"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Review

 

"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Review

I have been a major fan of the Marvel Comics character, Spider-Man, for a long time.  When I was a kid, I used to read "The Amazing Spider-Man" comic strip from my local newspaper on a daily basis. I was also a regular viewer of the reruns from the 1967-70 animated series "SPIDER-MAN" and the 1978-79 television series, "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN", which starred Nicholas Hammond. So when Columbia Pictures released a movie version of the comic book web crawler twenty years ago, I was a happy camper.

Ironically, I have no memories of any particular episode from either the animated series or the live-action series. All I know is that I used to watch both. But there is no way I could ever forget director Sam Rami's 2002 film adaptation, which starred Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker aka Spider-Man. How could I? I own a DVD copy of the movie.

"SPIDER-MAN" is basically Rami and screenwriter David Koepp's take on the web slinger's origins. The movie begins with teenager Peter Parker living with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May in Forest Hills, a suburb in Queens, New York. Peter is in love with next door neighbor Mary Jane Watson and is best friends with Harry Osborn, the son of millionaire/scientist and Oscorp CEO, Dr. Norman Osborn; who seems to regard Peter more as a son than Harry.  Peter attends a field trip with Mary Jane, Harry and other fellow students to a genetics lab. when he is bitten by a genetically engineered spider. He wakes up the following morning with perfect vision, fast reflexes, superhuman strength and the ability to emit web strings. His school fight with Mary Jane's bullying boyfriend, Flash Thompson, attracts Uncle Ben's attention, who has become concerned with Peter's recently distant behavior.

Meanwhile, Norman Osborn's company is in danger of losing its bid for a contract with the U.S. Army for weapons. Osborn tests his company's new performance-enhancing drug and becomes stronger. He also acquires a maniacal alter ego and murders his assistant. And Peter decides to use his new abilities to raise money. He enters a wrestling match to win $300 dollars. But the promoter scams him out of his full reward and Peter retaliates by refusing to help stop a thief from stealing the box office returns. The same thief ends up killing Uncle Ben during a carjacking. When Peter realizes that the thief and his uncle's killer are one and the same, he becomes guilt-ridden and decides to use his powers to become a masked vigilante following graduation from high school. In time, Peter aka Spider-Man and Osborn aka the Green Goblin battle it out for the safety of New York.

As much as I enjoyed "SPIDER-MAN", I must admit that it had its flaws. All of those flaws centered around Koepp's screenplay. One, I thought the story was a bit episodic, especially the first half that revealed both Spider-Man and the Green Goblin's origins. In fact, the movie could be easily divided into two halves - from the beginning to Peter's graduation from high school, and his activities and battles with the Green Goblin. Another major problem that stemmed from Koepp's screenplay was the dialogue. "SPIDER-MAN" turned out to be one of the two top movies that were released during the summer of 2002. The other was "STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES". While fans and critics criticized some of the dialogue in the latter film, they easily overlooked the cheesy dialogue that tainted "SPIDER-MAN", especially the smart-ass comments that poured from Spider-Man's mouth. And I found the Green Goblin's early attempt to convince Spider-Man to become an ally a bit contrived.

Fortunately, "SPIDER-MAN" possessed virtues that outnumbered its flaws. One, the movie was fortunate to have Danny Elfman as its composer. I thought he did a top-notch job that contributed greatly to not only the movie's, but the entire trilogy's atmosphere. Neil Spisak and his team did a superb job with the movie's production designs that gave it a colorful, comic-book style without going over-the-top.  I was especially impressed by Spisak's designs for the genetic lab sequence and the Oscorp-sponsored fair sequence that featured the murders of the Oscorp directors. Spisak's production work was ably assisted by Don Burgess' photography. In fact, I would say that Burgess' work more than Spisak's gave the movie its colorful comic-book style.

