Friday, April 26, 2013

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.     

Friday, April 12, 2013

Good Vibe Films


The message that lives between the scripted words is the most valuable thing one can take away from a film.  It can lift you up to new heights.  With the stressful final weeks of the semester, an excellent and easy escapism to ease one’s mind would be to watch a good-vibe generating film.  A can-do attitude is generated and you’ll feel invincible soon enough.
Here are some spirit-lifting films to get you through research paper season. 

Silver Linings Playbook.  The most recent of the films listed, “Silver Lining Playbook” made waves during Awards Show Season.  Based on Matthew Quick’s novel of the same name, I immediately felt inspired after seeing it.  It has a positive message overall.  After seeing Cooper and Lawrence’s characters overcome woes beyond the norm, you find that no matter how hopeless you find life, “if you stay positive you have a shot at a silver lining. 

Crazy, Stupid Love.  This film has become my go-to romantic-comedy.  Starring Steve Carrell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, “Crazy Stupid Love” is Shakespearean in nature.  It is filled with misinterpretations, miscommunications.  It starts out with Emily (Moore) asking Cal (Carrell) for a divorce because she had an affair, and Cal’s whole world gets thrown into disarray until Gosling offers him a chance to rediscover who he is.  Everyone falls for the wrong person.  You laugh, you cry, you root for Steve Carrell and then wish him hell.  But like all Shakespearean plays, this movie leaves you reminded that love perseveres all. 

Julie & Julia.  What could be more adorable than a movie with Amy Adams AND Meryl Streep?  “Julie & Julia” is a duo-biopic about two extraordinary women-Julia Child and Julia Powell.  Based on Powell’s novel of the same name, the film follows the titular characters as they break through the mold of normal and become something more than what they are.  Powell (Adams) is looking to become something beyond a temp worker in post 9/11 New York.  She embarks on a mission to cook every meal in a cookbook penned by Child (Streep), who faced obstacles as a woman chef in 1950’s France.  Filled with its quirks, you will feel inspired by what they have done and will probably go make yourself a fancy French meal as the credits roll. 

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.  A classic John Hughes film (and what I think is his best), “FBDO” stars Matthew Broderick, Alan Ruck and Mia Sara.  If you went through high school without seeing this film, you have missed out, reader.  Not a line is wasted, and the message is timeless.  Like the typical teenager looking for a personal day to get away from academic pressures, Bueller feigns illness.  With his best friend and girl by his side, he embarks on an unforgettable romp through Chicago.  The message of the film is to live life to its fullest and not to let it pass by; “if you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.”

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Wolf of Wall Street Book Review


           Imagine a life working on Wall Street for an investment firm making millions faster than you can say “stock broker” and spending it just as quickly without a care in the world, knowing you’ll make more in due time.  Thus begins the autobiographical novel “The Wolf of Wall Street” by Jordan Belfort.  Belfort is a Long Island stockbroker who gets caught up in the world of power and greed.  The opulent life he lives with his trophy wife in his lavish mansion an hour outside the city soon falls to pieces ultimately due to corruption.  The film adaptation will be released in November, however the novel is a page-turner and we can only hope that the movie does Belfort’s tale justice.

            Belfort’s tale begins with his rise to power from day one at the Stratton Oakmont investment firm, and takes us through how the world of stockbrokers functions.  Hotel bills by the hundreds of thousands of dollars, hookers and private jet planes to anywhere in the world are just mundane aspects of the Wall Street lifestyle.  With a life full of scandal, drugs and wealth, Belfort could use his monetary power to make people do what he wanted when he wanted and evade anything that comes his way.    However, even someone as sly as a wolf can’t get his way out of everything. 

            Reading “The Wolf of Wall Street” was quite the experience.  Belfort’s descriptions of everything-from the boardroom’s everyday atmosphere to what his home is like with his beautiful wife (whom he refers to as the Duchess)-are beyond fathomable.  Lunches at restaurants where the bill for a few people run into thousands of dollars to wristwatches that cost millions are part of everyday life for Belfort.  He had such an obscene amount of money and was able to do whatever he wanted with it.  I was astounded by everything he did and how carelessly he would go through money.  And if the way he lived wasn’t crazy enough, his drug addiction was ridiculous.  He goes into detail with how many pills he would take of certain drugs, and what lengths he would go to just to make sure he wouldn’t go through withdrawal.

            Lord Acton one said, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Jordan Belfort’s life can justify Lord Acton, as he goes from partying all the time to doing time.  In the midst of a ruined marriage, a drug addiction and a pump-and-dump scheme, Belfort’s wild life leads him into federal crime and debts off the charts. 

