The Great Gatsby Review

by Mike Holtz, WeWatchedAMovie

Directed By: Baz Luhrmann (Romeo + Juliet)

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Departed), Joel Edgerton (Warrior), Tobey Maguire (Spiderman) and Carey Mulligan (Drive)

I have never read The Great Gatsby nor watched the original film. That, old sport, means a clean slate and an un-biased opinion (some may say an ill informed opinion but you needn’t bother your mind with such nonsense). For those of you that have experienced none of the above; Gatsby is about a mysterious man named Jay Gatsby (DiCaprio) who for unknown reasons throws insanely lavish parties that would make even Kanye West blush. When Nick Carraway (Maguire), a far from rich ex-writer moves in next door he is strangely befriended by Gatsby who has a grand request of him involving a love from the past. What follows is a tragic yet epic story of obsession, infidelity and greed from the top of the world centered around an intoxicating woman named Daisy (Mulligan).

Gatsby starts off with a bang, jumping from one grandiose landscape to the next. Every frame of the film is packed with an impressively stylish gleam that makes even the slow moments worth watching. From the wide shots of the city to the intimate scenes inside Gatsby’s parties, every inch of the film is awe inspiring. It somehow maintains a smooth and sleek look as it barrages us with special effects and surreal settings. The 3D effect adds several layers of depth to an already ambitious scenery and is definitely worth the ticket price.

The acting comes second to the spectacle of Gatsby, but in a film this robust that doesn’t mean a thing. DiCaprio, as Gatsby, has the ability to go from expressing deep feelings without saying a word to being openly infuriated and on the brink of insanity in an instant. He goes from mysterious to vulnerably honest several times with each emotion or front his character puts on. DiCaprio makes it work. Each character has their own secret intentions at one point or another and the actors do a great job not letting us in on their secrets until the appropriate time. Across the board the performances in Gatsby are spot on. Maguire is solid and fits the role he was chosen for well. Mulligan is enchanting enough to lead us in whatever direction her character wants us to go. Joel Edgerton is impressive as ever as Daisy’s brash husband Tom Buchanan and truly rivals DiCaprio at moments. The two are best when on screen together and in several intense scenes are able to create the kind of combustible atmosphere worth sitting up for.

The first act in Gatsby features the temptations of the lifestyles lived by Gatsby and those around him and are accompanied with an oddly fitting soundtrack of modern hip hop. This works surprisingly well and adds another layer of originality and style to a film already brimming with interest. The parties rage and the self indulgence mounts making for a pretty fun time for the audience. As things ultimately move into more serious territory and the characters intentions are fleshed out Gatsby loses a bit of its wonder.  The fast pace seems to drop to a dark crawl and brings the film back down to earth a little too soon. The writing still is quite impassioned and though we find ourselves missing the extravagance; eventually the character development takes hold and brings us back in.

As the rollercoaster comes to a close in the films final act there is a sense that what is happening should feel more important than it does. Almost as if callous from the multiple character twists that came before, the emotion that seems so prevalent has suddenly gone missing. Gatsby still does get the job. Wowing us with visual ambition and intense character interaction, the polished anarchy of Gatsby is a memorable movie experience that may not move you emotionally but it will entertain you endlessly.

8.5/10

The post “The Great Gatsby” Review – by Mike Holtz appeared first on We Live Film.

Star Trek Into Darkness Review

by Daniel Rester

            J.J. Abrams’ 2009 update of Star Trek revitalized the film series, based on the series of the same name created by Gene Roddenberry. The director somehow found a way to satisfy (most) Trekkies and newcomers — providing key Trek ideas whilst also giving the series a new sense of discovery and making it accessible to non-diehards. Now, following the 2009 Trek, comes Abrams’ next entry: Star Trek Into Darkness.  