Although I found Koepp's screenplay a bit episodic, I must admit that it featured some very exciting scenes that I will never forget. My favorites include Peter's wrestling match with Bonesaw McGraw, the murder of the Oscorp directors, and Spider-Man's rescue of Mary Jane from a bunch of thugs. But the two scenes that truly stood out for me and struck me as well directed by Rami were the Thanksgiving dinner at Peter and Harry's Manhattan apartment; and the final showdown between Spider-Man and the Green Goblin. The Thanksgiving dinner not only led to Osborn's discovery of Peter's identity as Spider-Man, it provided a deliciously subtle interaction between the millionaire and Aunt May, due to wonderful performances by Willem Dafoe and Rosemary Harris.  Spider-Man and the Green Goblin's final confrontation led to a nail-biting moment in which the latter forced Spider-Man to choose between saving Mary Jane and the underage passengers of a Roosevelt Island Tramway car.  The sequence also led to a brutal fight between the adversaries and one of the best lines ever to be uttered by a Marvel villain:

"This is why only fools are heroes - because you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice."

I will also add that when I criticized Koepp's screenplay for being episodic, I really meant that it seemed to be somewhat divided between two complete stories. Once Peter assumed the role of Spider-Man, became a photographer for The Daily Bugle and engaged in his conflict with the Green Goblin, the movie picked up to become a force of nature.

Tobey Maguire nearly failed to become Peter Parker aka Spider-Man.  Although Rami wanted him for the role, Columbia Pictures executives were hesitant to cast someone who did not seem to fit the ranks of "adrenaline-pumping, tail-kicking titans".  Apparently, these guys never read any of the comic books.  Without his Spider-Man outfit, Peter Parker was supposed to be a quiet, nerdy science student with a slight built.  Not only did Maguire physically and emotionally fulfilled Peter's character with perfection, he also worked with a physical trainer to improve his physique for the Spider-Man scenes.  His performances as Spider-Man really took me by surprise.  I did not realize that he would be so effective as both an action hero and quiet nerd.  And I like being surprised.

Koepp's portrayal of the Mary Jane Watson character differed from the comic books in many ways.  One, Peter and Mary Jane never met until both were students at Empire State University in the comic books.  Two, the comic book Mary Jane was a little more extroverted than the cinematic Mary Jane portrayed by Kirsten Dunst.  And she seemed quite taken by Spider-Man, after he saved her during the Goblin's murder of the Oscorp directors.  Despite these changes, Dunst gave an excellent performance with the character she was given and she had a very strong screen chemistry with Maguire, which culminated in the famous screen kiss that is still considered iconic.  Also, Dunst's Mary Jane proved that friendship was a more valuable component than mere muscles, when she revealed at the end that Peter meant more to her than Spider-Man.  Dunst also had a strong screen chemistry with actor James Franco, who gave an excellent performance as the insecure Harry Osborn, who longed for his father's attention and especially respect.  Come to think of it, Franco also had strong chemistry with both Maguire and Willem Dafoe.  Cliff Robertson was wonderful as Peter's Uncle Ben.  He and Maguire were excellent in the Peter/Uncle Ben scenes that would end up reverberating in the next two movies.  And Rosemary Harris was a delight as the warm-hearted Aunt May, especially in the Thanksgiving dinner scene and the hospital scene that featured her own heartwarming conversation with Peter.  Despite being forced to utter some very cheesy dialogue, Willem Dafoe overcame this defect and gave a truly scary and fascinating performance as Norman Osborn aka the Green Goblin.  Some of his best moments featured those scenes in which Osborn had conversations with his alter ego - the Goblin.  No wonder his Green Goblin is still considered to be the best on-screen Spider-Man villain.

Stan Lee was ecstatic over J.K. Simmons' portrayal of The Daily Bugle editor-in-chief, J. Jonah Jameson.  And I can see why.  In some ways, it is a rather one-dimensional performance.  Then again, I have always remembered Jameson as a one-dimensional character.  But Simmons breathed life and humor into the role and ended up giving one of the best performances in the movie. It is too bad that the Betty Brant character was regulated as a supporting one.  In the comic books, she was Peter's high school girlfriend and his first love.  In "SPIDER-MAN", she is Jameson's friendly secretary, who was always coming to Peter's aid.  Yet, Elizabeth Banks effused a great deal of warmth into the character that made her very likeable.  I can also say the same about Bill Nunn's performance as editor Joseph "Robbie" Robertson.  Bruce Campbell and Octavia Spencer provided some humorous moments as a wrestling announcer and a clerk who signs Peter up for a match.

