Tag Archives: adaptation

The Great Gatsby [2013] The Great Gatsby [2013] 4 star

May 17th, 2013 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

“Do you think it’s too much?”
“I think it’s what you want.”

I’ll be honest – I had such high expectations for this movie I kind of had to be numb to them. Baz Luhrmann has been one of my favourite directors for a long time now and I didn’t even want the fear of a letdown. Though none of them struck me as anything special the first time round (some of them, actually, irritated the heck out of me), I’ve come to view every one of his 4 previous features as a pretty unbroken chain of perfection.

Some people found the idea of him doing The Great Gatsby – in 3D, no less – was a bizarre move. I immediately thought it sounded perfect. Luhrmann has always – even when working in a low budget with his first, Strictly Ballroom – revelled in excess. “But Gatsby isn’t about excess! It’s about the folly of excess!” I’ve heard some cry. Yes. But you have to show the excess in order to criticise it, and Luhrmann does just that, as only Luhrmann can – did anyone think the garish design in Strictly made that world look desirable? If the image of Gatsby alone in his coffin with none of his party “friends” around at the bitter end doesn’t do it for you, I don’t know what to think.

At first I feared perhaps the whole thing was too Luhrmann, with particular reference to Moulin Rouge. Nick is a single writer who stumbles into this world of opulence, our representative, just like Christian in Moulin Rouge, the camera swooping through “oldefied” New York streets, and into Gatsby’s party mansion, extraordinarily similar to our introduction to the famed Paris club in 2001.

But as the movie settled into its own thing, I thought maybe this familiar entry point was sort of deliberate. I read “The Great Gatsby” as a teenager at school and its been sort of tainted for me ever since. At the time I struggled to understand it at all – I’m sure less to do with the book’s quality (it’s quite beloved, don’t you know…) than a teaching method that gave me no way in to the material. I passed whatever exams that quizzed me on it, I guess, but I was only ever regurgitating what I’d been told. I can honestly say that till I saw the last moments of this movie, though I could’ve told you what that last sentence of Fitzgerald’s novel meant, I honestly didn’t understand it in my own way. It could even be an age/experience thing – maybe at 33 I could read the book and get so much more out of it now than I did then. But I’m 33, slightly lazy in such things, and probably wouldn’t have even considered reading Gatsby again if not for Luhrmann’s movie.

I was surprised in the run up to the film’s release that most of the buzz pertained to the Jay-Z soundtrack and I’m even more surprised having seen the movie. The whole hip-hop idea doesn’t seem nearly as well developed and integrated as Luhrmann’s musical ideas, in particular, for Moulin Rouge and Romeo+Juliet. Most of the music in fact seemed to me to be Craig Armstrong’s characteristically lush and emotional piano and strings (I don’t like being hit over the head emotionally by many people but Armstrong, like Luhrmann, is one of the few.)

I try to avoid mentioning the 3D when I see these movies because I don’t believe it should matter and be more of a kind of garnish – the movie should still work (and I’m sure it does) without it, but it’s just a nice little extra. From first shot and title sequence to last, honestly the 3D here puts all others I’ve seen (and I’ve seen most of the big ones) to shame. I’d entirely forgotten about the whole “green light” thing in the book but the first shot of it here knocked the breath out of me… just the most perfect use of depth I have ever seen. Of course there’s the sheets, shirts, sparkly things, gimmicky 3D stuff as you’ve seen in the trailer, but there’s plenty of beautifully subtle stuff too.

I saw some criticism of Carey Mulligan’s portrayal of Daisy who (at least in the opinion of whoever wrote it) was (apparently, I can’t remember) much colder in the novel. As with much of the comments (many before actually seeing the movie) about the use of 3D, I feel this misses Luhrmann’s intent. She’s clearly still cold in her actions at the end of the movie – what we’re seeing in Mulligan is perhaps what Gatsby sees in Daisy, and what Nick sees in Gatsby… what does drive a person so lost to hold such hope?

As I said, I’ve never warmed fully to Luhrmann’s movies on a first viewing. But clearly this one (perhaps because it’s the first I’ve watched on the big screen?) is an exception, so I look forward to seeing how it holds up to further viewings (probably without the 3D – though the upcoming 3D Doctor Who special certainly has me tempted to save up for a 3D set). Clearly I’m not coming to it as a great worshipper of the novel (I certainly intend to give it another go after this though) – but what I loved most about it is that, however he went about it, Luhrmann gave me a way in to understanding Fitzgerald’s work on my own terms – I either never was told about the “extraordinary gift for hope” in Gatsby when I was at school or I had just not suffered enough disappointment at the time to see it for myself – or maybe Luhrmann was the only person who could show me. I know some people don’t need that kind of accessibility, but a lot of people do – and what he’s done with Fitzgerald for me here is as miraculous as how modern he made Shakespeare’s words sound back in 1996.