            Darkness brings back Chris Pine (as James Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (as Spock), along with the rest of the stellar cast. Joining them this time is the popular British actor Benedict Cumberbatch. Cumberbatch is the latest Brit to join the British-actors-playing-all-bad-guys-nowadays club (just take a look at a lot of recent blockbusters). He stars as John Harrison, a mysterious fellow who gives the crew of the Enterprise a run for their money – and proves to be a more interesting villain than Nero (Eric Bana) in the previous film. Harrison is a terrorist with a past and a plan, destroying buildings on Earth that connect to Starfleet. After Harrison flees to Kronos (the home world of the Klingons), it is up to Kirk and his crew to track him down. I’ll stop right there so as to not spoil anything.

            Darkness lacks much of the sense of newness and fresh awe that marked the 2009 reboot. That said, the sequel is still an amazing film – and perhaps even better. After opening with a colorful and slam-bang action sequence, the film quickly establishes an interesting story that connects to Starfleet Command and provides a few twists and turns (some predictable, others surprising). It also provides traction by having a terrific villain and keeping the core relationships in a developmental stage. Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof’s (all previous collaborators with Abrams) script is smart in such a way. It also has a lot of humorous and emotional moments.

            Such moments are perfectly delivered by a game cast. Pine is still solid as the risk-taking Kirk, making him both hot-tempered and human. Quinto is again remarkable as Spock, still showing the inner conflict that the half-Vulcan has. Even with a straight face most of the time, Quinto allows audiences to see things through eye glances and movements; it’s a great performance. The character does become a bit too superhuman at some moments, but they are passable.

The rest of the Enterprise group is also pleasing. Simon Pegg (as Scotty) and Anton Yelchin (as Chekov) are pretty accent-heavy at times, but do well-enough. And Alice Eve (as newcomer-character Carol) and Zoe Saldana (as Uhura) provide some good female power to the screen. The best of the supporting players for the Enterprise, though, are John Cho (as Sulu) and Karl Urban (as Bones). This is especially true of Urban, who delivers deadpan humor expertly. (Bruce Greenwood and Peter Weller are also welcome as two Starfleet admirals.).    

            Cumberbatch is very entertaining and nearly scene-steals as Harrison. The actor delivers the right amount of coldness to the villainous character, never going over-the-top (well, almost) but instead often underplaying to great effect. He has piercing looks and a deep and pronounced voice, adding to the flavor of the performance. This is once again a case where a memorable villain can add a lot to a film — as Harrison is no cookie-cutter villain, but more on the iconic side.

            Abrams again handles everything with true skill. The man is really a dynamo when it comes to both telling a story and presenting things visually. Never leaving qualities of the script or actors behind, Abrams provides a breakneck pace and plenty of going-ons. The director too often emphasizes the life-or-death punctuation marks in scenes, but such a move is allowable because he also never lets the film ever be boring. Abrams — aided immeasurably by cinematographer Daniel Mindel, production designer Scott Chamblis, and editors Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey — delivers a diegesis and form that are both consistently sleek and exciting, providing a number of standout action scenes along the way (including a human “skydive” between two spaceships and a breathless hand-to-hand fight). The visual effects, makeup, and costume contributors all deserve credit for helping add so much to the film as well, as does Michael Giacchino for once again adding a soaring music score to the mix. (The 3D really isn’t bad, either.).

I’m no Trekkie by any means, having only seen bits and pieces of the show and movies. So, I can’t really say how the 2009 Trek or Darkness fully compares to the past material; talk to a Trekker for that. I’ve heard that Abrams has made some mistakes and has alienated some fans with his new films. But he also pleased many others – so he obviously hasn’t committed a full betrayal. Because of this, I see both films as being successful as a whole, inviting everyone to the fun. And don’t miss out on that fun, either, because Trek was a great reboot and it is now joined by a great sequel.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 4 stars (Grade Equivalent for Me: A-).

The post “Star Trek Into Darkness” Review – by Daniel Rester appeared first on We Live Film.

The post “Fast and Furious 6″ Early Video Review – by The Schmoes Know appeared first on We Live Film.

