The Great Gatsby

Director: Baz Lurhmann

Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton

Plot: Upon moving to New York to make his fortune on Wall Street, Nick Carraway finds himself increasingly drawn in to the mysterious world of his rich and enigmatic neighbour, Jay Gatsby

Hughs View:

Say what you will about The Great Gatsby, it is clearly a work of singular vision.

For this alone we can be grateful as it hopefully means there are no other film makers out there who will give us a film as ill-judged as this.

I do not know if I have previously witnessed a greater mismatch of style and content but if I have, I am glad to have forgotten it.

Like one of the garishly coloured cocktails being served at Gatsby’s parties, it is as sickly to behold as it to consume and they didn’t even have the decency to serve it in a small measure.

It puts spends so much energy in attempting to dazzle you with its audio-visual ostentation from the off-set that it doesn’t allow you to even remotely engage with the characters, meaning that by the time it calms down a bit and tries to actually tell the story, it is almost impossible to care. The result of this is a second and third act that drag unforgivably, despite most people probably having had enough at the end of the first.

The styling is like a more cartoonish version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit but with none of the wit which tempered that films mania. The performances are a mess of mannered histrionics which make you feel bad for the actors involved. There is no doubt the cast are playing the roles to the best of their abilities under the given direction, it is just unfortunate that said direction was so misguided in this instance.

Whilst similar endeavours may have worked for Romeo and Juliet, a story so timeless it can adapt to almost any style, and Moulin Rouge, a film where the style was the story, a work like The Great Gatsby is clearly its own beast and Baz Lurhmann’s attempt to make it his own has proven an artistic disservice on every level.

You can imagine that when it was conceived, he was aiming directly for the sublime, unfortunately in delivery he has landed squarely in the ridiculous.

Also Watch: To remind yourself that Baz Lurhmann is a talented film maker who can use style to a films advantage as opposed to its detriment, I recommend revisiting Romeo + Juliet. It remains a powerful telling of the story and was the first film to make me appreciate a Shakespearean text. Far superior soundtrack as well.

21 and Over

Director: Jon Lucas, Scott Moore

Stars: Miles Teller, Skylar Astin, Justin Chon

Plot: On the eve of his 21^st birthday, Jeff Chang is preparing for an early night before an interview for med school the following morning in order to make his father proud. Unfortunately for him, his old school friends show up and have other ideas...

Hughs View:

Redeeming features.

There are many things wrong with 21 and Over. Many, many things. What it really boils down to though is the idea of redeeming features, or in this case, the lack there of.

It is hard to review this film without sounding like a boring old man. I am at the very least a boring, 25 year old man. I also wan't to point out at this point that I am a fan of this style of film. It nails its colours to the mast from a very early stage. This film is going to be bawdy, it is going to be risque, it is going to be profane, it is going to be debauched. That is fine. You can look back to Animal House in the 70s or for a more generationally applicable references, American Pie, Road Trip and The Hangover (a film that was written by the writer/directors of this piece). Films about guys wanting to have fun and get wasted are not a new thing and, when done well, can be a lot of fun.

This film is not done well.

Now let me get this out of the way, I do not dislike Miles Teller and Skylar Astin. I have liked them both in previous films and genuinely believe they have big futures ahead of them. They can not save this film though.

You could criticise it for being crass without redemptive virtue. The vomiting, urination and abundant swearing in place of real dialogue all feel completely misused and really don't help matters. All the Jackass films had these elements in higher quantities though and were still far superior. You could criticise it for being casually racist. The use of and reference to racial stereotypes seem remarkably misjudged but the Harold and Kumar films proved that this could be used to humorous effect. You could also criticise it for not being funny but I guess humour is technically subjective. I know a lot of people laughed a lot at Pitch Perfect, a film which went right over my head, but I am still aware it was better than this.

What it really comes down to is that all the main characters are completely unlikeable. Completely. Sure American Pie proved with the character of Stiffler that a character can be unlikeable and still win over an audience but that is missing two crucial points. Firstly, Stiffler was only one out of a whole group of otherwise pleasant individuals. Secondly, he had redeeming features. None of these characters have anything close. They are unpleasant to each other and to those around them. They have nothing funny to say, they have nothing endearing to do, their actions, even whilst seemingly supporting each other, are clearly self serving and you can not help but want them to fail. Which is not the films aim.