            Martin Scorsese took on the challenge of making Belfort’s autobiography a movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio as the scrupulous stockbroker along with Matthew McConaughey, Jonah Hill and Julie Andrews.  I anticipate seeing the outcome, as I didn’t want to put the book down.  I recommend “The Wolf of Wall Street” for anyone who wants a first-hand account of the criminal side of Wall Street, along with those looking for a good read.  His tale epitomizes the highest highs and lowest lows you can go through in his position; everything is beyond excess in a way no one could make up.  I was immediately captivated and couldn’t put his book down.  “The Wolf of Wall Street” has definitely become one of my favorite books.

 

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

"Oz" was Great AND Powerful


This winter was the release of Disney’s latest film “Oz the Great and Powerful.”  Based off of L. Frank Baum’s “Oz” series and as the prequel to the 1939 “The Wizard of Oz,” this film further explores the fantasy Land of Oz.  Audience members get to see how expansive it really is, as “Oz” is a feast for the eyes.  It awakened aesthetic appreciation I didn’t know I had. 

Director Sam Raimi takes on this heavily weighted project.  Previously the director of the Spiderman movies and many action TV series such as “Spartacus,” Raimi takes on a big task of reviving a classic while adding some distinct flare to it. 

Upon seeing the trailer for this film last fall, I was reluctant to express my excitement.  I grew up with “The Wizard of Oz” and I was nervous that the 2013 predecessor to the movie almost seventy-five years older than it was going to be a massive train wreck.  However, I was delightfully surprised to find that this film was not a disappointment. 

The film starts out with opening credits reminiscent of a nickelodeon from the 1930’s in sepia (very similar to its predecessor “The Wizard of Oz”), as it takes place in 1905 Kansas.  Oscar “Oz” Diggs (James Franco) is a small-town magician, looking to make it big with his sleight of hand tricks and prestidigitation.  His petty attempts to achieve fame and build up a fortune knock him down constantly.  His partner (Zach Braff) Frank loses faith as him as his ethics weaken and he slowly becomes nothing. 

When a tornado hits the circus, Oz takes flight in a flying air balloon that transports him to a Technicolor wonderland. Literally.  He shortly meets Theodora (Mila Kunis) who informs him that he must be the wizard whose arrival will fulfill the prophesy of killing the bad witch and bring the Land of Oz back to its glory.  Even though Oz doesn’t possess the magic that the people of Oz think he has, he agrees to help in order to become king, once he kills the witch.  Before he knows it, Oz is thrown into a fantasy land where anything is possible, and becomes caught between three feuding sister witches, Theodora, Evanora (Rachel Weisz) and Glinda (Michelle Williams). 

For what it was worth, “Oz” was absolutely spectacular.  The sets Disney used seemed infinite, as the Land of Oz unfolded before me in the theatre.  Nothing pleased me more than watching James Franco fumble through the beautiful Land of Oz for two hours.  It was the perfect combination of the charm from the old film while incorporating the technology of the 21st century to expand upon everything.  Everywhere in the Land of Oz went in the film had its own style, especially the art-deco Emerald City.   

The costumes were elaborate as well.  Each character had one that reflected their personality, which is important.  If costuming is done wrong, then it is harder to relate to certain characters and understand why they behave in certain ways.  I was most impressed with Williams’ dress, which was simple but beautiful.  Make-up also reflected the personalities of the characters; the darker the eye-shadow, the less you were able to trust the characters for what they were up to. 

Compared to the 1939 film, “Oz” was a lot darker.  Everything wasn’t all singing scarecrows, ruby slippers and talking apple trees.  The special effects used were rather impressive.  Animated creatures were fantastic; the animators who created them were very detail-oriented as everything was so perfect. 

The cinematographic aspects of “Oz” were closely linked to that of “The Wizard of Oz.”  Most significantly, the film goes from a full-screen sepia experience and then turns into a full-screen Technicolor work of art.  The sound effects also shift from a mono-aural to surround sound experience. 

Franco makes it to Oz via tornado, like Dorothy in the 1939 film.  Characters in the Kansas part of the film also do cameos in the Oz portion (for example, Braff and Williams).  Producers snuck in the nuances of the classic characters the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion.  Glinda does travel by bubbles.  Williams wears a gingham dress in the film, the same pattern as Dorothy does.  Munchkin-Landers do indeed sing and dance (or at least attempt to until James Franco cuts them off).  The evil witches do indeed send flying monkeys upon the people of Oz to unleash havoc beyond what the 1939 film could do effect-wise. 

