"The Internship" Review

                Opening two weeks ago was Shawn Levy’s latest (attempt at) comedy, “The Internship.”  With a brilliant premise and the dynamic duo of Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, you would think that the film is foolproof.  You would be wrong.  The director of “Date Night” and the “Night at the Museum” films has failed to make “The Internship” worth seeing. 

                A set of salesmen who feel past their prime lose their job, and contemplate if their careers will ever pick up again.  Billy McMahon and Nick Campbell (Vaughn and Wilson) search for an opportunity to get them back in the work field.  They land an interview for Google, and once they are voted in they are given the opportunity to compete for a highly-coveted internship.  Throughout the remainder of the films, Campbell and McMahon experience the trials and tribulations of competing against technologically-geared college kids.  With highs and lows along the way, they figure out where their skillset can truly be utilized and work their way back up into the world. 

I particularly loved the movie “Wedding Crashers;” it’s in my top ten of best comedies.  Vaughn and Wilson balanced out each other perfectly, as not a line between them was wasted.  However, in “The Internship” some of their attempts at humour were failures.  I would even say at a couple points their roles were more obnoxious than funny.  I found it hard to identify with them and felt little sympathy for them.  At certain moments, I even rooted against them. 

The band of misfits they collaborate with throughout the film seem to work well, cast-wise and as far as their performance is concerned.  The lack of chemistry however made little room for sympathizing with their situation at hand. 

The plot line to the movie was a very interesting concept.  How would it work if college kids competing for internships at Google had a couple of salesmen about twenty years older than them in the mix? A clashing of mentalities and ways of life, and an eventual harmony between the age gap would be the result.  In “The Internship,” it was difficult for that to fully develop.  Maybe it did, but it was hard to notice as I found the soundtrack very distracting and took away from most of the movie.

What really bothered me about “The Internship” was the fact that in the middle of the movie, there was a ten minute interlude where McMahon and Campbell took their fellow Google team members out to a California night club.  It was very out of place, and little of it made a difference to advance the plot.  I could understand a short two-minute clip that gets its purpose across and moves onto the next scene, but dragging it out took away from what the premise was there to suggest. 

Overall, I was very disappointed.  Watching the trailer will give you as much comic relief as though you watched the entire movie.  If you are looking for a laugh-out-loud summer flick, I’m sure you can Google “good summer films” and “The Internship” won’t be anywhere within sight. 

 

"Man of Steel" is Beyond Super

           It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s the next big summer blockbuster! “Man of Steel” came out this June and is absolutely amazing.  Directed by Zach Snyder, the man who brought us “300” and “Dawn of the Dead” this sci-fi superhero film is perfect for the film-craving movie-goer.  Any superhero geeks such as myself should definitely check out "Man of Steel."

            The film opens with Clark Kent’s (Henry Cavill) home planet, Krypton dying-which is shown through a massive display of special effects.  Transported to Earth and adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent, Clark struggles with fitting in.  The superpowers he has (the ability to fly, super strength, heat vision, and X-ray vision) are beyond ordinary and he keeps them hidden.  After he saves the ambitious reported Lois Lane (Amy Adams), she becomes intrigued with who he is.  Once an exposé she writes becomes leaked, she puts his life (along with her own at risk). 

            However, when Earth becomes threatened be General Zod (Michael Shannon) when he finds out Superman’s whereabouts, Superman must team up with our armies.  He battles against the evil General Zod in order to protect his new home, and these battle sequences are absolutely amazing.  Complete with a cast including Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner and Laurence Fishburne, “Man of Steel” will not disappoint. 

            From what I’ve seen, this movie is very reminiscent of Christopher Nolan’s “Batman” trilogy.  It was no surprise to me learning that Nolan was a producer for this film.  Similar to the first film of the Batman saga, “Man of Steel” was darker than past films depicting the hero.    In what could be the first film of a few in this super saga, we bounce back to defining moments in Clark Kent’s life.    Like many superheroes, Clark Kent is a troubled soul, just looking to blend in.  Although none of us can truly relate to Superman, Clark’s back-story makes everything about his life more tangible to audiences. 