Unlike many other fans of the "SPIDER-MAN" movie franchise, I never considered the 2002 movie to be the second best of those directed by Sam Rami.  David Koepp's screenplay seemed a bit episodic to me.  And it was filled with too many cheesy dialogue.  But the screenplay did provide a strong and action-packed second half for the story.  And I am one who cannot deny that Rami's direction, along with the production crew and an excellent cast led by Tobey Maguire overcame the screenplay's flaws and provided a first-rate comic book movie that I will never forget.

"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "SPIDER-MAN", the 2002 adaptation of Marvel Comics' superhero. Directed by Sam Rami, the movie starred Tobey Maguire as the web slinger:

"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Photo Gallery

"SPIDER-MAN 3" (2007) Review

"SPIDER-MAN 3" (2007) Review”

Over the years I have learned not to anticipate or make assumptions about new movies. About two weeks before the debut of the 2007 SPIDER-MAN movie, "SPIDER-MAN 3", I had read mixed reviews of it. Although there were a few positive opinions, most of them seemed to be negative. After reading this, my anticipation of the movie had receded a bit. But I still maintained a "wait-and-see" attitude. When I finally saw "SPIDER-MAN 3", I was happy to discover that that my fears had become meaningless. Although not as well-crafted as "SPIDER-MAN 2", the third film in Sam Rami's SPIDER-MANtrilogy still managed to thrill me. 

Before I can wax lyrical over the movie, I must address the movie’s flaws. And it had a few. One, I felt a sense of disappointment over some of the movie’s action sequences that featured Spider-Man’s web swinging around New York. They seemed to lack the crisp and detailed style shown in the two previous films and almost struck me as confusing and overblown. Two, I had a problem or two with the Gwen Stacy character. I realize that there are differences between the movie versions and the comic book versions of the Spider-Man universe. In the comic books, the blond-haired Gwen happened to be Peter Parker’s first true love. Her death at the hands of the Green Goblin (aka Norman Osborn) eventually paved the way for Peter’s romance with and marriage to Mary Jane Watson. It is quite obvious in "SPIDER-MAN 3" that although classmates at Columbia University, Peter and Gwen were not in love. Just friends. I had no problems with this. Nor did I have any problems with a symbiote-possessed Peter using her to make Mary Jane jealous. But I did have problems with the fact that the story never followed up on the mess that Peter had created between Gwen and Mary Jane. The story never allowed us to learn whether Peter had apologized to Gwen for using her . . . or if she had forgiven him. And what was she doing at Harry’s funeral? I do not recall them being acquainted in the movieverse. In the comics, Gwen and Harry were old high school chums that dated briefly in college.

My last problem with "SPIDER-MAN 3" involved the triangle between Peter, Mary Jane and Harry Osborn (aka Green Goblin 2). Near the beginning of the story, Harry had decided to take the opportunity to get his revenge upon Peter for his father’s death in "SPIDER-MAN". The opportunity resulted in a brutal fight and Harry seriously injured in the hospital. Harry woke up as a partial amnesiac – forgetting the reason behind his animosity toward Peter. And the two managed to resume their friendship, until an evening spent with Mary Jane (who was trying to forget her present unhappiness with Peter) resurrected Harry’s memories. In the end, Harry managed to coerce Mary Jane into breaking up with Peter permanently. Unfortunately, the writers never revealed what argument that Harry had used to coerce Mary Jane. Instead, they left the audience in the dark.

But what did I like about "SPIDER-MAN 3"? For one . . . the story. It was easy for me to see that the story’s main theme seemed to be about vengeance and how – as Aunt May had put it to Peter – it can spread poison within a person until it completely consumes that person. Of all the major characters aside from Aunt May, only two were not touched or consumed by a desire for revenge – Gwen Stacy and Flint Marko. Marko’s actions stemmed from his desperate desire to acquire money to aid his ailing daughter. And poor Gwen became a victim of Peter’s desire for revenge against Mary Jane. But for the rest of the characters, revenge seemed to be the order of the day:

-Peter Parker aka Spider-Man: the Webslinger becomes consumed with revenge when he learns that his Uncle Ben’s true killer – namely Flint Marko – had escaped from prison. He later seeks revenge against Mary Jane for breaking up with him, with Harry for the latter’s earlier vengeful attack against him and for initiating the break-up with Mary Jane; and against Eddie Brock for the libelous photo of Spider-Man and winning the position of staff photographer at the DAILY BUGLE. He certainly was a busy boy.