Most iconic, although it is not mentioned in the film, the characters continually travel along a yellow brick road.  If you pay attention enough to these nuances, you will be able to find them, and potentially more than what I had picked up. 

Due to Warner Brothers Pictures’ rights, Disney was unable to rebirth some of the more iconic aspects of “The Wizard of Oz.”  For instance, no reference or use of the ruby slippers Judy Garland wore is present.  Disney wasn’t able to use the exact shade of green for the witch’s make-up either from the original film.  However, their legal department was able to arrange for a slightly different color to be used called theostein. 

The casting for the film was pretty fair.  James Franco doesn’t take away from the film.  I found it very entertaining seeing him traveling through Oz, and I can’t see any actors playing the role of Oz and doing as good of a job as he did.  Although Robert Downey Jr. and Johnny Depp were both offered the leading role, I think they would have been too old to bring the gentle charm Franco offers.  The supporting actors and actresses were fit for the roles they portrayed.  I was particularly impressed with Mila Kunis, as her presence in the film made her become a more versatile actress in my mind. 

While watching “Oz” I forgot that I was watching a Disney film.  It is far from what I would expect Disney Studios to produce, which was a nice change from what normally comes out of there.  “Oz” takes on a dark, mature persona that will keep audiences captivated. 

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Why We Quote Films

             How many times have you stood on your porch and screamed, “I’m the king of the world!” Or wandered around in the dark and uttered “I have a bad feeling about this?”  How about reassuring your mopey best friend that “you aren’t dying; you just can’t think of anything better to do?” Often, we incorporate movie lines into everyday life, keeping the spirit of film alive.   
I find myself quoting movies countless times daily. I’ll admit I go beyond solely that. I’ve ran miles in a garbage bag like Bradley Cooper in “Silver Linings Playbook.” I’ve rocked a Gryffindor scarf and crazy wavy hair like Emma Watson from the Harry Potter films. I own an aviator jacket, scarf and shades similar to the ones Leonardo DiCaprio wears in “the Aviator” so I can charade as Howard Hughes at my leisure. I even carry around a lightsaber in my bag just in case, and enjoy singing and dancing in a rainstorm.  Even when part of a film can be such a nuanced one, using the right one at the right time brings us closer to the silver screen.
Quoting movies are an inside joke between the film and me-rather, the film and the viewer. Anyone who understands the reference or has seen the motion picture is in on it. However, when no one else laughs and I am stuck looking awkward for my allegedly irrelevant commentary, then I’m on my own.
    Comparing film to life has become an enormous aspect of how I approach things.  With every bad scene, there is a new one coming up. However, unlike film, life isn’t scripted. We have to “take life as it comes at us, to make each day count.” so, why do we choose to place someone else’s words into our own moments of victory or moments of pain? Why do we choose to cite something already there instead of making up our own lines to describe our highest highs, and our lowest lows?
    Let’s take a look at the evolution of quoting. In general, it isn’t something new-the first thing that anyone quoted was the Bible. In the fifteenth century, the invention of the printing press caused the literacy rate to skyrocket. Once the majority of people were reading, the Bible was the go-to source to quote. People were able to reassert their religious knowledge.  
Four hundred years later, the radio was invented and radio shows became popular. Programs like “The Shadow” were put on to listen to. Eventually, the line "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?" became submersed into pop culture. By 1933, sixty percent of American households had radios and tuned in weekly to hear their favorite program.   
Quotable quotes from the radio then evolved into television ones. Lines like “what’chu talkin’ ‘bout, Willis?” (from Different Strokes) and “No soup for you!” (from Seinfeld) became fads and are still used today.  
Now, quoting movies is the current thing to do. Lines become trends; they are born from a film and once they reach their height, they either become a lexicon for the average vocabulary, or fade back to the film from whence they came.  
Certain phrases from movies define an event of life or create more meaning to situations we face. For example, if someone says “we’re gonna need a bigger boat,” the reference to “Jaws” is a boating movie icon. Or when you hear “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse,” “The Godfather” is immediately what comes to mind. Later gangster films use this mentality when telling a story.  John Belushi’s shouting “TOGA! TOGA!” from “National Lampoon’s Animal House” is quite often incorporated into movies about college life. Students even hold toga parties today in their dorms on campuses everywhere. “It’s in the hole!” from Caddyshack has become the lexicon for golf motion pictures. Iconic phrases become the lexicon for a movie  genre.  
Even “to be or not to be” from Hamlet is so often used. The four hundred year old quote is the most famous one of Shakespeare’s, as the matter of action versus inaction can be posed for virtually any situation.  
The reason to why we quote films has actually become an interest for one professor, as he investigated why we quote films. Richard Harris, a psychology professor at Kansas State University has analyzed this. He has done extensive research on young adults’ memories of watching movies. By citing films in everyday life, you can make things more tangible to others. It is similar to telling a joke, even. Harris says “people are doing it to feel good about themselves, to make others laugh, to make themselves laugh.”
"Almost everybody has a very good memory for something," Harris said. Some people are hardwired to remember mathematical equations. Others are best at remembering every country in the world and its capital. If one can pull a line from a staged situation into a real life situation and apply it appropriately, then a film (or a portion of it) has impacted an individual only so much.  
By quoting films, we once more become a part of escapism, which is defined as the avoidance of reality through absorption of the mind in entertainment.   Even though the moment is brief, we are connected to the film and temporarily escape reality through our own words. 
            Only few things can bring people together. Aspects of life such as food, music, books, and now film are the most universal parts of pop culture. Movie quotes unify people, now more than ever. So the next time you say “there’s no place like home” or advise someone to “keep their friends close, but their enemies closer,” you’re keeping alive the trend of quoting iconic movies. Every day, lines like these are becoming increasingly immersed into our culture.

