The Great Gatsby (2013)

Directed by: Baz Luhrmann

Verdict: “Do you think it’s too much?” asks Gatsby of Nick, in one of the pivotal scenes of this classic tragedy. The overwhelming answer from cinema critics seems to be ‘hell yes’. Luhrmann’s blockbuster has been roundly criticised for lack of emotion, missing the point of the novel and just downright over-glittering. I’m a self-confessed Fitzgerald nut, in addition to being a cinephile. I readily admit that since Zelda and Scott hated the 1926 adaptation of the beautiful novel they are probably spinning in their graves over the brash, bright and bold Jay Z-heavy 2013 version. But nevertheless, in a crazy-beautiful-sparkly way I think it works, and I unashamedly loved it.  

The most perfect book ever written adapted into a blockbusting epic with more cocktails, flapper dresses and 3-piece suits than you can shake a stick at… what can possibly go wrong? Well, a lot, most critics are arguing. It may be that I’m coloured by my undying love for the book, but I find myself mostly at odds with most of the mainstream press reviews. Of course, I don’t think any film adaptation can come within a mile of touching the magic of the novel. And admittedly Gatsby the movie may not be for everyone, but I find it hard to believe most won’t be intoxicated by the (mostly) faithful dialogue, stunning visuals and brilliant cast.

I am a lifelong devotee of F Scott Fitzgerald’s work and have read The Great Gatsby half a dozen times. Despite this, I hated the 1974 ‘classic’ and so when I heard about the 2013 adaptation I was excited beyond words. I’ve seen a lot of negative press about the choice of Luhrmann as director, with phrases like ‘too flashy’ and ‘style over substance’ bandied around liberally. I have now read a handful of big-name reviews of the film, and pretty much generally disagree with all of them. Perhaps I have crappy taste and should be banned from every picture-house in the land. But it seems to me that reviewers everywhere from Empire to The Guardian are claiming that Luhrmann’s film fails because it doesn't tell the story of Gatsby from Fitzgerald’s point of view. Am I missing something?

The film is The Great Gatsby, not The Great Fitzgerald’s Commentary on the Decadence of 1920s America; the movie is an adaptation of the novel. True, Luhrmann’s opulent party scenes are practically dripping with champagne and you have to shade your eyes from the glitter of the sequins, but I couldn't help but interpret the sombre intercuts of Nick during the drunken soirée at Myrtle’s, or the dark looks of DiCaprio’s Gatsby at his parties as this apparently disregarded note of disdain that’s inherent in the story. What critics seem to demand from Luhrmann is a good look at the hard-drinking, loose-moral population of Fitzgerald’s novel, but only through a staunchly critical lens. While it is blazingly apparent to anyone with an ounce of brain matter that the novel is a commentary on the Jazz Age that was teetering on the brink of disaster, I don’t feel that Luhrmann’s decision to have actresses dance in 1920s costumes necessarily undermines the book’s intention.

But anyway, the movie. Despite my gripes with other reviewers, I don’t think anyone can deny that Luhrmann and designer Catherine Martin have fashioned a beautiful 1920s aesthetic for the film, admittedly with an unshakeable sense of 2013. When I first heard the soundtrack – produced by Jay Z, in case you've been living under a rock – I wasn't exactly in love with it. However, combined with the dazzling visuals I think the juxtaposition of the old and the new offers an interesting interpretation of the story. The whole thing was simply beautiful and, alright I’ll admit it, at some points it did feel as if the profundity of the novel wasn't there – but the thing was so beautiful it didn't seem to matter too much. I don’t suppose anyone was expecting a motion picture so emotionally moving that it would knock the original source material out of the water. And if they were, they’ll be massively disappointed. There are moments where the film seems like it's going to stumble into profound territory - the idea of the whole thing being a collection of memories is a nice start, and there are times where DiCaprio as Gatsby seems like he's hitting full throttle Leo, in frank discussions with Nick or romantic speeches to Daisy. But it never quite grabs you by the throat. 