It was beyond a modest effort to bring back Superman.  Although the past Superman movies with Christopher Reeves are classic, Zach Snyder ushers in a new era of a modern-day interpretation in his resurrecting the franchise.  This film also didn’t include the iconic “Superman March” written by John Williams.  In an attempt for “Man of Steel” to distinguish itself, it was cut out and Hans Zimmer was selected to compose the music for the film. 

            In fact, if it wasn’t for the immense success of the modern Batman films, “Man of Steel” would have never been a thought.  Development for the film began in 2008, when screenwriters, directors and comic book authors came together planning a potential super revival.  Christopher Nolan suggested and pitched the idea for the modern revival.  He was immediately hired to produce the film, which was a wise decision. 

            The film was slightly fast paced, and before I knew it the two and a half hour picture was over, when anyone could easily claim it was less than two hours.  The use of flashbacks kept it moving along, and you get a genuine comic-book feel from it-as everything is fleeting but just the right amount to keep one from being distracted by the constant transitioning. 

The ending to “Man of Steel” indicates some closure as to the events throughout the film. However, there is a sequel is in the works, due to how amazing this film was, along with the fact that Snyder signed a three movie deal, which includes a Justice League film (which I am beyond pumped for).  Hopefully they include Jimmy Olsen, the love-struck photographer who works with Lois Lane, as he wasn’t a part of “Man of Steel.” 

The final scenes left me wanting more, especially the last five minutes.  This definitely means something, considering Superman was never my favourite caped crusader. 

            Anyone looking to see this film should not bother wasting the extra few dollars per ticket to see it in 3-D.  The cinematography and clarity of the motion picture is so impressive that it would make no difference.  The special effects used throughout the film, from the opening scenes on Krypton to the final explosions are beyond awesome. 

            One of the negative things about this film is all the doors left open at the end.  I am definitely looking forward to seeing the next “Superman” movie to come out, provided Snyder directs it.  Two thumbs up to this film, as it will satisfy audiences all over craving something “super.” 

 

"Now You See Me" is a Must-See

                Upon entering the theatre to see “Now You See Me,” by happenstance I found nine dollars lying on the ground.  Ironically, the premise of Louis Leterrier’s latest film is for the audience members to receive monetary prizes for spectating their show.  Laced with massive heists, prestidigitation, and a stellar cast, “Now You See Me” is a must-see this summer. Be sure to "Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you will actually see."

                Four tricksters-an escape artist, a pickpocket, a sleight-of-hand card magician and a mind reader-are called together unexpectedly for a mission from a mysterious figure.  Together, Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fischer, Dave Franco and Woody Harrelson make up the Four Horsemen.  This team of magicians makes their way through the United States.  Making three stops at Las Vegas, New Orleans and New York, where a fantastic heist is pulled off.  Millions of dollars are stolen, and crowds everywhere are mesmerized. 

                However, there is more to these heists than meets the eye.  FBI agent Dylan Rhoades (Mark Ruffalo) teams up with Interpol agent Alma Dray (Melanie Laurent), and a professional illusion deconstructor Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman) to break down what is really going on. 

                The film as a whole was generally satisfying.  The casting was absolutely wonderful; I wouldn’t have changed a thing.  Although the film’s producers were considering older actors and actresses to play the leads, I think the chosen individuals were ideal.  They all brought something to the film, and didn’t take away from the storyline.   

The cinematography was very effective.  Like watching a magic trick live, your attention was brought to various places.  As soon as you thought you caught up and were one step ahead of the supposed con-artist, they were really three ahead of you.  “How did he do that?” was a constant thought throughout various scenes for me.  Although camera angles were constantly changing and some may argue it can distract from what is really happening, in this type of film it was very effective. 

The one aspect of the film that I disliked was the fact that the elaborate, flashy magic acts were products of Hollywood.  Watching tricks as those performed in the film wouldn’t have been plausible in reality without the assistance of special effects.  There is something more alluring about clean-cut street magic.  The sleight-of-hand tricks performed in the opening scene were more impressive.  They were more modest, and sometimes simplicity is the most extraordinary way to wow an audience.  Too much flashy distracts. However, for this film, it fits in perfectly.  Magic and thievery is an interesting idea for a film, and I am pleased that the director of “The Incredible Hulk” and “Clash of the Titans” made a valiant and successful effort here. 