-Harry Osborn aka New Goblin: Peter’s best friend has desired revenge against Peter (as Spider-Man) for killing his father in the first movie. He also has revenge against Mary Jane because she used him to forget her troubles with Peter.

-Mary Jane Watson: a part of me is not sure whether to include her on this list. But I could not help but wonder if her bitchiness toward Peter was a result of her own professional failure on Broadway, combined with her growing distaste toward Peter’s pride over his popularity as Spider-Man. And when Peter shares a publicized kiss with Gwen Stacy that is reminiscent of that famous kiss from the first movie, Mary Jane’s jealousy eventually overwhelms her . . . and she turns to Harry for comfort. I would not be surprised if her action came from a small desire to get back at Peter.

-Eddie Brock Jr. aka Venom: Even before the alien symbiote had taken over him, Eddie seemed like an unpleasant piece of goods. And when Peter rather maliciously exposed his chicanery over a faked Spider-Man photograph, it did not take Eddie long to rush to the nearest church and ask God . . . to kill Peter Parker. Like I had said, he was an unpleasant person. Eventually, Eddie’s desire for revenge would soon present itself.

-Flint Marko aka Sandman: Although I had earlier stated that Marko had no desire for revenge in the movie. I now realize that I may have been mistaken. After two frustrating encounters with Spider-Man, Marko finally gave in to a desire for revenge when he allowed Venom to manipulate him into using Mary Jane to lure and kill Peter.

The one theme that had dominated the Spider-Man saga in both the comics and the movies seemed to be: "With great power comes great responsibility." I do not know if I fully agree with that motto. I really cannot see how Peter Parker mustbecome a costumed crime fighter, because he accidentally got bitten by a radioactive spider. On the other hand, I do believe that one should face the responsibilities and consequences for the deliberate choices you make in life. And this, along with facing demons that include a desire for vengeance, seemed to be the drive behind the movie’s plot.

Each major character ended up facing his or her own personal demons – Peter’s pride as Spider-Man becomes a forerunner of the exposure of his own darker nature that includes a cruel desire for revenge; Mary Jane’s insecurity about her self-worth; Harry’s desire to revenge the death of his father to fulfill his own lack of self-worth; Marko’s desperation to do anything for his ill daughter; and Eddie’s own shallowness and deceptive nature. What made "SPIDER-MAN 3"’s plot so interesting is that the characters’ flaws and decisions served as different points that converged in the emotional final sequence at the construction site in Manhattan. There, the characters make final choices in how to deal with their demons and only one emerged as the true loser - Eddie Brock.

As in the previous two movies, the third one boasted some fine performances by the cast. J.K. Simmons’ J. Jonah Jameson managed to be his usual funny self. I especially enjoyed his interaction with Elizabeth Banks – secretary Betty Brandt – in a duel of nerves in which Betty seemed determined to annoy Jonah every second with some crazy alarm. If someone knows what it was, please tell me. Although in a smaller role than the previous two movies, Rosemary Harris returned to give a warm performance as Peter’s aging Aunt May. In a marvelous scene in which Peter informs his aunt of Flint Marko’s "death" at Spider-Man’s hands, Harris’ May delivered the movie’s theme in a foreboding line about the true nature of vengeance. Last, but not least there was Bryce Dallas Howard, who portrayed Peter’s beautiful blond classmate, Gwen Stacy. Granted, her role was not as large as it was in the comics, Howard gave a fine performance as the warm and friendly Gwen. Some critic had complained that the movie turned Gwen from Peter’s true love to some kind of temptress. I found this criticism rather ridiculous for two reasons – a) Mary Jane had been established as Peter’s true love since the first movie; and b) Gwen was not portrayed as some temptress, but a nice girl who became a victim of Peter’s vengeance against Mary Jane. 