You can not even give the film makers credit for trying. I mentioned earlier the pantheon of films in the sub-genre that 21 and Over aspires to, well you can pick pretty much any one of them and find in this something that has been ripped off from it. The opening showing our two protagonists in a state of disrepair from the previous nights misadventures before flashing back to the day before is obviously in the vein of The Hangover but that is allowable due to it sharing the same writers. The rest of it lazy, brazen and verging on plagiaristic. There are too many examples to name here, suffice to say if you do ever suffer the misfortune of sitting through it, try counting the better films it makes you think of because doing that is better than actually trying to engage in the film itself.

Overall you can accuse this film of many crimes and the odds are those accusations would be well founded. Ultimately the greatest crime it commits is that of bad film making. Obviously it is not easy to make a good film in any genre, otherwise everyone would be doing it. The fact is though you can see from the work they have done before, from the fact that their stars are indeed stars in the making and from the films they are aspiring to imitate, the people making this film knew what they were doing. They just did a lazy job and now want you to pay for it, which in my view is unforgivable.

Also Watch: Superbad. You can pick any number of films of this type and have a better time than in 21 and Over but for my choice if you want to see the story of three flawed but crucially loveable characters try to make the best of a crazy night when things go mad around them, Superbad is one of the best. It is also gut-bustingly hilarious which helps.  

The Look of Love

Director: Michael Winterbottom

Stars: Steve Coogan, Imogen Poots, Tamsin Egerton, Chris Addison

Plot: The true story of the late Paul Raymond, a property and pornography mogul who was at one time the richest man in Britain.

Hugh's View:

The Look of Love marks the fourth big screen collaboration between director Michael Winterbottom and actor Steve Coogan. With films such as 24 Hour Party People and A Cock And Bull Story, they achieved critical acclaim, unfortunately similar praise is unlikely to follow them with this piece.

From the off it feels like there is a sense of discord between the subject and the style. As the piece introduces the character of Paul Raymond, we find him at a relatively late stage of his life and he clearly is not happy. The sorrow seems to be drawn from the subject of his daughter, the reasons for which are not made clear. We are then taken back to the start of his story and watch it unfold.

Given the clear indication of the story arc that is set to take place, the style in which it takes place seems curiously misjudged. The tragic overtones seem entirely at odds with the light, comic delivery of the action. When I refer to the 'style' of the film, I am not complaining about the visual style of the piece. On the contrary, of the things that the film does well, evoking the feel of the decades in which the film takes place is certainly done effectively. Similarly the Soho setting and the various bars, restaurants, theatres and nightclubs that house much of the action feel very believable. The problem is the same cannot be said for the performances.

This is not to criticise Steve Coogan as an actor or indeed his performance in general, it simply does not feel right for this film. I do not know how much, if any, of the script was improvised but it certainly feels that way and this is a problem. Coogan and Imogen Poots as his daughter Debbie, are meant to be the heart of this film as it is their relationship that drives a lot of the narrative yet their performances feel oddly disaffected which just makes it far harder to invest in what their characters are going through.

This style was effective in the previous collaborations between Coogan and Winterbottom as they were far more irreverent stories overall. In the case of this film though it is clear that there is an interesting and affecting story to be told the film isn't able to take you in to. You watch as the man's empire grows whilst his relationships wither around him, and occasionally you get a sense of pathos as the emotional damage he has wrought in his personal life shows through. Ultimately though this just feels jarring as the bulk of so many events in his life are otherwise breezed through, glossed over or simply left out.

Overall, whilst they have made an evocative film, they have not made an involving one and with this story, that is a problem. The world that Paul Raymond lived in, and to an extent created, was clearly not a particularly pleasant one, but that is not in itself an issue. The problem comes from the fact that as an audience you are not given a compelling reason to be in this world. Whilst it may look exciting from the outside, you will want to leave again pretty quickly.

Also Watch: Blow. This is a very different beast from The Look of Love in terms of the style but it is ultimately the kind of film I wished I was watching. The true life story of a man who built an illicit empire at the cost of the personal relationships around him, it is gripping, involving and worth of your emotional investment.  

Iron Man 3

Director: Shane Black

Stars: Robert Downey Junior, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Kinglsey, Guy Pearce, Don Cheadle

Hugh's View:

So as another year trundles along, Marvel seek once more to expand their cinematic universe. For the unitiated, this is the film enterprise they have been building since the release of the first Iron Man film in 2008, whereby all subsequent releases from Marvel films have taken place in the same fictional universe, featuring characters and references which come from one film and lead in to another. Phase one culminated in the box office behemoth that was last years Avengers Assemble. Now begins phase two and the ball is firmly back in the court of the metal man that first got it rolling.