Although the ending to the movie was slightly predictable, the moments leading up to it on the silver screen were impressive.  The special effects were fabulous.  The action going on keeps the audience on their seats, and whenever the characters would explain what really happened as far as certain tricks go, a wave of “oooooh! I get it!” washed over the theatre. 

Anyone who enjoys the “Oceans” movies or “The Prestige” would enjoy this flick.  From what I’ve seen so far this summer, “Now You See Me” has been the most impressive.  However, the summer is still young.  The hunt for the ultimate summer blockbuster goes on. 

 

The Hangover: Part III

            The third-and hopefully final-move of the Hangover saga was released Memorial Day weekend.  Movie-goers flocked to theatres to see the highly anticipated letdown.  “Hangover Part III” is only worth your time if you show up to the theater drunk, then the poor attempts at humor will be worth your time and money.  Maybe. 

            “Hangover Part III” reprises the roles of the infamous Wolf Pack, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifanakis) and Doug (Justin Bartha).  “Part III” also brings back roles from the previous films, such as Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), Sid Garner (Jeffery Tambor) and Jade (Heather Graham), along with bringing John Goodman and Melissa McCarthy and into the cast.

            The storyline of the film revolves around Alan, as we find out that his eccentric nature is the result of him having mental issues.  Stu, Phil and Doug propose taking him to a sanatorium in Arizona after staging an intervention.  On the way, they get kidnapped by Marshall (Goodman) who demands for the kidnapping of Chow, who stole millions of dollars from him. It becomes the Wolf Pack’s mission to take care of this all.  If they don’t, Doug (who is held hostage once more) will be killed. 

            Confusing plot line, I know.  The most important thing is missing though; the little nuance that makes the title of the film full of purpose.  There is no drug induced tirade, no alcohol-influenced episode gone wrong.  At least in the sequel to “The Hangover” Alan drugged the Wolf Pack again.  In this film, it is more of a wild goose chase dragged out too long. I found myself constantly checking my watch, waiting for the hour and forty minutes of pure torture to be over. 

            “Hangover Part III" takes the once-peculiar and lovable Alan Garner and turns him into an obnoxious, merciless simpleton.  He becomes self-destructive in his actions.  After seeing this film, my perception of his behavior changed from viewing him as simply being an artsy character just looking to live life, into a psychologically troubled middle-aged man.  His disposition becomes more troubled and frustrated even, as opposed to just quirky and downright strange. 

            The combination of a weak plotline, turning the eccentric Alan into a jerk and enough laughs to get you through the night makes “Hangover Part III” highly disappointing.  A film that leaves you lost, questioning what the motives of the characters are is not worth watching.  Even though “The Hangover” made such an impact on ticket sales and movie fans alike, and the sequel to it was tolerable-comparatively speaking-“Hangover Part III” was an absolute nightmare. 

Gratuitous Excess: "The Great Gatsby"