Thomas Haden Church’s portrayal of Marko Flint aka Sandman seemed like a far cry from his past performances that I have seen in which he portrayed more extroverted characters. His Marko/Sandman must be one of the most introverted villains I have ever seen on the movie screens. In fact, his character reminded me of some melancholy circus clown with a black cloud of tragedy hovering about him. Considering the circumstances of Marko’s life – a failed criminal career, a failed marriage, ill child and imprisoned for a crime that was merely an accident – it was not hard for me to imagine this. In the end, I was very impressed by Church’s subtle performance. And I was also impressed by Topher Grace as Eddie Brock, Jr. aka Venom, as well. Originally, he was not suppose to be part of the movie’s cast of characters. But former CEO Ari Arvad convinced director Sam Rami to include the character. And I am glad. Brock turned out to be a very interesting character. When first introduced, he seemed like an affable and gregarious young man, who also worked as freelance photographer for ”THE DAILY BUGLE”. With great skill and subtlety, Grace allowed the audience to gradually see the character’s dark emptiness, underneath the charm. Two scenes seemed to reflect this – the one that featured Gwen Stacy dangling from a Manhattan high-rise and Brock’s visit to a church after losing his job. In the first scene, I found it interesting that although Brock seemed mildly concerned over Gwen’s near death situation, he seemed more interested in taking photos of her and Spider-Man’s rescue . . . than doing everything in his power to ensure that she would be rescued. After losing his staff photographer job at THE BUGLE, Brock ended up at a church, where I thought he would confess to a priest or express remorse over his past behavior. Instead, he prayed to God . . . for the death of the man who caused his unemployment, Peter Parker. This is the second time I have seen Grace skillfully portray a character with one trait hidden underneath another one. 

When Spidey fans last saw Harry Osborn in "SPIDER-MAN 2", he had learned two disquieting facts – the man he held responsible for his father’s death (namely Spider-Man), turned out to be his best friend, Peter Parker; and his father, Norman Osborn, had been the infamous Green Goblin who terrorized Manhattan in the first movie. Three years later, Harry still wants revenge for Norman’s death and he finally decided to take action as the New Goblin A failed attack upon Peter resulted in a serious injury for Harry and a temporary amnesia. The audience got to see what Harry would be without his insecurity and the ghost of his father haunting him. And he seemed like a pretty nice . . . and well-balanced young man. I tried to find something wrong with James Franco’s performance, but . . . I could not find a thing. Honestly. Franco managed to perfectly capture Harry’s emotional journey from the vengeful son to the sweet-tempered amnesiac to the cruel manipulator who broke up Peter and MJ’s relationship, to the loyal and brave man who sacrificed himself to save his friends. Franco covered it all.

I have always liked Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson in the first two movies. But I found her a lot more interesting in"SPIDER-MAN 3". Beneath the sweet and cheerful persona, Dunst revealed a Mary Jane still racked by an inferiority complex stemmed from her bad relationship with her verbally abusive father. This lack of self-esteem came from Mary Jane losing her job as leading lady of a Broadway musical. Even worse, Peter’s own success as Spider-Man not only fueled Mary Jane’s insecurity, but fueled her envy as well. Matters did not help when Peter/Spidey had agreed to exchange a public kiss with Gwen Stacy, re-creating Mary Jane’s first kiss with him in the first movie. What I liked about Dunst’s performance is that she allowed all of these negative aspects of Mary Jane’s personality to manifest without resorting to over-the-top theatrics. I have come to the conclusion that very few screen actors and actresses seem capable of avoiding scene chewing. Especially those of Dunst’s generation. Fortunately, she did just that – avoid any hammy acting, while projecting Mary Jane’s darker impulses. As for her singing voice, I got the impression that it had been dubbed during MJ’s Broadway performance. But I could detect Dunst’s voice, when Mary Jane sang at a jazz club during the movie’s final scene. She had a nice, but slightly nasal voice.