On paper, the casting looked perfect to me. In practice however, it felt as if there was something missing: I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was, and the cast was good, but not quite as bewitching as I’d anticipated. Tobey Maguire was the epitome of how I imagine Nick Carraway, the novel’s narrator, to be. Alternately pathetic, endearing and bland, Maguire carried the film’s original framing story of Nick’s visits to a sanatorium as well as the daunting task of playing Fitzgerald’s celebrated unreliable narrator. Amitabh Bachchan’s cameo as the mysterious Meyer Wolfsheim was entertaining, and I thought Elizabeth Debicki and Joel Edgerton, as Jordan Baker and Tom Buchanan, were vivid in their portrayals and stayed loyal to Fitzgerald’s creations. I had looked forward to Carey Mulligan as Daisy and Leo’s Gatsby, but I came away from the film feeling that they had just missed out on something special. There was something missing, that tragic spark that characterised the novel and made it the classic that it is. Ultimately, I felt Mulligan bested Mia Farrow’s 1974 Daisy, but in the battle of the Gatsbies (?) the spoils went to the mighty Robert Redford.

All in all, I loved the movie, and I thought it was a beautiful and stylish interpretation of one of the greatest stories ever told. I still disagree that the movie fails due to its lack of über-deep emotional depth, but admittedly I didn't come away from the tragic end feeling as stirred-up as I do every time I read the book. I don’t think any filmic adaptation could really achieve this, however. What Baz Luhrmann has brought to the table is a pretty satisfying depiction of the raucous parties described in The Great Gatsby, and it’s a must-see. There are some beautifully tender moments between DiCaprio and Mulligan, and despite what the papers will have you believe, it’s not all glitz and glamour. But mostly, it is. 

London Film Festival 2012: Sightseers

Directed by: Ben Wheatley

Verdict: Quite simply brilliant. One of the most unique films I’ve seen for a long while and genuinely laugh-out-loud funny. Alice Lowe and Steve Oram are devastatingly brilliant as creepy, loved-up murderous couple Chris and Tina. The one liners are epic, made all the better by perfect deadpan delivery. The best murder-comedy I've seen for awhile...

This dark comedy (definitely heavy on the dark side) is written by its two stars Lowe and Oram, which lends to the authentically British feel of the film, masterfully directed by Kill List director Ben Wheatley.

Chris takes girlfriend Tina to see his beloved English midlands, and before you know it the pair begins a trail of violent death and destruction – from Pencil Museum at Keswick to the Crich Tramway Museum. Beginning with a collision with a rude litterlout in their campervan (“He’s ruined the Tram Museum for me now.”), the odd couple are soon exhibiting all the signs of being Little England’s answer to Bonnie and Clyde as they soon develop a taste for murder.

For a comedy, this is pretty gory in places, and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who has a weak stomach or a particularly strong loathing of camping – but everyone else should definitely see this movie. Two murderers roaming the English countryside doesn’t sound overly funny on paper, but it’s all in the delivery. Oram and Lowe are hilarious throughout, and with lines like “he’s not a person, he’s a Daily Mail reader” what’s not to love?

At the London Film Festival’s Laugh Gala, where the film premiered, Wheatley described Sightseers as “a rom-com about two people who go on a caravanning holiday, fall in love and occasionally murder people”, while Lowe admitted the film’s gruesome subject matter was inspired by the cast’s reminiscences of real-life family holidays. Strange as this premise may seem, it’s brought to life by stunning performances and deadpan delivery at its finest.     

London Film Festival 2012: With You, Without You (Oba Nathuwa, Oba Ekka)

Directed by: Prasanna Vithanage

Verdict: Adapting Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s acclaimed 1876 short story ‘The Gentle One’ into a film set in war-torn present-day Sri Lanka doesn’t exactly sound like an easy task. Prasanna Vithanage’s screenplay and direction however, seem effortless in transporting the universal themes of love, betrayal and desperation to the other side of the world. Vithanage is undoubtedly the small island’s premier filmmaker, and this moving film showcases his talents beautifully.

Sarathsiri (Shyam Fernando) is a pawn broker who presents a cold and unsympathetic front to his poverty-stricken customers. That is, until the beautiful Selvi (masterfully played by Anjali Patil) becomes a regular customer. He follows her to her modest home and soon learns that she is betrothed to an ‘old fart’. He takes his chance, awkwardly proposes marriage and the couple are soon wed, knowing barely anything about each other. But Sarathsiri’s terrible secret is revealed one day with the visit of an old army friend. The secret will have a profound effect not only on the marriage, but on Selvi’s life.

The film is visually stunning, with production designer Rob Nevis making deft use of the dewy and untouched Sri Lankan landscape. Vithanage’s heart-warming yet gut-wrenching script flows naturally on screen and is complemented perfectly by haunting performances from the small cast and beautiful cinematography.