Eclipse Eclipse 2 stars

September 27th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

I didn’t change my New Moon review at all when I watched it a second time, I just added an extra heart. Kinda same thing here… this is the weakest of the first three (I’ve yet to watch the Breaking Dawn‘s)… practically half of it is backstory or exposition. But again it didn’t offend me as much as before a second time around – so if there is any anger in the words below, tone it down a little in your head :)

September 27th, 2010:

Again, I have to preface this review with the sole reason I watched it so you know where I come from and that I’m fully aware it wasn’t made for the likes of me. I saw the first Twilight because I’ll give anything a chance, it already had a huge following, and I loved Catherine Hardwicke’s previous work (not just Thirteen, but also Lords of Dogtown and The Nativity Story) and felt if anyone could make a great seriously adolescent vampire story then it was her. Needless-to-say, I was disappointed, and therefore dismayed when news came out that not only was Dakota Fanning to appear in the sequel New Moon, but also that Drew Barrymore might direct (thank heavens, only one of those rumours came true).

If you read my New Moon review, you’ll see that while it’s still to me just a huge blight on Dakota Fanning’s filmography, I did almost – just almost – begin to warm to the story, or at least comprehend why anybody would. Hearing that the third installment, now in the hands of an even more interesting director than the original’s Hardwicke (and certainly more than New Moon‘s Chris Weitz), was actually the closest to a “real film” that the series had come so far, I’ll admit I actually got my hopes up just a little here. I had issues with David Slade’s Hard Candy but it’s impossible to deny it’s a great movie, and 30 Days of Night was one of the best horror movies of recent years. They seemed like the perfect combo for Slade prior to showing the first two Twilight movies “how it’s done”. But I still came to this solely for Fanning and, this time, Jodelle Ferland. I really would not be writing about this movie if it weren’t for them lol. Damn them.

So, first disappointment: I was just a little miffed that Dakota Fanning’s appearance in New Moon was minor to say the least. But it came at the close, and hinted at a much larger role to come, therefore adding to me slightly increased anticipation of this third installment. Her appearance here is just as tiny and she appears to be, if it’s even possible, even more bored than she was there. I genuinely do not understand why she chose to be in these movies.

Then there’s Jodelle. Now, Jodelle Ferland hasn’t been as consistently brilliant as a Fanning or whatever over the years, with roles like those in The Messengers and Seed it seems she genuinely will take any work that’s sent her way, but she has made some terrifically bizarre choices in her catalogue so far. This role, like so many, really just calls for her to be a terrified young thing who barely has time to realise what’s happened to her before Fanning shuts her up for good. In other words she’s wasted even more than Fanning in a movie where “too bored to be cool for school” Kristen Stewart is the headliner. It is just wrong.

So, if you haven’t gathered, I was not impressed. The first two parts of this series didn’t upset me as much as the overpraise of them did. They were kind of inoffensive, whatever if you like it you like it and I’m not gonna object, stuff. I figured that it couldn’t possibly get worse than that, and with someone like Slade in charge and this seeming intention to “make it better”, I did just slightly believe this one might be OK. I didn’t in a million years expect it to be worse. But it is. It might be slicker (only slightly) visually, but it’s just the same meandering emo dithering that we’ve already been bored to death with in the first two instalments. It’s depressing how much passion there is for this series which is so utterly passionless. I tried thinking of it in the same terms as I have Sofia Coppola’s teenage moping movies from time to time – that is, that they’re adolescent in their portrayal of adolescence and that somehow, though annoying, that works – but that excuse just doesn’t cut it here anymore.

Don’t even get me started on the fact that these vampires seem to be made of highly flammable glass, lol. Seriously, if you genuinely love this movie, open your eyes and look around because you are in for a treat in so many other places.

Easy Virtue [1928] Easy Virtue [1928] 2 stars

September 25th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , ,

“In our world we do not understand this code of easy virtue.”
“In your world you understand very little of anything, Mrs. Whittaker.”

There’s not a lot to recommend with this early Hitchcock. It’s not a movie he was overly proud of, the available prints are in tatters, and there’s nary a touch of Hitchcock’s style to be seen. It’s interesting in that it’s another of his movies in an unexpected genre, but I frankly even wondered whether to include it in this marathon viewing of his work (there isn’t really an “official” DVD available, just various mountings, including in the Internet Archive, of very shoddy public domain prints).