Star Trek Into Darkness Review

by Laurie Coker

Not every film released warrants me driving over 40 miles round trip for a 9:00 PM screening (I have done such for some real stinkers), but a Star Trek movie does fuel my desire, if not my car. Since my youth, I religiously watched the first-run series with a good friend and neighbor of mine. While she was far more of a Trekkie than I,  I have followed all the films since. Star Trek Into Darkness reunites the cast (2009) of the Starship Enterprise for a rip-roaring, action-packed, special effects, 3D extravaganza!

When the film opens we see two figures, who turn out to be Kirk (Chris Prine) and Bones (Karl Urban), running frantically through a forest of red, weeping-willow type trees, pursued by a tribe of primitive-looking natives with spears. Meanwhile, Spock (Jeremy Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and Sulu (John Cho) attempt to solidify an explosive volcano – acts that nearly kill Spock and break protocol and orders from Starfleet Command. Colonel Pike (Bruce Greenwood), the man responsible for Kirk’s command of the Enterprise, reams out Kirk and First Officer Spock, and then reassigns one and demotes the other. However, Kirk once again finds himself in charge of his beloved airship, after an attack on the highest Starfleet officers and the death of Pike, putting him back at the helm and in hot pursuit of a brutal criminal, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) and I loved – L-O-V-E-D watching it.

Directed by J.J. Abrams and written by Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci, Star Trek: Into Darkness is a non-stop thrill ride, which nicely blends old school Trek humor and characters with new faces and amazingly impressive technology and visual effects. My guest, ironically a fan of films like Kill Bill and Django Unchained, complained that Abrams goes over-the-top with the explosions, death, and mayhem, but I disagree. Visually, even though I am beginning to utterly loath 3D, the film astounds!

Simon Pegg (Scotty) and Anton Yeltzin (Chekov) also return and provide, along with Bones and the natural rapport between Spock and Kirk, delightful humor and many of the film’s entertaining homage moments – to both the earlier film series and the original television show. This blend of old with new serves a greater purpose in a film with dark (it is after all into darkness) emotional undertones.

Cumberbatch, perhaps best known as the titular Sherlock in the television series of the same name, plays Harrison (aka Kahn) with vicious vigor, reminiscent of Alan Rickman in the first Die Hard. He seethes sinister and ruthlessness. Though clenched teeth and burning eyes, he challenges Kirk and his crew vehemently.  He, however, is not Kirk’s sole nemesis (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn) and this provides for several twists and the inclusion of a character from a previous Star Trek film – Science Officer Dr Carol Marcus, whose father (Peter Weller) commands Starfleet. A brief cameo, by Leonard Nimoy (Spock Prime) and a tribble (remember the trouble?) round out the film’s tribute to past. 

For some, parts of Star Trek Into Darkness might feel slow, but not to me. In fact, the only moment where I squirmed came during a fist fight in act three that went on like a boxing match in a Rocky film. Hardcore Trekkies might scoff at some if not all Abram and crew’s efforts, but poo-poo on that. I am all about extreme entertainment, when it comes to this genre, and I am an old school, new school and all the films in between fan! None are perfect, but fun is fun. Abrams and crew deliver a film worth a long trek, missing sleep and full box office prices. I am placing an A- in my book – it’s a wild ride!

The post “Star Trek Into Darkness” Review – by Laurie Coker appeared first on We Live Film.

The post “Star Trek” Movie Series Reviews – by Kevin Morrison and Guests appeared first on We Live Film.

“Old dead white guys – that’s all we read!” These words have come from countless students of mine over the past 25 years. While we have worked to change that, some “old white guys,” will always be on high school reading lists. Thousands of teens across the nation read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and for decades their teachers have capped off the unit with a film version of The Great Gatsby starring Robert Redford. Well, move over Redford, DiCaprio and Baz Luhrmann bring us a Gatsby to tantalize and titillate our senses. While Luhrmann makes some odd and aggravating changes to Fitzgerald’s story, he creates a wild, emotionally charged, visually stunning affair that manages to engage, in spite of flaws.