Silver Linings Playbook

            Released last November was David O. Russell’s adaptation of Matthew Quick’s novel Silver Linings Playbook.  This rom-com/drama stars the handsome Bradley Cooper as Pat Solitano, a young man mentally recovering from his divorce.  Anyone who has read Quick’s novel should see the film adaptation, and vice versa.  Audiences will find this film simply charming and inspiring. 

The film starts with his return home from a mental institution to live with his parents, Dolores (Jacki Weaver) and Pat Sr. (Robert de Niro)-a superstitious Eagles fan.  Between therapy sessions and coping with bipolar disorder, Pat meets a troubled widow, Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) through a mutual friend.  She promises to help Pat communicate with his ex-wife under one condition-he dances with her for a competition.  With Pat Sr. pulling him back into the family in an almost sick way and Tiffany’s endeavor to make Pat a five-star dancer, this feel-good film is delightful, as we see Bradley Cooper struggle. 

Audiences will cheer for Pat as he gets through his “apart time.”  We cannot help but feel empathy for Pat.  Cooper offers a moving performance, proven so by his Golden Globe and Oscar nominations for this role.  His on-screen chemistry with Jennifer Lawrence is simply wonderful. 

The film is up for eight Academy Awards this year: Best Director (Russell), Best Motion Picture, Best Actor (Cooper), Best Actress (Lawrence), Best Supporting Actor (de Niro), Best Supporting Actress (Weaver), Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best  Editing. 

This is David Russell’s second nomination from the Academy for best director, the first being for his critically acclaimed film The Fighter.  His previous films have made quite the impressions at film festivals, especially Silver Linings Playbook. This film in particular hit home for him; he was inspired by his son’s reforming school to take up the project.  Russell’s son is bipolar and has OCD and attends the Devereaux Glenholme School in Connecticut, and the film’s theme of recovering and rediscovering one’s self became especially tangible.  "I was so familiar with the issues in the story that I knew how emotional and funny and original it could be,” said Russell. “Without this community I would never have made this film."   His motley crew of actors is so diverse, but they complement each other so naturally.

Bradley Cooper in the past has been known for being in comedies, such as The Wedding Crashers, The Hangover, and Failure to Launch.  Outside of Limitless and The Words we haven’t seen too much of a serious Cooper.  Silver Linings Playbook will definitely open up doors for his career, as we see Pat struggle and express a range of emotions wider than the Pacific Ocean.  His performance was outstanding, and even though there is a some tough competition for Best Actor he has a shot just as good as the rest of the nominees. 

Jennifer Lawrence shines in Silver Linings Playbook.  After seeing her previous performances in Hunger Games and House at the End of the Street, I wasn’t confident her career could ever flourish.  Solely being pretty and young can only get you so far in Hollywood.  After seeing her in Silver Linings Playbook, I have higher hopes for this Golden Globe winning actress.  This film just might be her game changer. 

The Australian actress Jacki Weaver is known as a symbol for the Australian New Wave that began in the 1970’s and was nominated by the American Film Institute for her performance in Caddy.  Us Americans know her best for her roles in Animal Kingdom and Silver Linings Playbook, both of which she has been nominated for the Academy Award of Best Supporting Actress. Though she is up against other Oscar veterans for her category, she might take home the award. 