Despite that lengthy preamble, one of the most admirable things about the new film is the manor in which it seems to be its own entity. One of the (admittedly many) criticisms that were levelled at both the previous Iron Man film and the Captain America film is that they were burdened with a sense that the creative focus had gone in to setting up the Avengers film as opposed to creating something exhilarating and engaging unto themselves. Iron Man 3 suffers from no such problems. Here the focus is on showing the audience a good time and sparing no amount of energy to do it. With this mindset in place the results were always going to err on the side of positive.

This vitality is thanks in no small part to the introduction of director Shane Black to the franchise. As a man who made his name directing and perhaps more importantly writing fast moving and fast talking action classics such as Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout, he was the perfect choice for taking it in to a new gear. The character of Tony Stark is always meant to be the man with the best lines in any room and with someone like Shane Black writing them and an actor like Robert Downey Junior delivering them, it was always going to be a match made in heaven.

If Blacks contribution is the seasoning that gives this action casserole its flavour, there is no denying that Robert Downey Junior's performance is the meat at the heart of it, and what a choice cut he provides. That last analogy may or may not be connected to the fact I have just eaten dinner. That is beside the point.

The point is more that Tony Stark/Iron Man is the character that really kick started the career resurgence that RDJ has experienced over the past few years and this film really shows him earning it. With the suit and the hero it represents having been firmly established over his previous 3 film appearances, the focus shifts far more heavily on to the character of Stark himself. The soul of this film lies in the vulnerability of the human being behind the hero. With his previous ironclad heroics producing feats that challenge the comprehension of even his genius level I.Q, this third solo outing finds him struggling to cope with the physical, psychological and emotional needs of the man who performed them.

It sounds like weighty stuff and RDJ's performance never lets you lose sight of this, but at the same time his natural charisma and wit give the whole proceedings an almost feather-light feel which you are never less than happy to carried along by. It is easy to be dismissive of performances in blockbuster films as simply mindless acts of money making but this is a performance that you feel the actor truly invests in and as a result, you as the audience are completely behind it as well.

The films main villain in the form of Ben Kingsley's The Mandarin is likely to be a more divisive issue. It is hard to reveal too much without giving away massive spoilers but the point in which the full extent of his character is revealed will likely be a point when many viewers will decide whether they are going to go with the film or not. Needless to say it is not the same character know by the comic purists but from my perspective, this is a good thing. I found him to be a surprisingly apt representation of modern terrorism and Ben Kingsley's performance to be knowingly humorous and effective.

The film is not without its flaws. For me it felt slightly unfocussed in its second act. Whilst it is entirely acceptable that the film needed to separate Tony Stark from the Iron Man suit in order for the character arc to come to fruition, it felt at times like it was almost a segment from another film that had simply had Iron Man transplanted in to it. This section was also littered with coincidences and plot holes larger than the dimensional rift he flew through at the end of The Avengers. You would also have to think that Rebecca Hall will be having words with her agent as her role is the definition of thankless.

By the time the final showdown comes around though, you will have forgiven and forgotten all of these minor imperfections as the sense of spectacle and enjoyment is too overwhelming to allow for secondary assessments. Whilst this summer is set to be rife with action spectaculars, the climactic battle in this film sets the bar admirably high. It also features a sight gag that can stand proudly alongside those that audiences adored so much in The Avengers.

Ultimately the film is a significant success and lives up to the considerable expectations heaped upon its chrome shoulders. Shane Black gives the film an energy and humour that surges right through the screen and out in to the audience whilst Robert Downey Junior earns every last cent of his no doubt substantial pay cheque. It gives the rest of Marvels upcoming phase two slate a lot to live up to but if the rest of the journey is as entertaining as this, you can expect it to be just as profitable and well received as its forbearers.

Also Watch: 

The obvious choices would be Lethal Weapon, the film in which Shane Black made his name or Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, his previous collaboration with Robert Downey Junior. Whilst these are both excellent films and well worth checking out, the real forgotten gem in Shane Black's back catalogue, or should I say, Black catalogue...hmm maybe I shouldn't say that, is The Last Boy Scout. Spectacular action, truly hilarious and featuring a close to career best performance from its star Bruce Willis, it really is a must see.  

Hugh's Pre-Views: Olympus Has Fallen versus White House Down

O.k This is genuinely going to be a quick one, this is a discussion to be done in you're head.

Here I present you with two trailers, one for Olympus Has Fallen, one for White House Down.

Both these films tell almost exactly the same story. Essentially Die Hard in the White House.

Observe

Olympus Has Fallen:

White House Down:

Now ask yourself, which one of these would you rather see?

I imagine a number of you would answer 'neither one, they both look equally shit'. If this is you're response, you are welcome to it, but move on. This discussion is not for you.