In Luhrmann’s version, Nick Caraway (Toby McGuire) opens the story, as does Fitzgerald’s novel, but Luhrmann puts Nick in an asylum, suffering from the ill-effects of partying too hard and caring too much. At the encouragement of his doctor, Nick pens the tale of Jay Gatsby (DiCaprio), a daring dreamer – a man so in love with a woman (Daisy – Carey Mulligan), he drags himself from rags to riches just have her. He’s new money and she’s married to old, so when the two worlds collide, there is a wake of disaster, with Nick and others dragged along for a raucous ride of decadence, deceit and death.

I taught the novel for so many years, I know the story better than I care to, so I found subtle changes made by Luhrmann somewhat distracting, but not nearly as distracting as the hodgepodge of accents attempted and muddled by his cast. I am a bit of a stickler for accents and I didn’t get why everyone, save a few, often sounded Southern. Even DiCaprio struggled at first to find Gatsby’s (a man born in Nebraska) voice. Still, he’s good, especially when it comes to expressing Gatsby’s emotions. While I love Redford, he simply doesn’t have the affecting and expressive range to capture the depth of Fitzgerald’s complex character and DiCaprio does.

With Luhrmann doing what he does visually, strength in his leads is vital, because they have to play against a whirlwind, nay, a tornado of flashy, colorful, wild and wonderful imagery and they manage just fine, especially the men. Australian Joel Edgerton gives us a delightfully despicable Tom Buchanan. I found him strong, fascinating and memorable. Buchanan is a womanizing man, making Daisy suffer through countless affairs – the latest with Myrtle (an underused and perhaps miscast Isla Fisher) the wife of a dirt poor gas station owner and mechanic, Wilson (Jason Clark). The pair lives in the “valley of ashes,” a dismal place, which Luhrmann breathes extraordinary life into from the perfect prose of Fitzgerald. His vision depicts Fitzgerald’s to the letter. True to its title, the valley is a dark contrast to the extravagance of the East and West Eggs of New York where Gatsby and the others reside.

From his dock, Gatsby watches the green light across the bay, dreaming of Daisy, who until Nick her cousin, sets up a rendezvous at his interesting little cottage set in the woods close to Gatsby’s extravagant castle-like abode, thinks Gatsby and their former connection is lost and in the past. The scene in which the two meet feels and looks pleasantly hopeful and DiCaprio delights as he fumbles through this not so chance meeting. Mulligan is oh so pretty and breathy as she speaks and while I wasn’t overwhelmed by her performance I wasn’t underwhelmed either. McGuire manages an innocence in Nick that contrasts greatly to Luhrmann’s decision to place him in an nut house to frame the story.

Luhrmann does at times capture the essence of Fitzgerald’s incredible symbolism, making many, many aspects of his version extremely useful and enjoyable for understanding that aspect of the story, but also quite overwhelming for viewers. He makes some irritating changes – like having Meyer Woldsheim (a shady Jewish businessman) played by a clearly Indian actor, not having Gatsby’s father attend his son’s funeral, instead of just Nick, limiting Jordan Baker, the golf pro and Myrtle Wilson to mere smatterings of screen time. But for me, a lover of the novel, this little things bent or dropped by Luhrmann – like accents, time in key aspects of Myrtle’s character, making Gatsby’s house a castle and putting Nick in a psychiatric hospital and don’t get me started on the music. Still the film held my interest for most of the time, so from me it earns a B-. Luhrmann positively puts on a show.

The post “The Great Gatsby” Review – by Laurie Coker appeared first on We Live Film.

Broken people make for extremely interesting stories to watch. Like a train wreck, their lives, dysfunctional and desperate, are difficult to turn away from. Colin Firth and Emily Blunt star in Arthur Newman, and their powerful performances make up for a dreary tale, one with little going for it and an ending that leaves one asking “so what?”

Firth plays Wallace Avery who, tired of his life, walks away from and assumes a new identity, Arthur Newman. Once working in a dead end job, he transforms himself into a “golf pro” and he embarks on a road trip to hopes of a new job miles away in Terre Haute, Indiana – away from a girlfriend Mina (Anne Heche) , an ex-wife and his teenage son who seems to despise him. He encounters Mike (Blunt), a mess of a woman on a journey of her own. Together they break into houses, role play and while there, all the while traveling cross country and staying in hotels (where Mike won’t even stay in the room Wallace pays separately for). It’s all wild & weird and except for the lead actors, not all that interesting.