   Baz Luhrmann is the latest director to take on the challenge of
bringing the American classic to the silver screen.  His
interpretation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel “The Great Gatsby”
turns a few swanky parties in the midst of wealthy Long Island towns
into a scene of chaos.
   The film is a flashback for Nick Caraway (Tobey Maguire).  He sits in
a sanatorium, reflecting on his summer in 1922 where he rented a
cottage in West Egg.  His neighbor, the notorious Jay Gatsby (Leonardo
DiCaprio), was known for throwing parties and not showing up to them.
After attending one of them out of sheer curiosity, Caraway gets
thrown into the world of chaotic excess and the secret-keeper to a
timeless love affair.  Caraway weaves together a memoir of his months
there, with Gatsby’s elusive nature as his focal point.
   Leonardo DiCaprio plays an awkward Jay Gatsby.  He is the ideal
pretty-boy Gatsby, who attempts to keep his cool and plays down his
wealth even though it’s impossible to ignore.  I couldn’t help but
laugh at how socially incompetent he was out and about, yet somehow
was able to brim with confidence with his “reassuring smile.”
Juxtaposing him with Maguire as his only friend was a good choice on
the director’s part. Casting overall wasn’t too bad.  Carey Mulligan
plays the airy Daisy Buchanan, a young woman torn between Gatsby and
her husband, Tom (Joel Edgerton).  The cast, however seemed as drawn
out as Caraway did in the sanatorium at some points.  The passion is
subtle, which doesn’t represent the beautiful words of Fitzgerald.
As every director has their own artistic licensing to put into a film,
Luhrmann left out some things.  First, Jordan Baker (played by
Elizabeth Debecki-Caraway’s love interest) didn’t play as big as a
role in the film as she did in the book.  Luhrmann also fails to show
their relationship as well.  Daisy Buchanan also was blonde in the
film, as she is a brunette in the novel.
Second, when we meet Jay Gatsby, the book depicts it as an
anti-climactic moment, as Caraway stumbles upon him by happenstance at
one of his parties.  Here, we met Jay Gatsby at one of the final
crescendos of “Rhapsody in Blue,” as confetti flew through the air,
fireworks boomed and he raised his glass in triumph.  Fitzgerald made
it seem like anyone could be Gatsby with how he introduces him.
Lurhmann glorifies Gatsby as soon as he takes over the silver screen.
He matches the rumors and build-up we see with an immense grandeur, as
oppose to in the novel.  Gatsby subtly slips into the crowd to meet
Caraway, highlighting the elusiveness of his character as oppose to
turning him into the big deal he really isn’t.
The film ended with Gatsby’s death and left out a good portion of the
last chapter of Fitzgerald’s book.  Once Gatsby dies, so does the
film.  We see no after-math for Caraway as his summer ends.
As Gatsby tells Caraway about his life whilst driving in his yellow
convertible, he speeds and races his way from West Egg to New York.
This was effective cinematographically speaking, as Gatsby’s life
takes twists and turns unexpectedly, from his younger days up to what
we see before us.
   Filmed in Real D 3D, audience members are able to hover above the
bustling New York City, and swoop down and around the luxurious Long
Island estates.  Luhrmann wanted to pull his viewers even more into
the scenes unfolding in front of them.  This was rather effective,
since there was so much going on.  Too much, actually.
   The party scenes depicted in “Gatsby” did a fine job of showing all
the spending the wealthy would do during the Roaring Twenties.  Here,
the excessive suddenly becomes too excessive.  The parties Gatsby
threw in this interpretation became almost too much.  They seem
exaggeratory, even for one of the wealthiest men on Long Island.
The scenes unfolded, showing a world beyond my wildest dreams.  They
were pretty satisfactory, and indeed a valiant effort to make up for
what was missing from to book.  Butlers were fishing martini glasses
out from the pool, women were dressed to the nines doing the
Charleston, and confetti flew in the air like a rainstorm.  What a few
opulent 1920’s parties should be are turned into endless nights of
chaos.  But then again, Gatsby led a life that was anything but
mundane.
   Overall, I commend Luhrmann for his interpretation.  It was a bold
move, mixing in so many anachronistic aspects such as his soundtrack.
I wasn’t surprised, as Jay-Z was the executive producer of the film.
Caraway says in the film “you can’t change the past.”  However,
Luhrmann tries to with the rap music and excessive beats.  I may be no
historian, but I am pretty sure that big band jazz was the thing in
the 1920’s.  Some jazzy tunes had been slipped into the film,
including Cole Porter’s “Let’s Misbehave and Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in
Blue,” which fit the era perfectly.  As far as Jay Z’s music choices
go, they just don’t fit in.
   The underlying theme of the 1920’s excessive nature consumes the film
overall.  It is pretty effective, but it becomes a distraction.  Even
though with an obscenely flexible budget making the opulent jazzy
parties come alive from Fitzgerald’s pages was accomplished in such a
flashy way, it takes away from what Fitzgerald really wrote.  “The
Great Gatsby” is the quintessential American Dream novel, and all the
glamour and glitz in this modernistic interpretation takes away from
what it is meant to be-a tale of hope, passion and repeating past.
   My rating? C+

Iron Man 3 Review

            May third was the premiere for the final movie in the “Iron Man” saga.  Action-packed, this movie quenched the thirst of more Tony Stark for many Iron Man fans.  For the die-hard fans of Stan Lee’s comic book character, the third film was a much-needed follow-up to the disappointment of Iron Man 2.  It could have been better as far as a film goes.  However, as far as a superhero film goes, “Iron Man 3” met the unwritten code of what a superhero movie should have-lots of action, a damsel in distress, and a villain with a kick-ass evil scheme.

            Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow return, as Tony Stark and Pepper Potts.  New actors join the cast such as Ben Kingsley, who plays the Osama Bin Laden-esque villain, the Mandarin, along with Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian, a brilliant man looking to seduce Potts by means of his technological breakthrough. 

            “Iron Man 3” focuses on Stark’s relationship with Potts throughout the movie more than either of the other films have. It is clear that Stark loves Potts more than anything, but his obsession with his suits and technology create a barrier for him to show his true passion for the most important person to him. 

            Outside the walls of their California home, the Mandarin threatens society as he has built up a new army of super-humans.  He terrorizes everyone, adding more on the agenda for Stark as he sorts out the world and his world. 

The amount of explosions and action sequences will keep audience members on the watch, as everything flies through the air.  I was particularly impressed with the special effects in a few scenes.  The juxtaposition of the story and the strokes of excitement was excellent, not too much of either one. 

Tony Stark’s ego managed to fill the movie throughout, as the brilliant tinkerer uses the power of money to do what he wants.  His sarcastic wit makes us think Tony Stark is selfish, but you cannot help but love him.  The focus on Tony Stark is drawn from the first half of “Iron Man,” as though to probe further into Stark.  Audience members learn more about him, and the back story of a superhero is one of the most important things about them.  At one point, he loses everything.  His home, his girl, his technology and even his Iron Man suit; all gone.  The struggle is real for Stark, as his cleverness becomes the ultimate superpower. 

We even get a chance to study Stark on a more personal level as film-goers.  The silver screen becomes the fishbowl of Tony Stark’s crumbling world.  Looking in, we get to see him attempt to piece back together various aspects of his life that make him Tony Stark. 

            As far as I’m concerned, nothing compares with the first Iron Man movie.  The second one was a great disappointment.  “Iron Man 3” had just enough in it to make it a substantial follow-up to its predecessor.  Director Shane Black reflects on the how-to’s of the final film in a trilogy.  "Truthfully, the way to go about doing a part 3, if you’re ever in that position, as I’m lucky enough to be, is to find a way that the first two weren’t done yet. You have to find a way to make sure that the story that’s emerging is still ongoing and, by the time you’ve finished three, will be something resembling the culmination of a trilogy.”  He says, “It’s about, 'How has the story not yet been completely told?,' and I think we’re getting there. I think we’ve really found ways to make this feel organic and new, based on what’s come before, and that’s what I’m happy about."

Although “Iron Man 3” seemingly offers a lot of closure, it isn’t the end for Robert Downey Jr. as this superhero.  He will reprise this role once more in the next “Avengers” film, and there is indeed a chance that an “Iron Man 4” could be right around the corner!  So go see “Iron Man 3,” as it is the first of many this summer, cram-packed with sequels. 

Great Gatsby 2013: What to Expect

                Baz Luhrmann is at it again-remaking a film that was perfectly fine to begin with.  Notorious for his disgraceful modernized versions of “Moulin Rouge” and “Romeo and Juliet”, the director has now made his own film adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel “The Great Gatsby.”  A timeless love story that captures the American dream glorified during the Roaring Twenties, “Gatsby” has had two films already made based on it.  One in 1974 starring Robert Redford, Sam Waterson, and Mia Farrow, and another in 2000 with Mia Sorvino, Toby Stephens, and Paul Rudd as Nick Carraway. 

                Both were fair remakes, however neither were perfect.  Nuances from the novel were overlooked.  For example, the director’s choice in the past has often been to make Daisy Buchanan, Gatsby’s love interest, a blonde.  Nowhere in the novel has it been mentioned that she is blonde.  In fact, she is a brunette! Her personality dictates this stereotype, and every director wants it to be known that in comparison to Jordan, she is the dumb woman of the story.  Something else that the directors have changed is

In honor of the new film coming out shortly, let’s take a look at the significant aspects of it, pre-evaluating how high expectations the teasers have fostered may not be met.  