As for the man himself – Tobey Maguire – I must say that Sam Rami had not been joking when he called Maguire one of the best actors of his generation. I felt more than impressed by his performance in "SPIDER-MAN 3". Although Maguire was able to briefly tap into Peter Parker aka Spider-Man’s dark psyche in the first movie (when he allowed a thief to get away with money stolen from a wrestling match), he was truly allowed to explore Peter’s darker nature in this film. There are two particular scenes that verified Maguire’s extraordinary skills as an actor:

*Peter’s misguided belief in his "cool" image, while walking the streets of Manhattan. Even evil (thanks to the symbiote suit), Peter could not help being a nerd. Watching Peter wallow in the illusion of his "coolness", while oblivious of passing females’ contempt made this sequence one of the funniest in the movie. It also showcased Maguire’s comedic skills.

*Peter’s second confrontation with Harry, inside the Osborn manor, revealed the depths of how monstrous he could be. He seemed truly dark in this scene. Maguire even managed to allow the contempt and hatred reflected in his eyes, when Peter ridiculed Harry for attempting to follow in Norman Osborn’s footsteps. In all, it was a very excellent performance on Maguire’s part.

From what I have read, "SPIDER-MAN 3" has received mixed reviews. Hmmm. Well, I certainly cannot influence the opinions of others. I can only express my own views. Personally, I enjoyed the movie very much. It possessed an emotional depth that went even further than first two movies. When I first heard that Spider-Man would be facing three villains – the New Goblin (Harry), the Sandman (Flint Marko) and Venom (Eddie Brock, Jr.) – I had my doubts about the movie’s success. It seemed like one or two villains too many. Oddly enough, after seeing the movie, it now seemed to work within its plot for me – despite the number of villains. Now that I think about it, the one true villain of the story – aside from the major characters’ inner darkness – seemed to be Venom. Unlike Peter or Harry, Eddie Brock never could break away from his darker impulses . . . even when Peter managed to force him away from the symbiote. And unlike Marko, Eddie never felt any remorse for his actions . . . right to the end.

To my amazement, I realized that my view of Rami's "SPIDER-MAN" trilogy seemed to match my view of the first three X-MEN movies. For me, the first movie of both trilogies struck me as very entertaining, but slightly mediocre ("SPIDER-MAN" is “almost” mediocre). The second movie for each trilogy was superb. Period. And the third movies for the two trilogies were flawed, but excellent, thanks to filmmaker Sam Rami.

"THE GREAT GATSBY" (2013) Review

"THE GREAT GATSBY" (2013) Review

Before the release of Baz Luhrmann's recent adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel, "The Great Gatsby", there have been three previous movie adaptations and a television movie version. None of these versions have been well received by the critics. Even this latest adaptation has been receiving mixed reviews. I must admit that I had been reluctant to see the movie, myself. But dazzled by the movie's MTV-style trailer, I decided to see it for the sake of the visual effects. 

Many who have read Fitzgerald's novel or seen any of the previous adaptations, know the story. "THE GREAT GATSBY"told the story of a mysterious young millionaire named Jay Gatsby who settles in a large house in the fictional town of West Egg (for the noveau riche), on prosperous Long Island, during the summer of 1922 - the early years of the Jazz Age. Narrated by Gatsby's neighbor; the well-born, yet impoverished Nick Carraway; audiences become aware of the millionaire's desire to woo and win back the heart of Daisy Fay Buchanan, an old love he had first met during World War I and Nick's cousin. Unfortunately for Gatsby, Daisy is married to one of Nick's former Yale classmates, Tom Buchanan, who comes from old Chicago money. Tom is engaged in an extramarital affair with one Myrtle Wilson, who is the wife of a gas station owner located in the Valley of Ashes - a stretch of road between Long Island and Manhattan. Gatsby invites Nick to one of his nightly lavish parties, given to impress Daisy, who lives across Oyster Bay at East Egg, a neighborhood for those from old money. Nick learns from Jordan Baker, an old Louisville friend of Daisy's, that Gatsby would like him to arrange a meeting with his former love over afternoon tea. The two former lovers reunite on a rainy afternoon and re-ignite their love affair that eventually ends in tragedy.