For me though, it is easily White House Down.

I should point out that although it has already been released, I have not seen Olympus Has Fallen so this is an unbiased response.

It really boils down to the tone. I would say the action looks better but more than this, it just looks like a hell of a lot more fun. You can tell straight away that OHF comes from a place of angst and takes this whole rescuing the president thing way too seriously. WHD on the other hand clearly wants to have a laugh with it.

If you think back to the original Die Hard, in my opinion the pinnacle of the genre, it is really the humour and Bruce Willis' delivery of it that elevates it above other pretenders. Whilst I am in no way saying WHD will be as good as that, the chemistry between Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx is already clearly evident and it gives me high hopes.

You shouldn't have to analyse it though. It is ultimately about head versus gut. You can take the elements of the OHF trailer and say a + b x c should theoretically equal a good time but in my eyes, WHF does this without trying. My response to it comes through reaction, not qualification and that for me is the work of a good trailer.

What say you?

Bernie

Director: Richard Linklater

Stars: Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine, Matthew McConaughey

Plot: The remarkable true life tale of the friendship between Bernie Tiede, the most beloved resident of a small Texan town, and Marjorie Nugent, the most despised, which ultimately resulted in him shooting her in the back and hiding the body in a freezer.

Hugh's View:

I am aware that my last attempt to keep a piece brief was hardly successful but none the less I will attempt brevity once more with this review. Mostly because the majority of you will not end up seeing it, which is a shame but inevitable. The fact is this is a small film about a small town telling a relatively small story. It is about a big character though and does feature a big, if uncharacteristically subtle and restrained, performance by Jack Black.

This film marks a reunion between Black and School of Rock director Richard Linklater but where that served to be a mainstream breakout for the pair of them, this film is another beast altogether. This will likely be of no surprise to either as the film they have created is frankly odd yet this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The closest description would be a documentary re-enactment but that is really unfair to the unique character of the film that has been created. On the one hand it is a straightforward movie but at the same time is almost narrated in a documentary/talking heads manor by the actual residents of the town, many of whom actually play themselves in the scenes as well as actors who are playing other characters in the film.

Whilst it does feel unusual to watch at times, it does seem fitting. The town of Carthage where the events took place is a character unto itself. It becomes clear over the course of the film that it is as much about place that the events occurred as much as it is about the events that occurred there. What makes the story stand out is the fact that despite the fact that a man confessed to shooting an old woman in the back, practically the entire town rallied behind him to get away with it. What Richard Linklater, a Texan himself, captures really well is the meeting point between locality and mentality that caused such a mindset to exist.

It is of massive credit to Jack Black that the film manages to work so well. Shirley MacLaine gives us text book cantankerous as the rich old widow so despised by the town and Matthew McConaughey is winningly slimy as the district attorney hell bent on getting Bernie put away for his crimes but make no mistake, this is Jack Blacks film. Whilst the characters comedic campness and penchant for singing allow Black to demonstrate some of his more well known performance traits, it is what lies beneath the surface that impresses the most. He clearly demonstrates why the townsfolk would have fallen in love with him to such a degree but always retains a hint of something darker.

This being the story of a murderer and all, the presence of darkness in the character should not be a surprise, yet the chorus of actual residents who seem to have sanctified this man presents the conundrum which fuels the heart of this film. It is in making this dichotomy of beloved community pillar and confessed murderer not only believable but almost understandable that Black truly triumphs. The fact that it was only the Golden Globes that gave it any kind of recognition is sad but understandable, it does however act as a great reminder of what a great acting talent he is. Hopefully now that his past ubiquity has subsided slightly, he will start moving back in to making good, fun, interesting films.

Overall it takes a bewildering tale which I imagine, for better and worse, could only have happened in Texas. It won't be to everyone’s tastes but for my money it makes for an intriguing watch. As with any good film in this vein, it allows you to make up your own mind on the character, his actions and the response of those around him but this should hardly be taken as a given. On what would seem on the surface to be such an open and shut case, the fact that there is any room for consideration makes it a great achievement on the parts of Jack Black and Richard Linklater, reminding us how refreshing it is to have both of them making films again.

Also Watch:

Dazed and Confused – One of my favourite films of all time, this film also finds Richard Linklater exploring small town Texas life but instead of focussing on local curiosity, he explores the more universal themes of being young, growing up and having a great time in between. It is also notable for being a launching pad for the young careers of Ben Affleck and Bernie co-star Matthew McConaughey.

Yes I am aware that was not brief. I guess it's good to have something to strive towards...