Once I got past his Midwestern accent I fell into trying to understand Firth’s character and his motivation. The connection between the Arthur and Mike is perplexing – he is subdued and nearly nerdy and she is audacious and criminal. I never felt any chemistry between them either. There are some intriguing moments when the pair break into houses and assume personas- even making love as “other people”, but these moments are played out mainly in montage-like flashes.

Director and writer Dante Ariola and Becky Johnston don’t seem to really know what to do with their characters, especially those connected to them (not on the journey. None of them are truly an integral part of the story. Mina (and as a result Heche) is virtually worthless in terms of plot, and her character is almost as strange and screwed up as the leads, if not more so. Additionally, we follow Wallace’s son and realize he hates his father, but we are not really sure why. The boy and Mina have a few odd (non-sexual) encounters, but they and their characters go nowhere.

If ever there was an exercise in futility, it is this film – it and its characters make so sense. This is not to say that Firth and Blunt aren’t worth watching, because they do offers strong performances. They I enjoyed watching, but Ariola and Johnston’s pay off is, as my friend put it, “like one big shrug.” I couldn’t agree more – Meh. We simply do not care about the characters or their story. I suppose as I watched I might have tried harder to get into the metaphorical and physical journey of Mike and Wallace/Arthur, but nothing about them inspired me to. I feel certain Johnston and Ariola knew where they were going when they began, they just never truly arrive.

Because of Firth and Blunt and in spite of Heche and the others, Arthur Newman is not a complete disaster, but I am guessing it is an Indy film that will make it way to DVD pretty quickly. I am placing a C- in my grade book. I wish I could give higher, but, if I am being honest, it probably deserves lower.

The post “Arthur Newman” Review – by Laurie Coker appeared first on We Live Film.

The Great Gatsby

Plot: In the 1920s, a man finds himself intrigued by his neighbor — a mysterious millionaire with a past. 

Director: Baz Luhrmann. 

Writers: Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce. 

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joel Edgerton, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, and Isla Fisher. 

Genres: Drama, Romance.

Running Time: 2 hours and 22 minutes.

U.S. Release Date: May 10th, 2013.

MPAA Rating: PG-13.

WE LIVE FILM GRADE AVERAGE: C+/B- (even split)

AMOUNT OF REVIEWS IN THE GRADE BOOK: 14

(Lowest Grade Given to the Film: F, Highest Grade Given to the Film: B+)

SUMMARY OF THOUGHTS: Baz Luhrmann’s film adaptation is faithful to the novel and visually colorful, but the final results are mostly hollow — lacking a human touch. However, Leonardo DiCaprio and Joel Edgerton give strong performances.

REVIEWS:

• Gabriel Alcantara (Big Gabe):

Grade: C

I don’t think I’ll ever be a fan of Spaz, I mean… Baz Luhrmann, but this film was more tolerable than his previous works. Its finest features are another great performance by Leonardo DiCaprio and lots of pretty visuals. Sadly, The Great Gatsby just isn’t my kind of film. I didn’t care about the events that took place and I felt no connection to any of it. The experience wasn’t as enchanting as it was meant to be.

• Ryan Fecskovics:

Grade: C+

A very stylized but paper-thin film overall. The acting was quite boring and at times too much. But, Elizabeth Debecki, who plays Jordan, does a phenomenal job in her very small but crucial role. The music was “cool” but I wasn’t that impressed. It was very interesting to see the film in 3D, but I would not recommend it. Overall, anyone who likes the novel should see the film. But if you haven’t read the novel, I really would advise you to not see the film.

• Chad Gleason (MovieManCHAD):

Grade: B-

The production value and costume design is amazing and the only true reason to see this film! The acting is good too, but everything else felt a little soulless and distant. I just wish I was more emotionally connected to it, like I was with the first three films from Director Baz Luhrmann!

