Review: Now You See Me

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★

Caper films are fun. Even when they’re bad. That’s the simplest explanation I can give for my feelings toward “Now You See Me.” It’s always entertaining when you see a complex scheme pulled off in a film and you’re not quite sure how they got away with it. But when the movie strays off its mark and tries to be something its not, that’s when things come undone. Its the same type of thing that plagues many of Hollywood’s films today. It’d be so nice if the studios just spent a little more of their hard earned cash in the story department, but that’s a long winded conversation for another time.

Four street corner magicians – J. Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg), Merritt McKinney (Woody Harrelson), Henley Reeves (Isla Fisher) and Jack Wilder (Dave Franco) – are all rounded up by an unseen and unknown individual as the movie begins. Together, they form magic act dubbed The Four Horsemen.

One year later, they are all very famous magicians performing nightly in Las Vegas thanks the backing of millionaire Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine). One night in front of the their live audience, they bring up a man on stage who assists them in robbing millions in euros from a bank in France. This catches the attention of the FBI. Agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) is assigned to investigate the magicians with the help of a new agent at Interpol, Alma Dray (Mélanie Laurent).

With no evidence to hold them down, the Four Horsemen are released to continue their magical bank-robbing extravaganza. Rhodes, Dray and the rest of the FBI are shadowing them the rest of the way. They’re also being followed by Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman), famous debunker of magic tricks looking to cash in on exposing how the Four Horsemen pull of their seemingly inexplicable tricks.

What starts as a typical caper film quickly collapses when it tries to add too much to an already crowded screenplay. I’m all for layers in a story that makes it more complex and compelling, but its unnecessary when it starts to take away from the substance of the primary plotline.

On its surface, “Now You See Me” is a typical heist film, much in the same vein as something like “Ocean’s Eleven.” The vast difference between the two films is that “Ocean’s” established a plot, established a motive, gathered the characters together and showed them pulling off the heist. “Now You See Me” works the same way, but feels horribly unnatural.

Motive, for example, is established - at the end. By that time, interest and empathy had dwindled away. Not to mention, the film has shifted its primary focus from the Four Horsemen to the FBI and back again at least two or three times. Its hard to connect with a story when the story itself doesn’t know what it wants to be or who its hero should be.

I feel like this film was put together with too much haste, and that the only reason for making it was to gather a wide range of talented actors and actresses. I never knew who I was rooting for watching all of them on the screen at the same time. None of these actors have ever really played a villainous role so its difficult to see any of them in a negative light, particularly when the screenplay is written with humorous dialogue every other line.

No one seems to flex their acting talents to the best of their abilities. At times it almost feels like Mark Zuckerberg is doing magic tricks alongside Woody Boyd. No one brought anything new to the table that we haven’t already seen from other movies or TV shows.

There’s just too much of a disconnection from beginning to end. And just like all caper movies, the ending is the revelation; how did they do it? While any questions that might pop up throughout the movie seem to have an answer, the big reveal is comically head scratching.

But “Now You See Me” isn’t a total waste. As a sucker for heist movies such as this, I did find the majority of this film relatively enjoyable. The heist is pulled off, money is stolen and you’re left there wondering how. They show how its done, and you’re left amazed. And unlike “Ocean’s Eleven” which shows one heist with one big reveal at the end, “Now You See Me” shows three separate heists. Sure they’re using visual effects and CGI to make the tricks seem real, but that’s what magic is anyway. Just a bunch of illusions to make things look like something unexplainable just happened.

The real magic is how such a large group of talented group of actors were all talked in to performing in such a dull and poorly written film. As entertaining as some parts may be, “Now You See Me” is just another example of how Hollywood still likes to put all their flair before their stories. 

Review: Fast & Furious 6

by Trevor Kirkendall
★★½

Who would have thought after 2001’s summer hit “The Fast and the Furious” that we’d be looking at a sixth installment twelve years later? The original film was dry and the second was terrible. Once director Justin Lin took over the franchise with “Tokyo Drift” in 2006, it became pretty evident that we had a franchise on our hands. At the same time, the creativity when Lin took over seemed to hit the breaks. But people continue to come to these movies whenever they’re released, and “Fast & Furious 6” will probably be no exception. More fast cars and special effects, what else can you expect from this franchise?

“Furious 6” takes place some time after the events in “Fast Five.” Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker) and the rest of the crew are living their lives as newly minted multi-millionaires. Brian now has a child with Mia (Jordana Brewster), Dom’s sister. Life is good and simple for the whole crew.