The civil war in Sri Lanka was a horrifying time for the island nation, but Vithanage’s work promises a certain hope to the country; this is Sri Lankan cinema at its finest and will hopefully inspire a generation of young filmmakers to follow in Vithanage’s pioneering footsteps.  

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Verdict: Forget this summer; the third instalment in Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy will be remembered as one of the most anticipated film events in history. Following the hugely successful first two Batman films, Nolan and his hugely talented ensemble of cast and crew were tasked with rounding out the series with a film that could live up to the global hype. And boy, did they. One of the greatest films I’ve ever seen, and I can’t imagine it gets much better than this.

Batman Begins surprised everyone upon release. Overnight, Christopher Nolan went from being known for mind-bending small-scale independent features like Memento, to a darling of the mainstream audiences; he became a superhero in his own right. The Dark Knight catapulted Nolan into the upper echelons of directors. Almost universally lauded as the greatest film of the last 10 years, TDK took the superhero genre to new heights by introducing a terrifying realism to Gotham. Heath Ledger’s legendary turn as The Joker will be remembered for as long as movies continue to be talked about and the sheer magnitude of the film was incredible. So how could it possibly be topped? Answer: with a topical storyline; with raw emotion of the like barely captured in mainstream cinema; with 60 minutes of stunning IMAX visual; with the interlinking of the past with the present and future for Gotham; with a wholly brilliant film, in The Dark Knight Rises.

With so much hype surrounding the film’s production, it seemed difficult to turn without hearing a new rumour about the plot, or cast, or filming location. With several TV spots, trailers and clips being seen around the world it began to seem increasingly unlikely that Nolan could spring one of his signature surprises. But what were we thinking? No one could have predicted the scope and sheer scale of this film – both in terms of visual effect and emotional power. I would urge serious cineastes to try their hardest to see The Dark Knight Rises at an IMAX cinema… it’s indescribably awesome.

Okay, so the cast.

Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman – hugely impressive and brought a previously-unseen emotional depth to the role, as Nolan honed in on the man behind the mask. The film was publicised as being more about Wayne’s story than Batman’s, a shrewd and (with hindsight) necessary way to end the trilogy.

Sir Michael Caine as Alfred – by God, the man can act. I wasn’t the only one welling up during two unbearably emotional scenes with Caine; and most of the people I was seeing the movie with were large Liverpudlian men. Alfred, though a relatively small role, has become vital to the story of Batman as Nolan tells it.

Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon – serves as a linking device not only between the beginning and the end of Rises, but indeed from the start of the Batman story to the ending point of the third film. Believable, stoic and brave, just as the Police Commissioner should be.

Tom Hardy as Bane – horrifying. In a good way. Bane was always one of my favourite villains from the original comic books, and provided a physical adversary the likes of which Bale’s Batman hasn’t faced before. With only his eyes and voice to convey emotion with, Hardy does a characteristically brilliant job at being an über-baddie.

Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle – I won’t lie, I wasn’t enthused by this casting when it was announced. But I was blown away by Hathaway’s performance. For a start, she looks pretty amazing in the catsuit. But there’s so much more to her performance than Pfeiffer-esque sex appeal. Hathaway’s Kyle is tough, smart and – importantly in my opinion – able to at least match the men blow for blow in the fight scenes.

Details of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s role as John Blake were kept pretty close to the chests of the filmmakers. Anyone who’s seen the film will understand why. A genius move by the writers, and played very well by Gordon-Levitt, Blake is integral to the fight against Bane’s citizen army.

Some big-name performances by some big names – I’m thinking of Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman and Tom Conti in particular, here – keep the film’s story ticking over.

Nolan’s prowess as a filmmaker is truly and epically demonstrated for the world to see in this film (though really, who was doubting it before?). The revolutionary theme of the film, made topical with live-shoots at the site of the Occupy protests, is certainly reminiscent of Sergei Eisenstein and Fritz Lang. Huge action sequences including the storming of a prison (can you say Bastille?), the exploding of Heinz Field (one of my all-time favourite movie scenes ever) and physical skirmishes of EPIC proportions between Bane and Batman announce The Dark Knight Rises as the greatest – and most ambitious – superhero movie of all-time. The duality of light and dark has played a big part in the Nolan/David S Goyer imagining of Gotham previously, and in this film much of the action occurred in daylight. A pretty brave move by Wally Pfister (cinematography) and Nolan, but it works hugely well in reinforcing the notion that Bruce Wayne doesn’t have any superpowers, per se. He’s just a guy, his main tool really is his money: This is a huge theme in TDKR as he battles against Bane and his army.