• Mike Holtz (WeWatchedAMovie):

Grade: B+
A romance movie for people with ADD. It’s a constant assault of crafty style and grandiose landscapes, with strong performances and writing to back it up. Even if it doesn’t land emotionally as much as it thinks it does, Gatsby is as chaotic as it is refined, old sport.

• Steven Hunt:

Grade: B

An enjoyable adaptation of a book I barely remember. I’ve always liked Baz Luhrmann and here I thought his style worked really well for the movie — especially with the party scenes. All of the acting is good, but Leo and Joel Edgerton are the standouts. The problems were that the music used didn’t fit in the movie and I didn’t care for any character in the movie. Recommended, but not an amazing movie.

• John Maffeo:

Grade: C

Essentially, this is an exemplified example of “style over substance.” Yes, it looks vibrant and distinct visually, but surprisingly the story is overlooked for the most part. From the halfway mark forward, the story takes the center stage and the film becomes engaging. However, the first act’s visuals are overly-obnoxious and — to add to the nonsensical whim — the musical choices didn’t work. The Great Gatsby is not a bad film by any means, but it’s obviously drawing itself to a younger demographic. I’d call it a high guilty pleasure!

• Zachary S. Marsh:

Grade: B

The story drags a little bit and there’s a lack of presence from certain characters in the film, but other than that this movie is an exhilarating and stellar acid trip for the first 45 minutes — with a mixture of modern music and amazing 3D. But then it slows down for the rest of it and becomes a deep, fascinating, well-acted, and well-directed movie that’s definitely worth seeing, especially in 3D.

• Steven Merced (Geeked Out):

Grade: B+

The Great Gatsby is one of those rare films that makes me completely do a 180 after seeing it. What I mean is that when initially seeing the movie trailer I was very worried about the film and was not sure if the directing choice was best for the source material. With amazing cinematography and spectacular acting, the film delivers something outstanding with very much depth. Now in no way am I saying that the film was perfect, and it’s understandable and justified why some will be less than pleased with the outcome. Due to its in-your-face green screen special effects and a distracting score filled with a soundtrack not fitting the time period, some viewers may be pushed away. With that said, for me, although those choices were diverting, the overall film was very satisfying.

• Kevin Morrison:

Grade: B+
While some of the style choices are questionable, the performances are very good and it is very true to the source material. Fans of the novel will not be disappointed and it may surprise those dragged to go see it! While it’s not all perfect, there’s greatness within it.

• Austin Putnam:

Grade: C

A very faithful adaption of an amazing novel. Great acting from Leonardo DiCaprio and Joel Edgerton. It’s a great film to look at, but the style of the film got in the way of what mattered the most…the emotion of the novel. The Great Gatsby majorly suffers from a case of style-over-substance.

• Daniel Rester:

Grade: B-

Baz Luhrmann’s film is flashy and mostly-artificial, lacking a strong human core. However, Leonardo DiCaprio and the apartment scene are magnificent. The results are really a mixed bag.

• Christian Ruvalcaba:

Grade: B

Though it took me awhile to naturally get invested into the story, the overall payoff of the movie came to me as a surprise. Skeptical about the film before going in, I highly enjoyed most of the performances, the adaptation of the book, as well as some of the visuals. Of course, I do think some of the visuals interfered with some of the storytelling — and so did the soundtrack, which I felt did not fit well with the film. However, fans of the great American novel will be pleased that this adaptation is a total satisfaction.

• Joseph Stampher:

Grade: F

It fails at every level of filmmaking. The soundtrack does not understand when to be diegetic or not, when to be modern or period, or when to enhance the mood or to subvert it. The lighting is harsh, unnatural, and unflattering. The focus is too shallow to take in the backgrounds or costumes — which to many are the film’s only saving grace. The cuts are so quick and jumpy that the story gets butchered and ground up before it can be taken in. Direction and production appear to consist of only “does it look good, or how can we make this look like it cost a lot of money?” It winds up being the very thing the novel mocks: vapid, shallow, and surface without substance.