Then one day “Fast Five’s” nemesis Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) shows up on Dom’s doorstep looking for his assistance. Hobbs and his new partner (UFC’s Gina Carano) are after a highly trained group of thieves lead by an ex-solider named Owen Shaw (Luke Evans). Shaw and his crew have been stealing military equipment to build a device that would greatly hinder an army’s ability to fight in the field. They only need one more component to make it operational. Oh, and one of the members of Shaw’s crew is Dom’s ex-girlfriend Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) who was thought to be dead.

Dom can’t resist going after Letty, and neither can his crew. Along with Brian, Dom gets the whole team back together: Roman (Tyrese Gibson), Tej (Chris ‘Ludacris’ Bridges), Han (Sung Kang) and Gisele (Gal Gadot). The team assembles in London, armed with more fast cars, advanced gadgets and full pardons if they successfully bring down Shaw.

The rest of the film is pretty standard stuff. The highly choreographed car chase sequences loaded with shaky camera movements and staccato editing techniques are what people want to see when they come to these movies. “Furious 6” absolutely delivers in that regard. This is Justin Lin’s fourth film in a row with this franchise and his ability to construct these action sequences continues to improve with each outing (although he is not signed on to direct the forthcoming seventh installment).

There is some disconnect in the action sequences, however. Throughout the epic climax sequence, there are so many different individual things going on that it’s kind of hard to keep track of what’s going happening. At times the cuts come so fast, its difficult to tell who was punching whom, or which car just crashed and burned.

And when Lin decides that he wants his film to have depth and emotion, he really drops the ball. Numerous moments in “Furious 6” drag on and on for longer than needed. A family-first mentality is one of the themes that’s hammered throughout the film, but every time its brought up it feels out of place. In the middle of action sequences when lives are on the line is really not the time to remind the guy hanging on by a thread he needs to do it for the family.

The sentimental moments are monotonous and laughable. Everything feels scripted. Everything feels forced. The dialogue is cheesy. The comic relief – thanks mostly to Tyrese and Ludacris – works well, even if there really isn’t a need for comic relief in a high-octane action flick such as this.

But lets be honest, you can’t just throw together a two-hour movie with only cars zinging by at top speeds through the crowded streets of London. I suppose you probably could but then it would just look like you were watching someone playing “Gran Turismo” on the PlayStation for two hours. Not a whole lot of fun. There needs to be some kind of narrative in there. But why spend a whole lot of time on the story when you know everyone is just there to see the fast cars?

“Furious 6” is yet another example of one of those movies where the built in audience is going to get exactly what they wanted to see. There’s no depth, but plenty of special effects and stunt driving. The size and scope of the action sequences pretty much warrant a required viewing in a big theater. I doubt the same effect will come across at home. As long as expectations are curbed, “Fast & Furious 6” is exactly what’s advertised. Nothing more and nothing less. 

Review: The Hangover Part III

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

In 2009, a little movie called “The Hangover” opened and made a pretty big splash with audiences and critics alike. I was kind of skeptical of the film judging from the trailer. It looked like just another raunchy comedy with no plot that would be satisfying only to the college crowd. What we got was something so much more that that. It was smart, something you don’t see in a typical comedy. And it wasn’t all that raunchy either. But then they had to follow it up with “The Hangover Part II,” a carbon copy of the first film. Only this time, the setting was different and the jokes were raunchier. Even the main characters didn’t act the same as they did previously. It was absolutely awful. So what does the inevitable “Part III” going to bring to the series? Fortunately, it is a vast improvement.

“The Hangover Part III” opens with the death of Sid (Jeffery Tambor), who is the father to Alan (Zach Galifianakis). The family, including Alan’s brother in law Doug (Justin Bartha), decides it’s best that Alan enter into a rehabilitation center to try and figure out what’s wrong with him. Fans of the other films will know there is quite a bit wrong with Alan. He agrees to go to the rehab center and is accompanied by Doug and his best friends Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms).

They never quite make it there, and its not because they got drunk and wake up in a strange place with no knowledge of the previous night. They’re ambushed on the highway and taken captive by none other than the man who sold Alan the drugs in the first film, Black Doug (Mike Epps). He’s working for his drug dealer boss Marshall (John Goodman) who has a bone to pick with The Wolfpack.

He wants them to find Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) who has just broken out of a Bangkok prison and his headed to the west coast. Mr. Chow has stolen millions of dollars worth of gold bricks from Marshall and he wants them back. He holds Doug hostage until they bring Chow and the gold bricks back to him.