There’s some interesting class stuff in the dialogue (some of which like, “In order to prevent a scandal we must act as if nothing unusual happened,” kind of reminded me of “The Age of Innocence”), and a spectacularly melodramatic ending (the scandalous heroine emerges from a courtroom to a volley of paparazzi: “Shoot!” she tells them, “There’s nothing left to kill!”) which Hitchcock himself was positively ashamed of but for me actually gave the movie some (albeit absurd) emotional punch. But if you’re trying to keep your Hitchcock collection trim, this is one of the first you can feel comfortable leaving out.

Edge of Darkness Edge of Darkness 4 star

July 20th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

It’s odd that I didn’t realise just how much I wanted to see this movie until long after its initial release.

I watched this following that second underwhelming viewing Shutter Island pretty certain I would enjoy it more, and it hooked me fast. This is a movie that launches quickly, with a gutwrenching moment between Mel Gibson and his screen daughter that made me jump out of my skin in such a way I’m not sure I’ve done since the car crash in The Forgotten. Let me say now, I’m increasingly easy pleased when a movie can still do this to me, and this one managed to do it twice in its duration.

Because of how powerful these moments of the movie were for me, it’s hard for me to talk about the story because I’d hate to spoil a similar experience that might be waiting for others. In short, this is mostly a conspiracy thriller, concentrated mainly on a kind of revenge story for Gibson’s character. If you liked him in Ransom or Payback, you will love him here, because it’s that Mel Gibson and in light of his own well documented real life personal problems (to say nothing of his latest tirade: I watched this a while before all that came out), it’s even more intense than ever in this movie. At one stage he seethes at someone, “I’m the guy who’s got nothing to lose and I don’t give a sh*t!” and boy, do you believe it. Fortunately, if being so raw onscreen again was any kind of gamble for Gibson at this stage, I feel confident in saying it pays off hugely. I personally loved (if that’s the right word) every minute of this movie – it goes as far as I believe all movies of this kind need to, with a broad corporate conspiracy line and a deeply personal cause, with Martin Campbell giving equal weight to the emotional side as he does the action – but what I’m sure no one will deny is the power of Gibson’s performance.

It was only midway through the movie that I remembered reading/hearing/being told that it was based on a 1985 BBC series which intriguingly was also directed by Campbell. I loved the idea of the story, and the idea of a director remaking his own work, so much that I got hold of and watched the entire 1985 production immediately (over a couple of days) after the credits rolled on the Gibson movie. The thing to note by comparison is that they’re really very different productions, and I find myself now I’ve seen both loving each in starkly contrasting, but equally passionate, ways. The TV series runs to nearly 6 hours. The story is very slightly different, and the flow simultaneously calmer, more procedural, but (in the last episode particularly) actually ultimately that bit crazy and surreal. I would definitely recommend the TV series to anybody who liked the movie, but I imagine it’s even more pertinent to recommend it to those who don’t like the movie at all… the TV version might be exactly what you’re looking for. Me, if I had to choose… I would have to pick the streamline plot and sheer rage of the movie… I’m not a hateful person, but when it’s so pointed and heightened as this, I can really go for it, and this one really had me rooting for the vigilante.

Harriet the Spy: Blog Wars Harriet the Spy: Blog Wars 3 star

July 20th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

Words can’t express how much I feared this one, but I knew I would have to watch it if only so my objections could at least be informed, lol. It sat in my collection for a few months before I finally plucked up the courage (okay, I just wanted this week to get my total 2010 movie views up to 10 so I could post a list before the middle of the year… additional: I’m running about 3 weeks behind in actually posting stuff right now so that doesn’t quite make sense lol…).

The first 5 minutes surprised me. Much of the style feels drawn straight from the (in my opinion) flawless 1997 movie by Bronwyn Hughes. It feels very much like Michelle Trachtenberg’s Harriet grown up a few years. It reminds you that, actually, that treasured first film incarnation of Louise Fitzhugh’s eponymous heroine was also a modernisation of the original, which was set in time it was written, the 1960s. Then, “Spy Teen” appears. A typical, commercial, teen movie with a heartthrobby star. The fear strikes, oh no, this über-modern Harriet is surely going to fall for him and the movie’s about to collapse. But she doesn’t… it’s hate at first sight. That’s our Harriet.