• Delon Villanueva:

Grade: C+

A film that’s entertaining enough to cover up its very significant problems. It has the visual spectacle we’ve come to expect from director Baz Luhrmann, and the performances are top-notch, but as much as the movie desperately wants its own unique interpretation of the source material…it just doesn’t really work. While there are some great filmmaking moments here and there, Luhrmann’s directing and visual style can take away from the story’s messages and themes when he’s not careful. Still, the movie is worth watching for aesthetic value, even if the movie itself isn’t exactly good.

The post The Grade Book: “The Great Gatsby” appeared first on We Live Film.

Oblivion Review

by Daniel Rester

             Not every science fiction film needs to be either an amazing groundbreaker like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) or a dopey action-fest like Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011). In fact, many get caught in the area between the great and the not-so-great – lost in the stars and often less-remembered than the masterpieces or the train wrecks. Though many sci-fi pictures such as those described are released nowadays and often tossed to the side, some are actually quite entertaining and above “the average.” One new example of this is Oblivion.

            Oblivion stars Tom Cruise as Jack Harper, a repairman who must fix drones on Earth in the year 2077. Nearly sixty years earlier, the destruction of the Earth’s moon (which caused many natural disasters) and the invasion of Scavs (aliens) caused the planet to become desolate. The humans won, but the planet was ruined. Now Harper and his partner, Victoria Olsen (Andrea Riseborough), work with the drones to secure machines that mine the last of Earth’s resources. The resources are then sent to the Tet, a massive space station where the rest of the surviving humans live. But Harper soon begins dreaming of strange things and starts questioning he and Victoria’s mission.

            Based on the graphic novel by Joseph Kosinski, the film is directed by Kosinski himself. However, writing credits go to Kosinski, William Monahan, Karl Gajdusek, and Michael Arndt. With Kosinski being a directorial talent with visuals (he directed TRON: Legacy (2010)) and Oscar-winners Monahan and Arndt helping with the script, Oblivion did have the workings to be a great sci-fi film. Instead it is an enjoyable one that falls in that middle area because of one big reason: it relies too heavily on past sci-fi material.

            I’m all for some classy homage, but Kosinski and team seem to go beyond that and just commit “cinematic theft” at times. Instead of just being meta and commenting on past sci-fi films (like The Cabin in the Woods (2012) did for horror films), Kosinski’s Oblivion uses story and visual references in abundance and seemingly to support his own ideas as if they were highly original.  

The film actually does have an interesting premise and a few nifty surprises, but as a whole it seems more like a big beast made up of the DNA from other films. During my viewing, I noticed things in Oblivion that were similar to ideas or visuals from the following films: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Moon (2009), Blade Runner (1982), Inception (2010), Predator (1987), Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981), The Planet of the Apes (1968), Wall-E (2008), The Matrix (1999), Prometheus (2012), Total Recall (1990), and Star Wars (1977). Take a breath. I’m sure those probably aren’t all of the films, either.

Even though Kosinski makes the mistake of mixing so many past film elements together without commenting on them much further, the results of such a derivative blend are somehow rendered as more entertaining than frustrating. Perhaps it’s because Kosinski dared to touch on so many films at once. Don’t get me wrong, it is wrong that he pretty much took parts of other movies and made them his own. However, the writers and director seem to have enthusiasm for their premise and movie-mixings and deliver just enough exciting/original turns to keep things fun.

            Oblivion may not fully work on the story level (though I liked how it refreshingly focused on human drama more than action scenes or mind-bending turns), but it has a lot of other things going for it. First off, the visual effects are stunning. With the aid of production designer Darren Gilford and an army of visual effects and art direction people, Kosinski establishes a magnificent vision that expertly displays environments and presents nice variations of blues, whites, and grays. And it is obvious that Kosinski spent a lot of time deciding how his characters would interact with such a desolate but striking world — and it pays off.