Unlike the second installment to the trilogy, “Part III” does not rehash the plot of the original once again. “Part II” was an absolute abomination for its choice to copy Jon Lucas and Scott Moore’s brilliant screenplay almost scene-for-scene changing only the location of the events. If you missed the second film, you missed nothing. Just watch the original twice and you’ll be good.

Writer and director Todd Phillips, working once again with his “Part II” co-writer Craig Mazin, have completely redeemed themselves from that garbage of a script they called “Part II.” There are no plot points from the first two that repeat themselves. This is a completely original idea, which is a very refreshing way to close off this series. There is an appearance from Stu’s stripper girlfriend (Heather Graham) he married briefly in the original, and her kid (who Alan calls Carlos).

The Wolfpack only drink a very small amount of alcohol together. They are completely sober for their entire adventure. It brings a different kind of perspective to the film. We’ve already seen these guys run around drunk and confused for two whole movies. This time we see a more mature and determined Wolfpack (well, okay, a much more mature and determined Stu and Phil; Alan is still Alan).

What’s made these movies so successful is the chemistry between Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis. In the original film, these were three different guys on three very different career paths. If you didn’t know who they were prior to 2009, you know who they are now. And they were paired together so perfectly, something you don’t see too often. In “Part II” they worked well together, but you could tell that even they knew the movie was terrible. But with a much better screenplay to work from, they really work well together in “Part III.”

The plot is, for the most part, pretty well put together. It definitely has a different feel to it than its predecessors. “Part III” is a bit more gritty. Since plot and story seems to be of greater focus for Phillips and Mazin this time around, the jokes do suffer some. It’s not as funny as one might expect. The trailers don’t give all the jokes away so there are some surprises in there. But overall, the film has a more suspenseful element at times, rather than just one crude toilet joke after another (which was “Part II’s” downfall). If the raunchy jokes are what you came for, then you’ll want to wait for just a moment when the credits roll at the end. There is an additional scene just for you.

“Part III” is a pretty satisfying way to close off this series. I’m not sure they’ll surprise us with a fourth installment somewhere down the line, so this is it for the Wolfpack. It’s not on par with the original, but how many sequels ever are? It is a satisfying was to close out this trilogy. Just don’t expect your stomach muscles to be sore after its over. 

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

“Star Trek Into Darkness” comes at us four years after J.J. Abrams rebooted the series with the simply titled “Star Trek.” That film reset the whole story line that everyone thought they knew from the television series and the six original movies. It was an action packed film that opened up the franchise to a whole new audience without alienating its dedicated fan base (no easy task given the dedication of the Trekkies). A sequel to such a big film needed to exceed the scale and excitement of its predecessor. Despite many flaws throughout, “Star Trek Into Darkness” does deliver enough to make this a really enjoyable experience.

The film opens with the crew of the Starship Enterprise on a distant planet attempting to save an entire civilization from a soon to erupt volcano. When the life of Spock (Zachary Quinto) becomes threatened, Captain James Kirk breaks protocol to save him. He finds himself in some hot water back at headquarters, especially in the eyes of his mentor Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood).

Meanwhile in London, a terrorist has attacked a Starfleet archives building which in turn leads to an attack on headquarters. The mastermind of this attack is a former Starfleet Commander named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbach). He’s tracked to a Klingon occupied planet, and Kirk seeks permission from Starfleet Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) to go after Harrison. Marcus arms Kirk with an arsenal of torpedoes and instructions to kill Harrison.

It’s easy to see why J.J. Abrams was selected to resurrect this franchise. No other filmmaker working within the Hollywood studio system has a better grasp on movies of this size and scale than him. The look and feel of this film alone is breathtaking. Abrams seamlessly blends the live action and the computer generated images into a unified life like amalgamation.

There are hundreds if not thousands of effects shot put together in this film, and none of them are overdone or overused. In order to boldly go where no one has gone before, massive amounts of effects are required, and Abrams is able to sell it with near perfection. If this is what his forthcoming “Star Wars: Episode VII” will look like in 2015, we are in for a treat, to say the least.

Abrams is so good that he’s only about two or three shows away from having a monopoly on network television. The reason for that is his ability to find and tell good stories that keep people wanting to come back each week. Unfortunately, a sound story is what “Star Trek Into Darkness” lacks. The script, from frequent Abrams collaborators Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, along with Damon Lindeolf (who worked with Abrams on “Lost”), starts out relatively strong but quickly unravels.

From the beginning, it seems that we are going to get a movie that won’t only excite us, but also tell up a little more about who these characters are. In the 2009 reboot, we were introduced to all the characters; for the younger generation, it was the first time they were introduced to the crew of the Enterprise. Here, we begin with such promise to learn more about the crew. Maybe we’ll see Kirk grow up a little, or maybe they can advance the relationship between Spock and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), which was first established in the reboot. Then there’s the rest of the crew: the comic relief of Scotty (Simon Pegg) or the serious Mr. Sulu (John Cho).