                The casting for the 2013 adaptation is pretty spot-on with how I would envision with contemporary actors and actresses.  Leonardo DiCaprio takes on the titular role of Jay Gatsby.  His charm and versatility as an actor gives him great potential to be the mysterious Gatsby we all know and love.  The existential Nick Carraway is portrayed by Tobey Maguire.  A fitting choice, considering he has been typecast as quiet and awkward in the past, making an ideal narrator.  Carey Mulligan will be Daisy Buchanan.  She is an ideal choice for the role, as she follows the blonde-Daisy trend.  Other actors chosen include Ilsa Fischer as Myrtle, Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan, Elizabeth Debecki as Jordan Baker.  With an ensemble cast, it is the perfect recipe for cinematic success.   

                From what the trailers have shown us, the director wants to emphasize excess in the film.  The 1920’s was a time of buying on margin; the Stock Market was booming and people were spending more than ever.  Upon being interviewed about his interpretation, he said that he wanted to comment on society’s irresponsibility and the wealthy lifestyle many people achieved in the Roaring Twenties.  If anything, Luhrmann didn’t disappoint here.  

The parties being thrown are ridiculous.  The size of the houses is incredulous.  They are filled with butlers, swimming pools, confetti and more food and drink than one can fathom.  In Fitzgerald’s novel, Carraway vividly describes the parties Jay Gatsby would throw.  His name indeed does “sound like money.”  They were filled with fresh food, hundreds of butlers, large bands and interesting people from all over.

I also got the overwhelming feeling of passion from the trailer.  Aside from the American Dream, another motif from Fitzgerald’s novel was time lost.  Gatsby’s success and overwhelming existence is all efforts from Daisy Buchanan to fall back in love with him.  However, it is often difficult to turn back the clock and relive the past.  What’s done is done.  The embodiment of Gatsby is an elusive one, but this is the most important aspect for a successful adaptation here. 

                The soundtrack is the textbook definition of an anachronism.  If you watched the trailers from the film in mute, the visual aspect alone is breathtaking.  Excess is the name of the game, with parties rekindling the essence of a swanky shindig from decades ago.  Once you add in the music talents of Beyonce, Florence + The Machine, and Lana Del Ray, you lose all hope for 1920’s jazz music that would juxtapose with the spirit of the times.  We should have seen this coming, considering Jay-Z co-produced the soundtrack for the movie. 

Upon seeing the initial trailer in May 2012, I wasn’t thrilled with the contemporary music playing in the background.  I assumed it was a work in progress.  However, upon the release of the official music, I am sad to say it isn’t reminiscent of the glamorous jazz of Artie Shaw and Benny Goodman.  Anyone who was expecting something similar to “The Aviator” or “Public Enemies” soundtrack will be greatly disappointed. 

                Marketing for this film has gone through the roof.  Various companies have set up fashion lines inspired by the film.  Brooks Brothers launched a line April 15 of clothes, accessories and shoes for men.  What is interesting about this line is that Brooks Brothers was around during the 1920’s, and was one of the go-to stores for men of the time.  Fashion Weekly Magazine states that these styles  “weren't simply based on 1920s style: the new duds were designed based on the brand's actual archives.”  What can be seen in the windows in their boutiques is legit as it gets, since the movie offers the same style. 

On April 17^, Tiffany and Co launched a jewelry line in collaboration with Lurhmann and costume designer Catherine Martin.  The collection comprises 7 pieces: a brooch, a headpiece (both reportedly based on archival Tiffany designs), a necklace, and four different rings, including one in platinum with a 5.25-carat diamond, priced at $875,000; quite the price to pay to charade as a 1920’s fashionista.  Kudos to Luhrmann for the costume’s authenticity.  At least the actors will be costumed to perfection with all their flapper flare. 

                The opening film at the Cannes Film Festival, and premiering for the rest of the world May tenth, we can only hope for the best out of the latest adaptation of the classic novel.  Hopefully anachronisms don’t turn what could be a great film into another disappointment on Luhrmann’s behalf.  If done write, adaptations can be amazing.

                Don’t let this discourage you from seeing the film, reader.  I do have every intention of seeing the film dressed as a flapper.  Each director has their own opportunity to tell Ftzgerald’s story through their own eyes.  Luhrmann’s interpretation hopefully still captures the essence of recreating the past, while adding his own touches.  A quasi-modernization of a classic is a tedious task, and his track record has proven him unsuccessful thus far.  “Gatsby” just might be his green light across the water.