All of this is made even better by the work of cinematographer Claudio Miranda (who just won an Oscar for Life of Pi (2012)). Miranda’s photography here is top-notch, capturing the richness of Kosinski’s world so that it is sleek and eye-filling – with amazing attention to light and wide-angle shots. He really knows how to make things so smooth so as to never make the action or visuals distracting (kudos also to Editor Richard Francis-Bruce for never trying to make things too rapid or flashy).

            The visual majesty is paired with a terrific soundtrack as well. Much of the score, by electronic/shoegaze group M83, pulsates with tunes that embrace both techno-like sounds and Hans Zimmer-like ones. The title song is particularly affecting, with Susanne Sundfor belting out vocals against M83’s slick sounds.

            Also adding to the film’s strength are the performances. Cruise once again proves his star-worth by throwing himself into his role both dramatically and physically. It isn’t a powerhouse performance, but it is an excellent one. Riseborough is also very good as Victoria – who does a lot with her eyes. Also joining the team are Olga Kurylenko (whose character plays a big part in the second half), Morgan Freeman, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, and Melissa Leo, who all give adequate performances for what they are given.

            Oblivion isn’t good enough to break into the “great” section of sci-fi affairs, stuck in that mid-section where many will forget about it in the future. It will also piss off some people because of its constant uses of other sci-fi material. While that is a big problem with the film, I still somehow found Oblivion to be highly entertaining and somewhat absorbing – with it getting even better the more I thought about it. It’s a film that just clicked with my sci-fi tastes, I guess. The film won’t rank high for everyone, but it has enough splendors to make it a worthwhile view for anyone in the mood for something like it.   

Rating: 3 out of 4 stars (Grade Equivalent for Me: B+).

The post “Oblivion” Review – by Daniel Rester appeared first on We Live Film.

Before Midnight Review

by Laurie Coker

While it is not necessarily vital to have seen the first two films, as this one stands along, I recommend it. Regardless, when the film opens we find American novelist Jesse (Hawke), now divorced and living in Paris with Celine (Delpy), traveling with their twin daughters (young Jennifer and Charlotte Prior) through the gorgeous Greek countryside on the final day of a six week long family vacation, where they spent time at a writer colleague’s guest house on Greece’s Southern Peloponnese peninsula. The trip included Jesse’s teenage son Hank (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) and we are moved as we watch Jesse makes one final effort to connect with his obviously disinterested son, but the scene brings us closer to understanding our characters.

Hawke and Delpy play Celine and Jesse realistically. They hide nothing and give away everything – emotion, energy and even wrinkles. They are like all of us in so many ways and with that we can easily connect to their angst, shortcomings and desires. Celine, in true from, banters back and forth with the more reserved and passive Jesse and we learn how the relationship works in spite of obvious character differences. It is easy to connect and to find comfort in this intriguing pair. And when they join friends, three more couples in varying stages of relationships, at an alfresco dinner, we are privy to even more insight into life and love. The characters range in age (like multiple generations in a family), and their musings about life, literature, love, sex, sexual relations in the age of social media, differences between men and women, and more, in another directors or other writers’ hands, might be dull. But this cast, this director and this script are the perfect combination for witty, charming and reflective entertainment.

In spite of everything and the obvious blissful vacation, Jesse and Celine, given one night alone, go at each other, ruining a perfect opportunity to reconnect as a couple and not as parents or paramours. This, too, feels familiar and although Celine and Jesse are perhaps even more passionate than most, we get it – we understand why they feel the need to mess up all that is good. I won’t spoil the ending, but will say, in one night, when they could connect intimately in a way their story had not yet allowed, they manage to go full-blown, accusatory angry at each other and we are in the wake.

Narratives as fresh as this one don’t come around as often as I’d like. I saw Before Midnight as part of SXSW and it is one of my favorites. Linklater, Delpy and Hawke know human nature and surround themselves with splendid settings and droll characters, making it a pleasing romp (helmets and pads necessary) through love and relationships. It earns an A in my grade book.

The post “Before Midnight” Review – by Laurie Coker appeared first on We Live Film.