And you know what? Despite my stoic expectations that at some point it would surely turn awful somehow, for the life of me I can’t say it did. Of course it’s nowhere close to the Trachtenberg movie let alone the books… and of course I’d still prefer they never even tried this version of the story at all. But given that they did try, this is about as good as they could’ve made it. They genuinely nod their head to the ’97 version, and excuse themselves for any failing in the far worse “Spy Teen” subplot. Even on the Disney TV movie level that it stands, it’s a hell of a lot better than Camp Rock or Get a Clue, etc… but more importantly it was so better than my expectations. I mean I’d actually probably watch it again. For fun.

New Moon New Moon 3 star

July 12th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , ,

So, I forget exactly why it was I decided in the end to watch the first Twilight, but I know I would never have watched the sequel (and the next one) were it not for the unfortunate casting of Dakota Fanning (and, in the next one, Jodelle Ferland)… I may have actually physically kicked something when I first realised I would “have to” watch this. So, yeah, I didn’t exactly come to it with an open heart LOL.

There’s a scene here that to me is pretty much the whole Twilight “Saga” (please, do we really have to call it that?) in a nutshell. Even better than the fact that the first major plot point hinges on ZOMG a papercut! there is a montage following Edward’s departure that literally made me LOL. Kristen Stewart sits in a chair in the middle of a room, and the camera begins to spin around her slowly. Titles indicate the passage of months as an emo song plays and she sits there looking miserable the whole time. I might be wrong, please tell me if I am, but I think we’re actually supposed to feel something other than “PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER!” about this. (I’ve since been told that this sequence appears in the novel as simply blank pages with the month names typed in the middle, which only makes it funnier…)

Later, the kids go to see a movie within the movie – titles overheard in this fictional movie theatre? “Love Spelled Backwards Is Love” and “Punch Face”. No kidding. “Drake and Josh” had better made up titles than this. DRAKE AND JOSH.

Okay, I was mostly just annoyed that I watched this for Dakota Fanning and it takes her over an hour to show up. Really: if you’re planning to watch the movie for the same reason, don’t bother. Her role is nothing here, though it looks like she might have more to do in the third (alas). And it’s far from even her most averagely half-good work. I have no clue why she thought these movies were a good idea. I don’t think I wanna know.

But there was something else that irked me… the fact that after being so annoyed by how long it took Kristen Stewart’s character in the first movie to say “you’re a vampire…”, she basically does the EXACT same thing with Jacob the werewolf this time around. At one point he actually says to her, “the killer part is you already KNOW…” like as if he might as well be asking, “Were you dropped on your head as a child?” When the penny finally drops, someone actually says, “I guess the wolf is out of the bag…” If this were a comedy it might be perfect. “So you’re a werewolf…” Bella finally twigs, “Last time I checked,” quips Jacob… “… Can’t you just, like, stop?” she asks.

But for all my bitching, I’ve gotta say, there’s a point where it slightly flips and bizarrely isn’t in the end quite as bad as Twilight. “It’s a wolf thing,” Jacob tells Bella at one point. “No, it’s a Jacob thing,” she says, “You’re like your own sun,” and I kinda got the tingles a little. But then comes the clincher, when Bella faces both her potential loves and tells them,

“Stop. You can’t hurt each other without hurting me…”

And I kinda got it. When you boil down the triangle in this series to its simplest components like that, just about everyone has a personal experience they can bring to it, and for me this line really stung. Sure, there’s still at least one more embarrassing “Twilight in a nutshell” moment to be had at this later, better stage in the movie (Michael Sheen as a mindreading vampire looks into Bella’s thoughts and sees “nothing”, LOL), but as the credits rolled I can’t deny I found myself just a little choked up, and even if that had nothing to do with the movie as a whole, it still for me makes this installment that much better than the first. But there’s still way better things to get so excited about, kids.

Shutter Island Shutter Island 3 star

July 1st, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

This movie is the cause of my complete blockage on the review front as I watched it about a month ago and simply refused to believe it left me so blah and with so little to say. I decided to wait until I was ready to give it a second chance. What can I say? I’m still left completely empty.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s stuff to like here. There’s so much, in fact, that this is almost the reason it frustrates me so to feel so underwhelmed by the whole. I want to love this movie. Scorsese does a Shining-like horror? I’m there! And the movie begins so wonderfully ominous, that stock music, the slightly-fake rear-projection on the boat reminding me as much of Hitchcock’s Vertigo as just a little of the opening of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that thrilled me so.