A few subplots are set up and explored in the beginning, particularly Spock and Uhura. Once the action begins, however, all advancement of character ceases to continue. No one grows. No one changes. That’s an important part of story, one that all three of these writers should know given their highly regarded track record.

There’s really no point in digging too much deeper into the film’s flaws. What more does anyone expect from this? It’s another installment into a hugely popular science fiction franchise. It’s about good guys going after bad guys, which ultimately features battles in outer space. If that’s all you expect from it, than consider your expectation more than met.

Fans of the “Star Trek” franchise will no doubt love it. The film continues on with a new story path established in the reboot. Some parts are pretty disconnected, but you shouldn’t even be paying attention to that too much when you sit back and look at the screen. It’s an engrossing experience that takes you to a different place. And isn’t that the goal of the movies anyway? To escape? Despite its flaws, this isn’t a throwaway film. It’s another addition to an already illustrious film franchise, and one that will end up being one of this summer’s most exciting movie going experiences.

Review: The Great Gatsby

By. Joe Moss 
★ ★

So for more than a year, we have been tantalized by Baz Luhrmann’s seemingly epic version of the F. Scott Fitzgerald masterpiece of American literature “The Great Gatsby.”  A film depicting the excess lifestyle of the roaring 20’s in New York City. A time where money flowed from Wall Street investment firms into the pockets of many an enterprising entrepreneur; much in the manner that the illegal booze flowed from every bootlegging storefront or cellar into many a household. A time where racial divides existed everywhere and women were still considered second class citizens—better to be seen and not heard, or as an accessory to showcase glitz and glam but offer no cerebral pontification during conversation.

  Unfortunately, I have to say that I was supremely disappointed. Yes, the cinematographic elements were there thanks to Simon Duggan (I, Robot), and the costume design was as extravagant as the setting dictated thanks to Baz Luhrmann’s wife (and long-time design collaborator), Oscar winner Catherine Martin (Moulin Rouge); but it was the script from Baz and writing partner Craig Pearce (Moulin Rouge, Romeo & Juliet) that was severely lacking. While the script did hold true to the book for a great majority of the film, much of the film was from the narrative viewpoint rather than through dialogue. This allowed for many long moments of dead-time throughout the movie.  Moments where I found my mind wandering and at times even found myself drifting to the point of daydreaming...on what the film was lacking.

  With the multi Oscar nominated star power cast in the lead roles of the film—3 nominations for Leonardo DiCaprio (Jay Gatsby), Tobey Maguire (Nick Carraway), and 1 nomination for Carey Mulligan (Daisy Buchanan)—I would have much rather there was more time spent on true dialogue to afford the actors the ability to showcase their talent and craft. It almost seemed as though the filmmakers decided that the scenery and the soundtrack were the stars of the film versus the plot itself.  Given what he had to work with, I feel that DiCaprio portrayed Jay Gatsby with true aplomb—conveying much emotion though his dynamic facial expressions. Carey Mulligan’s role as Daisy Buchanan played well to the camera, but her talent as a thespian was not truly showcased rather was barely a hint throughout the film. As well, Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway felt rather contrived and overly sardonic instead of reaching the emotionless state that he is supposed to be suffering as observed through the psychiatrist’s notes at the onset of the film.

  The soundtrack of the film was vivid , boisterous, and often lascivious.  I loved the modern element that it provided the story. From Jay-Z’s “100$ Bill,  Florence + The Machine’s “Over the Love,” to the ever recurring “Young and Beautiful” by Lana Del Rey, the music reminded the moviegoer what English teachers have been saying for years, that “The Great Gatsby” is timeless. The ever present subtext about greed and moral depravity can easily be assimilated into any culture and/or society. Ultimately, while I love the story and the soundtrack, I cannot say that I loved the film. I hold Baz Luhrmann to much higher standards and expect every film to rise to the standard he set for himself with “Moulin Rouge.”

Review: The Great Gatsby

by Trevor Kirkendall
★★½

So you want to adapt one of the most classic and celebrated novels of all time? I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor. There will certainly be resistance from the legions of fans and literary experts that hold the book in such high regard. In director Baz Luhrmann’s case, a straight adaptation of classic literature is out of the question. In order for it to be successful, you would need big stars, and big budget, lots of colors, flashy camera and editing tricks and a soundtrack filled with music not from the era. Oh, and 3D. That’s a must. This is Luhrmann’s recipe for adapting F. Scott Fitzgerald’s American classic “The Great Gatsby.” It’s a risky move, combining those things into a classic like this, one that ultimately pays off very little.