If critics were hoping that Baz Luhrmann would produce and direct a flawless or near flawless adaptation of Fitzgerald's novel, they were bound to be disappointed. "THE GREAT GATSBY" is not flawless. There were times when I found the movie a bit too melodramatic - especially during the party sequences. And I never saw the need to open the film with Nick Carraway being treated for alcoholism in a sanatorium. Luhrmann and the movie's other screenwriter, Craig Pearce, apparently included the sanatorium additions to transform Nick's character into some F. Scott Fitzgerald clone. The movie even ended with Nick's written recollections being given the title of Fitzgerald's novel. Frankly, I found this dumb and unnecessary. I also found the party sequence held by Tom and his married lover Myrtle Wilson at a New York apartment rather frantic. I realize that Nick became drunk at this party. But this scene proved to be one in which Luhrmann's colorful style nearly got the best of him.

I suspect that many expect me to complain about some of the music featured in "THE GREAT GATSBY" - namely the director's use of hip hop music. However . . . I have no complaints about Luhrmann using modern day music in a film set in 1922. For some reason I cannot explain, I believe Luhrmann and composer Craig Armstrong did a pretty bang-up job in blending their occasional use of modern-day music with some of the movie's scenes. There were also complaints that Catherine Martin's costumes were not a complete accurate projection of 1920s fashion. I did notice that although the movie was set in 1922, the clothes seemed to be a reflection of the mid or late period of that decade. Then I saw images like the following:

 

Or images like the following for the male characters:

 

I had wept with exultation and joy at my first sight of Martin's costumes. Her costumes for this film are some of the most gorgeous I have seen in a period drama in quite a while. Absolutely . . . bloody . . . gorgeous. The moment I set eyes on those costumes, I realized that I could not care less whether her work was an accurate reflection of 1922 fashion or not. Martin also served as the movie's production designer. If there was any justice, this would earn double Academy Award nominations for both her costumes and the movie's production designs. Baz Luhrmann filmed "THE GREAT GATSBY" in Australia, which means that he and his crew had to re-create 1922 Long Island and Manhattan from scratch. Martin was basically responsible for the movie's early Art Deco look - especially for scenes set in Gatsby's East Egg manor, his Manhattan speakeasy, the Manhattan restaurant where Nick and Jordan met, the Buchanans' East Egg home and especially the bleak-looking Valley of Ashes, the location of George Wilson's garage and the infamous Dr. T. J. Eckleburg billboard. Needless to say, I was more than impressed. I was dazzled.

I have been so busy discussing the movie's technical aspects that I failed to say anything about Luhrmann and Pearce's adaptation of Fitzgerald's film. I have already expressed my displeasure at their attempt to transform Nick Carraway into some kind of Fitzgerald clone at the movie's beginning and end. But aside from this faux paus, I feel that the two did a pretty damn good job. Were they completely faithful to the novel? No. Did this spell disaster? For some moviegoers and fans of Fitzgerald's novel, it did. But I do not share their feelings. I do not demand that a movie or television production re-create a novel or play in exact details. That road leads to insanity and sometimes, disaster. Aside from what was done to Nick's character at the beginning and end, the movie featured a few other changes. In this movie, a grieving George Wilson learned from Tom Buchanan that Jay Gatsby owned the yellow car that killed Myrtle at the former's gas station. Unless I am mistaken, Tom had conveyed this news to George, when the latter paid a visit to his East Egg mansion in the novel. The movie featured flashbacks of Gatsby's life in North Dakota and his years spent with a millionaire named Dan Cody. But Gatsby's father did not make an appearance near the end of the movie (for which I am utterly grateful). Did these changes bother me? Nope, they did not. I was too busy admiring the energy that Luhrmann injected into Fitzgerald's tale. This was especially apparent in the pivotal scene featuring Gatsby and Tom's showdown over Daisy's affections in a Plaza Hotel suite. The scene crackled with emotions and an energy that seemed to be either lacking or at best, muted, in other adaptations. More importantly, Luhrmann and Pearce's screenplay finally lifted a fog and allowed me to fully understand and appreciate Fitzgerald's tale for the first time. I am afraid that the previous two adaptations (1974 and 2000) had bored me to the point that the emotions and theme behind the story had failed to elude me in the past. And that is the best part of Luhrmann's adaptation. For the first time, I finally understood the pathetic nature of the Jay Gatsby/Daisy Buchanan love story. And I am being complimentary. 