The first time I watched, I lost interest fast. I think I was gone before the very first concentration camp flashback. I did better the second time, holding on to the plot for a good hour before the same thing pretty much happened again. I think my problem with this movie is that it shouldn’t need so much effort to follow, and I realise that some people will take that as in indication of my general intelligence but I’m still saying it. It’s a B movie through and through and Scorsese seems to know it… so why is it nearly 2 and a half hours long and so convoluted when the best it has to offer by way of resolution is Ben Kingsley with a stick literally pointing at a board that shows all the main characters names are anagrams of each other? (oops… SPOILERS)

After much reading of other people’s various interpretations of the story, I think I finally understood the variety of things I was evidently supposed to feel about DiCaprio’s journey in the movie, but I’m afraid to say I simply felt none. The final flashback revealing what happened between him, his wife and his children hit me harder the second time, I will give it that… DiCaprio’s pain in this scene is hard to bear and it’s the one place in the movie where the madness is truly scary… but it comes in the midst of so much nonsense, all of it seeming to take itself far too seriously, that it still didn’t fully sit well with me. I was more frightened by the implications of the twist at the end of James Mangold’s Identity than anything here, I’m afraid. And I know it’s “missing the point” to say it, but truly, Scorsese can do so much better than this.

Alice in Wonderland [2010] Alice in Wonderland [2010] 2 stars

June 1st, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

Well, here we go. Anyone who knows me or follows my Twitter or whatever will know this wasn’t in any danger of becoming one of my favourite takes on Lewis Carroll’s story, but I swear I didn’t go into it entirely closed minded.

The problems start right at the top, and again I knew this well before watching a minute of the actual movie. This simply shouldn’t carry the title “Alice in Wonderland”, and the usage is clearly a marketing decision… “Disney’s Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton” sounds like “Kerching!” right? You’ll know already perhaps that it is not the usual straight retelling of Carroll’s story but finds Alice 13 years later returning to the land of Red Queen, Mad Hatter, and White Rabbit Return to Oz/*Hook*-style etc. What you might not know is that Linda Woolverton’s screenplay has brought manic obsessive order to Carroll’s completely inconsistent nonsense land, now called Underland and populated with creatures and artefacts all of which have outrageous names, encylopedia entries and backstory.

In short, this movie not only substantially but literally removes the Wonder from Wonderland. I wish I was the kind of person who welcomed the substitution of Carroll’s imagination with Burton’s extravagant visuals but I’m not. This movie reminded me of watching Richard Kelly’s director’s cut of Donnie Darko which destroyed the original movie by telling the audience what it was supposed to mean. Everything looks as you expect from an Alice movie, the production design is up there with the best of them; but there’s such desperation to shed light on every nook and cranny, to explain everything so that your brain doesn’t have to work at all let alone a little, that even in 3D (I watched in 2D) it’s bound to come up flat to anyone who truly cares about art, to say nothing of the many fans of Carroll’s original work (it scares me, however, how many people clearly call themselves Alice fans without ever having actually read the text…)

The worst of this for me wasn’t any of this, however. The worst of it is, to my surprise, Mia Wasikowska is actually a pretty great Alice. Yes, she’s older, but we’ve covered why that is and it’s a problem all its own that isn’t limited to this production. She would’ve been a fine Alice even if they’d just told the original story age be-damned as so many Alice adaptations have (my fave, Fiona Fullerton, and the not-too-bad Kate Beckinsale Through the Looking Glass, eg). And though my love of Johnny Depp has slid with every Pirate sequel he’s added to his resumé, I didn’t find his Hatter at all as annoying as I expected (stupid WTF dance in the final reel notwithstanding). The scenes between the two of them, particularly the one where Depp questions, frightened, “Have I gone mad, Alice?” are almost all of them heartbreaking to behold. Here, Burton moves the camera in on his actors, he stops showing off his visuals… there are shadows both physical and psychological, and the movie actually starts to become something.

It’s not enough by far, though. I might just be set in my ways on the subject but I’ve seen tons of Alice adaptations and no take on the story has yet made me feel so utterly convinced as this one that Lewis Carroll would literally cry if he heard about it (particularly the action-packed finale in which Alice slays the jabberwocky amidst a Lord of the Rings like battle…really) which I’m sure many people don’t really care about anyway. It struck me when the movie flashes back upon Alice’s original visit to “Underland” and they use a younger actress of the correct age that it would’ve been nice if, while shooting these small scenes, they had just gone ahead and had a second crew film the whole original book/s as a side project. It then occurred to me that the problem then would be that I fear many kids falling for this new vision would view such a thing as a prequel. And that’s just about enough about how much this movie depressed me.