Holmes tale is saturated with sentimentality. Holmes seems to bond with this young boy more than he ever did with his partner Watson, someone he worked with closely for many years. I also felt a disconnect between the three story-lines, as they felt like separate stories that didn't enhance one another.

Ian McKellen, however, gives a truly stellar performance as Sherlock Holmes. His character transforms from a younger version at the height of his career, to an older and frail man who needs tending to. He gives a sincere performance with tremendous subtly, without ever condescending the audience. I only wish there was a franchise of Sherlock Holmes films wherein McKellen could reprise the entire history of the fictional character.

Laura Linney and Milo Parker round out this cast as mother and son. Laura Linney is one of those fantastic actresses who tends to fall off the radar. I really enjoyed her acting in this, but I thought her role was a bit flat. I wish she had been given the opportunity to bring more depth to that character. On the other side of that coin, young Milo Parker as Roger is a delight. He is as much the main character of this story as Mr. Holmes is, and he does a great job carrying much of this film.

While the expectation for a jaw-dropping mystery reveal is somewhat unfair, the mysteries in this story simply felt unsatisfying. Perhaps I'm being heavily influenced by the previously mentioned Sherlock Holmes installments, but I don't think I would praise any film with such a wishy-washy ending. That being said, this film is a far way from being unwatchable, and I actually believe many audiences will enjoy Mr. Holmes. McKellen is brilliant, and it's a tense and fascinating story that isn't often portrayed on screen anymore. It's just not for me, someone who over thinks the plot.

IMDb - Mr. Holmes (7.6)
Wikipedia - Mr. Holmes
Rotten Tomatoes - Mr. Holmes (87%)

REVIEW: Burt's Buzz

6/10 - A story of an old man and bee's wax.

Burt Shavitz.

As you can predict from the image on your lip balm, Burt is a dirty hippy through and through. Now approaching 80, he lives a reclusive life on a farm in Maine. As his company became a massive corporation, his lifestyle never changed. He hangs out with his dog and wood stove. Oh and his name is associated with a billion dollar corporation, but whatever.

To be fair, this is a documentary about Burt. Burt just happens to be associated with Burt's Bee's. This is not a docu about lip balm company in any way. I suppose it is in a little way, but there isn't really a sufficient story about Burt's Bees to call that the focus of the movie.

Burt has done a lot of fascinating things in his life. He was a successful photojournalist, an activist, he was a bee keeper (duh) and reluctant business man, now he's the face and spokesperson for a company he has no stock or investment in. What's even more interesting is how reclusive his life is. It felt a bit like the documentary crew had a difficult time finding people to talk to about Burt. He is very isolated, and is quite content to live that way even after spending stretches in 5 star hotels.

That being said, Burt is also the kind of person you can size up immediately. What you see is what you get. I found this film to be a bit aimless, as they tried to unveil facets of his character that were quite clear from the beginning. Without any revolutionary or unbelievable scenes, this movie ends up a bit boring. While the concept and the person might be memorable, the movie itself isn't.

IMDb - Burt's Buzz (6.5)
Rotten Tomatoes - Burt's Buzz (73%)
Amazon.ca - Burt's Buzz

REVIEW: The Interview

6/10 - Yeah yeah, Sony Hack, terrorist threat, controversy, blah blah. Don't care.

You know what's weird? The thing that stood out to me the most about The Interview is the production value. Really outstanding sets, costumes, graphics. Great editing on quick montages. Good music, lighting, cinematography, everything. Scenes that could have been bland were spruced up with a healthy budget to create great visuals.

I don't care much for the actors, jokes, or story though.

I will confess, this is another movie where I read the script before seeing the film. Perhaps that deflated some of the story and comedic elements? You can judge.

I feel like this is The Hobbit of comedy. All the elements are there, to make a funny film. On paper it should work. But with too big of a budget and too much confidence it's lost the whole reason people wanted this movie to begin with. They thought they were making another Jump Street or This is The End but instead they ended up with something messy and boring.