The story is the same story we all know by now, either through required high school reading or from the popular Robert Redford/Mia Farrow version of 1974. Nick Carroway (Tobey Maguire), a New York banker new to the city, tells us the story. He moves next door to a mysterious millionaire everyone knows but no one ever sees. His name is Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Gatsby is well known for throwing lavish parties with open invitations to the entire city. On one occasion, Gatsby extends a personal invitation to his new neighbor. Carroway attends, and the two men meet.

They spend a lot of time together, even though Carroway knows very little about him. Gatsby does have a plan in mind, however. He would like Carroway to invite his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) over for tea. Daisy lives across the bay from Gatsby and Carroway with her millionaire husband Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). Gatsby used to be in love with Daisy and he’d like to win her affection back. It should be easy since Tom is having multiple affairs, his favorite mistress being Myrtle Wilson (Isla Fisher). Wilson’s husband George (Jason Clarke), suspects his wife may be sleeping around, but he’s not sure.

The novel is considered an American classic by many, and is required reading by almost every student. Adapting such a novel is difficult to achieve because people have such high expectations about how the film should look. What director Luhrmann has done here is turned the story into a colorful and vibrant looking film, but its done to utter excess in every aspect.

Luhrmann is well known for his 1996 rendition of “Romeo + Juliet,” which made DiCaprio into a household name. He was rightfully criticized for bringing the story into the modern day but leaving the original Shakespeare dialogue in the old English tongue. The film was a disconnected mess. He then made waves in Hollywood with “Moulin Rouge!” scoring a Best Picture nomination in 2001. This film utilized modern 20^th century music to go along with the 1899 Parisian setting. It was inventive and refreshing to see such a bold move made by a Hollywood studio. People in 1899 certainly didn’t dance the night way to the funky beats of Fatboy Slim.

We’ve come to expect this from Luhrmann by now. So when we see the characters in “The Great Gatsby” dancing around to Jay-Z, its not as refreshing as it was 12 years ago. This worked well for “Moulin Rouge!” but the modern music feels very out of place here. Luhrmann and his writing partner Craig Pearce (whose worked with Luhrmann before on “Romeo,” “Moulin” and Luhrmann’s debut “Strictly Ballroom”) have stayed faithful to the story, which still seems relevant in today’s world. But Luhrmann gets carried away by filling the movie with too much modern flair. If he wanted to make it feel modern, he should have changed the setting to the summer of 2008 maybe, before the economy bottomed out.

“Gatsby” is very colorful and vibrant; no one can fault Luhrmann for that. The film is a gem to look at. The 3D version of the film is very beautiful, one of the better 3D films I’ve seen. The ever-present night sky is always a dark shade of blue, reminiscent of the iconic cover to the book we’ve also seen many times (a very nice touch). This is cinematographer Simon Duggan’s first foray into 3D photography, but it looks like he’s been doing it for years.

The cast is full of talented actors and actresses, but everyone seems to fall well short of their abilities. DiCaprio carries himself as a high-class gentleman in every roll, and occasionally he can really dig into his character to the point where we forget we’re watching the guy who played in that sinking ship movie. Gatsby is not one of those rolls. I imagine this is what DiCaprio is like in real life. He never sells this performance. Frankly, he sleepwalks through.

Carey Mulligan is another talent who listlessly wonders lost through the film. Ever since her Oscar nomination for “An Education” in 2009, she’s played the same roll in every film. The innocent looking, wide eyed girl who always looks like she’s about ten seconds away from running away to her bedroom, or collapsing into a complete nervous breakdown. I guess Daisy is supposed to be a little confused, feeling torn between her lover and her husband, but she plays it more like a hopeless high school girl trying to decided between two different prom invitations.

Everyone in this film over performs, like they’re on stage playing to the last row in giant theater. I guess that’s the way people talked and acted in the Roaring 20’s, but it certainly wasn’t to this extent. Its entertaining at first, but after 140 minutes its worn out its welcome.

I’m sure there will be plenty of people out there who really like “The Great Gatsby.” There are plenty of moments that are very enjoyable, but I can’t get over the amount of excess that’s littered in every single frame. Its definitely a summer film in that respect. Fans of the book could very well welcome its fresh take on this era of American history. For the rest of us, this might just be another one of those flashy films that makes for an enjoyable trip to the movies, but will be thrown out with just about every other summer movie by September.