Following one of the greatest cinematic performances of all time by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, Hardy had a tough act to follow. Speaking for myself as always, I have to say I found Bane as terrifying as he was originally intended to be. Hardy was utterly brilliant in a supremely restricting costume and provided the perfect antithesis to Bale's controlled Batman. Their duels are among the most dynamic scenes of the film, and Hardy deserves huge accolades for his masterful turn as Bane.

Any film which includes a scene with 11000 extras is bound to be impressive. Fans of big action movies will love the colossal scale of the stunts and effects. Fans of emotional drama will love the human aspect to Wayne. Comic book fans will love the loyalty Goyer and the Nolans keep to the original comics. Film buffs will love it for the innovative use of film, lighting, sound and knowing references to some of film’s greats. In summary: this film has something for everyone. And that something is a bucket-load of AWESOME EPICNESS.

The true brilliance of this series of films lies in its universal appeal. The combination of Pfister’s outstanding cinematography, Hans Zimmer’s powerhouse score, the unforgettable script from Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, the incredible costume design by Lindy Hemming, an impossibly talented acting ensemble and Nolan’s inspired direction has made The Dark Knight trilogy a new generation’s Godfather. An emphatic must-see. It’s a work of genius.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Directed by: Marc Webb

Verdict: In this reviewer’s opinion, the reboot is superior to the Raimi/Maguire version – due in large part to great casting and good use of live-action/computer-generated Spidey action sequences. It’s a fun summer-flick and continues Webb’s impressive body of work, but somewhat unsurprisingly fails to reach the dizzying heights of Christopher Nolan’s Batman series. The plot is inevitably predictable in parts and there are some subplots that get lost in its course, but I would recommend The Amazing Spider-Man to anyone looking for a funny, action-packed film with real human (and spider) interest.

I think most people will be aware of the plot/story of this film before they see it; boy meets girl, boy gets bitten by spider, boy gets super powers, boy kisses girl, boy saves world. There is not a whole lot one can do with this story in making a Spiderman film. What Webb (how AWESOME is it that the guy directing this is literally called Webb?) and the screenwriters James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves have managed to do is breathe new life into an over-told story.

 Even given the current trend of comic-book hero movies, most people still thought rebooting the Spiderman franchise just 5 years after the last of Sam Raimi’s ‘Spiderman’ trilogy was a bold move made too soon. I think most people will think twice about this after seeing Webb’s (in my opinion) superior telling of the Spiderman legend. Not only is Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker more likeable and believable as a super-hero than Tobey Maguire’s version (sorry Tobes), but 2012’s backstory to the super powers is more complex, and therefore less patronising to the audience.

The opening sequence of the film sees Peter as a young child discovering his father’s study broken into. A few surreptitious shots of spider-related paraphernalia ensure we’re all aware Peter’s dad has a huge impact on what’s to happen to our boy later on. Peter is shipped off to Aunt May and Uncle Ben and later discovers his father was working for OsCorp on regenerating cells and limbs. This eventually leads to the inevitable accidental radio-active spider bite and the manifestation of Peter’s spider powers.

 All that is a long-winded way of saying that in Webb’s version, there’s a bit more mystery, intrigue and scientific credibility. For me however, the gripping sub-plot of Peter’s parents is one of the film’s major downfalls. Their disappearance is barely touched upon after Peter becomes the titular Spider-Man. I mean, I get it; if I could suddenly swing across New York on a regular basis I would probably be a wee bit distracted too. But… it was very much a film of two halves: the first had Peter Parker (lonely, tortured boy looking for answers) and the second had Peter Parker (newly confident Spiderman with sudden lack of regard for family mysteries and a penchant for high-speed action sequences).


Are the Parkers dead? Did Peter somehow cause their death? Who broke into the study? These are clearly questions that will eventually be answered, but could perhaps have been broached a little further. I could probably let this point go, if it weren’t for the further untied ends of the search for Uncle Ben’s killer and the mystery of Norman Osborn’s fatal disease. Webb’s inclusion of the post-credits scene between The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) and *insert guess as to who the other person is here* is a clear statement of intent for a sequel, in which we can only hope these issues will all be happily resolved.