The Interview is a perfectly mediocre film about regular schmucks getting thrown into international espionage. James Franco plays an exaggerated Ryan Seacrest type entertainment reporter, and Seth Rogan plays himself? Is Seth Rogan best buds with Ryan Seacrest? I'm not sure. I think in this film Seth was supposed to be a producer or something, but he really just played himself. It opens with some really hilarious scenes showing Franco interviewing celebs and uncovering the best juicy gossip. I'd watch a whole movie of just that. Then they get thrown down a rabbit hold of interviewing the dictator of North Korea and being fuck ups about it.

I'm not sure what exactly turned me off from this movie but I think it's somewhere in the combo of unmemorable jokes and a weak plot. At the end of the day this concept lends itself to some serious political satire. I'm not sure if making fun of Kim Jong-Un in a pre-school way is really sufficient. I also found in the script, there was greater emphasis on the fact that as the dictator of North Korea the population was suffering inhumane atrocities, and they were heavily manipulating their image for the these two media representatives. The final cutting of the film doesn't go near the oppressed people aspect, perhaps because it's a mood killer, but then it's harder justify Kim Jong-Un as the ultimate enemy.

I also found myself frustrated that The Interview is self aware enough to comment on the use of women solely for male seduction, and yet every woman in the movie is only there to seduce a man. What can you do?

I think the best things to take away from The Interview are Randall Park and Diana Bang. Both actors were great in their roles and were quite funny. Something that isn't easy when this film is a vehicle for Franco and Rogan to be funny.

So The Interview gets a big pass. If you saw the trailer you probably saw about as much memorable material as their is in the whole film. It's not an offensively bad comedy like We're the Millers, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there enjoyed this film. It's just not my cup of tea.

Wikipedia - The Interview
IMDb - The Interview (7.1)
Rotten Tomatoes - The Interview (51%)
Amazon.ca - The Interview

REVIEW: Chef

6/10 - Are you hungry? You will be...

Chef is part passion project and part paint by numbers. Writer and director and star Jon Favreau created this film about how leaving his job as head chef in a well respected restaurant brought his family together to help him launch a food truck.

It's actually quite a good film. There's plenty of heart with a touching relationship between father and son, and lots of support from the friends and family in the supporting cast. It's beautifully shot with exquisite scenes of cooking that will certainly leave any audience drooling, I also like the integration of technology in this film. Often movies that try to utilize social media come across like an advertisement. In this case, the web is part of the universe we all live in, with both real implications and the ability to walk away from it. The focus stays on what's important, without getting too involved in tricky explanations.

I cannot say I particularly loved this movie. There's something bizarre about the plot that frustrated me as a viewer. This is meant to be a story about bottoming out, and finding what's really important. He embarks in a much smaller venture, cooking out of a food truck with his family. My problem is how he got to that point. Jon Favreau doesn't seem to like conflict. Scene after scene, characters are trying to lift up Carl, characters that shouldn't help him are going out of their way to help him.

There's a point halfway through the film where Favreau's Iron Man buddy makes a one scene appearance as the eccentric ex-husband of Carl's ex-wife. After some circular discussion, Chef Carl Casper walks out with a food truck. Seriously. Someone is going to have to explain that to me. It's like a bizzaro-world version of the Ex-Wives Club formed in the middle of this movie and through the magic of cinema, Carl got to move forward with his dream.

That's exactly the sort of thing I hate seeing in a movie. An entertaining scene is still not good if it's pushing forward an illogical plot. What's the message being presented here? Carl didn't have to work to get what he wanted. Was it meant to illustrate that buttering up to the first husband of his ex-wife is the same as relying on family? It's just so disjointed and improbable to me that it makes me out of the movie.

For a film written by, directed by, and starring the same person, it's surprisingly well paced. There's a lot of charm and chemistry between the cast which bails it out of some of the more improbably exposition scenes. It's a movie universe you want to live in, for more reasons then just the food.

IMDb - Chef (7.3)
Wikipedia - Chef
Rotten Tomatoes - Chef (88%)
Amazon.ca - Chef