A movie review would not be complete with a discussion on the performances. Leonardo DiCaprio became the fifth actor to portray Jay Gatsby aka James Gatz. And as usual, he was magnificent. In fact, I believe his Gatsby was the best I have ever seen on screen. He managed to maintain the character's mystery in the movie's first half without eliminating any of the character's strong emotions. Despite the attempt to transform Nick Carraway into a Fitzgerald clone, I had no problems with Tobey Maguire's portrayal of the character. In fact, he did an excellent job of conveying both Nick's observant nature and emotional attachment to Gatsby, while injecting a bit of warm humor and slight goofiness in the role. I realize that Maguire and DiCaprio had been friends for over two decades. I suspect that friendship made it easy for the pair to convey the growing friendship between Nick and Gatsby. 

Carey Mulligan gave an exquisite performance as the quixotic Daisy Buchanan. Mulligan made it easy for viewers to understand how Gatsby fell so hard for her. She perfectly conveyed Daisy's superficial idealism and warmth. But Mulligan also skillfully allowed Daisy's more unpleasant side - her selfishness, mild snobbery and lack of courage - to ooze between the cracks in the character's facade. Joel Edgerton really impressed me in his portrayal of the brutish Tom Buchanan. In the actor's first scene, I felt as if he was laying it a bit thick in conveying the character's unpleasant nature. But Edgerton quickly grew into the role and portrayed Tom's brutality with more subtlety. He also did a great job in portraying the character's surprising talent for manipulation and genuine feelings for the doomed Myrtle. 

For the role of Daisy's Louisville friend and golfer Jordan Baker, Luhrmann chose Australian-born stage-trained actress named Elizabeth Debicki for the role. And she did a pretty damn good job. In fact, I thought Debicki did a solid job of conveying Jordan's fast-living and cynical personality with great skill. Isla Fisher knocked it out of the ballpark as the fun-loving Myrtle Fisher. Not only did she gave a first-rate portrayal of Myrtle's garishness and warmth, but also the character's grasping ambition and desperation to escape from her stagnant and dull marriage to gas station owner George. Myrtle is not highly regarded by many Fitzgerald fans. But Fisher made it easy for me to feel some sparks of pity toward the latter's situation regarding her marriage to George. Speaking of the latter, "THE GREAT GATSBY"marked the third period drama in which I have seen Jason Clarke. His role as the pathetic George Wilson is a bit smaller, but Clarke made the best of it, especially in two scenes. One scene featured Clarke perfectly conveying George's clumsy attempt to toady Tom for a business transaction regarding the latter's car. And in another, he did a beautiful job in portraying George's pathetic grief over a woman who had stopped loving him a long time ago. This movie also marked a reunion for Clarke and Edgerton. Both had appeared in "ZERO DARK THIRTY". I also want to point out Amitabh Bachchan's much talked about portrayal of Gatsby's gambling friend, Meyer Wolfshiem - a fictionalized take on gambler/gangster Arnold Rothstein. No only did the actor looked unusual, he gave a lively, yet brief performance that I found quite captivating. And Jack Thompson gave a quiet (almost speechless) and subtle performance as Nick's psychiatrist Dr. Walter Perkins. STAR WARS fans should take note that eleven years ago, Thompson portrayed Cliegg Lars - father to Edgerton's Owen Lars - in "STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES".

I am the last person who will ever claim that this latest "THE GREAT GATSBY" is perfect. Trust me, it is not. But it is a very entertaining film that I believe captured the emotions and theme behind F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel better than any previous adaptation. More importantly, director Baz Luhrmann injected style and energy not only into the story itself, but also its visual look and the first-rate performances from a cast led by Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire. I did not hesitate to see this movie at the first opportunity.

"THE GREAT GATSBY" (2013) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE GREAT GATSBY", the recent adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel. Directed by Baz Luhrmann, the movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton:


"THE GREAT GATSBY" (2013) Photo Gallery