Robert de Niro is a true icon of the silver screen, as he is a director, actor and producer.  De Niro has been in films varying from The Godfather: Part II and Taxi Driver to Meet the Parents and Raging Bull.  He has won two Academy Awards as an actor in the past and nominated for seven.  Winning for his roles in The Godfather : Part II as best supporting actor and Raging Bull as best actor, he has the best track record of the actors nominated in this film to take home an award.  He is up against Christoph Waltz is in his category, who won the Golden Globe for his appearance in Django Unchained for Best Supporting Actor. 

The Academy was especially generous this, year considering the four leads got nominated for their roles in this film.  This is the first time a film has gotten nominations in these four categories since 1981 in the film Reds.  Many films in the past have filled up three of these four categories, but for a movie to receive a nomination in each category is a rarity.  Only thirteen films in the past have done it, and none have been successful in conquering these categories across the board.  If Silver Linings Playbook can, it will be the first time in Oscar history.  There is a .0016 chance this will happen, and a .0004 chance they will win all four PLUS film of the year.

Among its pending nominations, Silver Linings Playbook is also the first "Big Five" (Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Writing) nominee since Million Dollar Baby

As the film progressed, I fell more and more in love with every character.  The four Oscar nominated actors complimented each other so flawlessly.  De Niro, Cooper, Lawrence and Weaver kept the plot flowing naturally as their relationships on screen flourished.

Silver Linings Playbook really shows that you can find the solutions to ones problems in the most unlikely places and through people you wouldn’t expect.  Every cloud has a silver lining; you just have to find it. 

Friday, March 15, 2013

Gangster Squad Review

Ruben Fleisher’s film Gangster Squad hit theaters last month.  This film got more hype than it deserved, but it had so much potential to be better than it actually was.  A phenomenal cast was pieced together consisting of Josh Brolin, Sean Penn, Emma Stone, Nick Nolte and Ryan Gosling.  With the director of Zombieland working with these critically acclaimed actors, one could not expect such a recipe for disaster.  
 Gangster Squad is the story of Mickey Cohen’s (Penn) gang activity in 1950’s Los Angeles.  Cohen was known for his ruthless mob activity with the Jewish Mafia, along with the American Mafia.  The LAPD led by Chief Parker (Nolte) enlists Sergeant O’Mara (Brolin) to assemble a team of policemen in hope of taking down Cohen and his mob.
 As far as the dialogue goes for this film, it could have been so much better, considering the roster Fleisher had to work with.  The script was terrible as all emotion was sucked out of lines that should have made the film more thrilling.  Although the “film noir” air mustered up on screen calls for hard-boiled dialogue, it felt more forced than natural.  One of the officers O’Mara hires, Jerry Wooters (Gosling) gets swept into an affair with the beautiful etiquette coach of Cohen.  The sub-plot of his affair with Grace Faraday (Stone) was disappointing.  Compared to the on-screen chemistry Gosling and Stone had in Crazy Stupid Love, they had nothing in Gangster Squad.  Stone does a decent job at portraying the damsel-in-distress stereotype.  
The typical crime-drama stereotypes are seen in this film, but sadly aren’t expanded upon.    Nick Nolte, who played Chief Bill Parker, got little to no screen time, which is simply a waste of talent.  The result of this film was wasted talent and wasted potential in what could have been a good film noir.    
For what the film had to offer, the costumes and make-up were well done.  Stone’s appearance displayed an accurate interpretation for the “femme fatale” stereotype.  Penn spent three hours every day getting ready for the film.  The result was impressive, but sadly make-up alone couldn’t bring this film back on its feet with regards to the plot.  
 Another redeeming quality of this film was its soundtrack.  Any fan of The Aviator’s soundtrack will love it, as I bought it the night I saw the film.  Featuring classic artists such as Peggy Lee, Hoagy Carmichael and Johnny Mercer, you can’t go wrong with this upbeat compilation of 1950’s jazz music.
 Overall, Gangster Squad was a disappointing guppy of a film in a sea of box-office hits.  It is only worth the twelve dollar movie ticket if you are looking for something to do to pass the time.  The positive aspects of Gangster Squad don’t necessarily outweigh the bad.  Pure satisfaction would only be guaranteed if you watched the film with no dialogue and only the soundtrack playing in the background.  Only then would aesthetics will take over for the better as the dialogue is completely eliminated.