Perhaps, even, the mysterious figure in the prison cell at the end is Peter's father??? Yeah okay, I'll save my sleuthing for Twitter. But despite the minor issues with subplot, the film is really well done. The scenes depicting Parker’s transition to Spiderman in particular lend the film humility, comedy and entertainment value.

The acting ensemble of Garfield, Ifans and Emma Stone is great casting and the trio provide great acting to amplify a well written and directed film. The real-life romance between Garfield and Stone can only help the love story between Peter and Gwen Stacey that is supposed to be at the heart of the story. The supporting cast of Sally Fields, Martin Sheen and Denis Leary are also hugely believable and give great performances. And of course, there’s the Marvel stalwart that is a hilarious Stan Lee cameo – this time as a librarian oblivious to the end-of-world destruction going on around him.

The special effects were virtually flawless and the scenes where ol’ Spidey is called into action were breath-takingly stunning. The editing throughout and James Horner’s score also contributed to The Amazing Spider-Man being truly an amazing, family-friendly film.

 A great start to what will hopefully be one of the great super-hero film trilogies.

Clue (1985)

Directed by: Jonathan Lynn

Verdict: Utterly, utterly silly spoof murder mystery. Tim Curry steals the show as the neurotic and criminal (?) ‘butler’ Wadsworth. I’ve seen this several times now and it never fails to make me laugh – it’s guiltless fun, stupid humour and is, in a cheap kind of way, pretty clever really.

Set in 1954 against the back-drop of McCarthyism and its influence in Hollywood, a group of guests are drawn together in a mysterious, secluded mansion. The whole film is an homage to the board game Clue (Cluedo), and as such the characters are appropriately named Miss Scarlet, Colonel Mustard, Professor Plum et al. My personal favourite character name is Mr Boddy, who becomes one of the central mysteries as various characters start dropping like flies at the hands of a murderer in the house.

Curry is a sensation in his dead-pan role as the butler Wadsworth, who helpfully explains everything to the deranged house guests. Each character contributes to the hilarity in this hair-brained comedy that makes the most of slap-stick and verbal comedy. Lesley Ann Warren, Madeline Kahn, Martin Mull and Michael McKean all provide frequent moments of comedy as the group search for the killer in their midst.
With plenty of topical references (‘Communism was just a red-herring’ and ‘Mr Hoover is on everyone else’s phone, why shouldn’t he be in mine?’) for me, this comedy always stays just on the right side of the smart-stupid line.

This is what I personally call a feel-good movie. Despite the many murders and the quite disturbing scene in which Mrs White spends a good minute kissing a corpse (who has been killed twice, no less), this film never fails to make me happy. It’s one for a rainy afternoon, and I think it’s a gem.

The Woman in Black (2012)

Directed by: James Watkins

Verdict: What the Woman in Black lacks in substance it tries to make up in scares. Lauded as Daniel Radcliffe’s big foray into the non-Harry Potter world, for me his performance fell a little flat and the real star of this film was the haunted house at the centre of this spooky tale. The film is carried rather too much by its aesthetics, sound and some chilling performances by the broad supporting cast. In my opinion the film could have been better served with a leading man who packs a little more punch.

It’s a sad thing, but I don’t think Daniel Radcliffe will ever shake the ‘boy who lived’ label. I hate to be so harsh on the star of the films which illuminated my childhood, but I don’t think Radcliffe is likely to be taken seriously as a thespian – not on the basis of his performance as Arthur Kipps anyway. For me, Radcliffe’s Kipps is unlikeable and in a film which is basically the story of him vs. the titular woman likeability and screen presence are key. And it just seems implausible to me that he could be the father of a four year-old-son and be grieving the loss of his wife… I mean, he’s just a student wizard.

Despite the narrative focus on Kipps, the stand-out of this film us undoubtedly the diegetic setting. The haunted house is undeniably spooky, with countless small touches and details making it utterly convincing. The colouring of the small town terrorised by the woman in black is bleak, grim; and with the tour de force collective performance of the supporting cast serves its purpose as a gripping plot thickener.

Director Watkins achieves a visually-spectacular scare-fest with this film, but I can’t help feeling this film could have been a lot better.