I can see you

now-you-see-me-headerAfter I walked out of Now You See Me, a caper film about four magicians who become master thieves and the FBI agents trying to stop them, I began to overthink the twist at the end. I won’t reveal it, because that would be unfair, but it made me question some of the opinions I developed while I was watching the film. At one point, I had leaned over to my boyfriend and asked, “Why are the magicians so well written and the cops so badly written?” The question at first was rhetorical; I was really asking the world why bad screenwriters exist. Then the question was real: Was it deliberate? Did we need to see the movie all over again with the knowledge of the twist? The answer to the second question is no. I don’t need to see it again. The movie wants to be Oceans 11 crossed with The Prestige crossed with The Usual Suspects, and as fun as it is in places, Now You Seem Me is an illusion, a mediocre film pretending to be a good one.

The movie begins with four street magicians – slight-of-hand entertainers like David Copperfield, not Harry Potter wizards – getting recruited by a mysterious benefactor who gives them the plans for a bunch of elaborate tricks. A year later, now dubbed the Four Horsemen, Daniel (Jesse Eisenberg), Merritt (Woody Harrelson), Henley (Isla Fisher), and Jack (Dave Franco) are putting on a massive stage show at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, produced by billionaire Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine). As their final trick, they teleport one of their audience members to a bank vault in Paris and steal three million euros and then rain the cash onto the audience. This heist brings in the FBI, led by Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo), as well as a beautiful Interpol agent named Alma Dray (Mélanie Laurent). The Four Horsemen also spark the interest of professional magician debunker Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman, sleepwalking again). For the next hour and half, the magicians put on shows, steal money, and give it away while the FBI fail to stop them and Bradley chuckles. There are deeper mysteries involved, as well as old rivalries and large egos. It all ends exactly as the mysterious benefactor planned, and you may or may not be surprised who that is.

The best part of the movie, as I allude to above, is when the magicians are at work. Eisenberg and Harrelson are both given delightful dialogue, and they are experts at portraying mischievous arrogance. The filming of the stage shows, as well as the more minor tricks, usually made at the expense of the FBI, is where director Louis Leterrier, who gave us the fun Transporter movies as well as dreadful Clash of the Titans remake, does his best work. These scenes are thrilling, funny, and even beautiful. He also, not surprisingly, gives good action, but the car chases are not nearly as a good as the fist fight between Franco and Ruffalo. However, when the focus turns to just Ruffalo, Laurent, and the rest of the fumbling FBI, the dialogue dumbs down dramatically, and the flirtation between Ruffalo and Laurent is simply terribly written and acted, a rather astonishing feat considering the prowess of those two actors. And unfortunately, the balance between FBI and magician tips towards the cops in the second half of the movie, and I found myself asking that question about why the cops are so badly written.

I had too many questions, not just about aesthetic quality, but also about plotting, logic, and coherence. When you’re trying to pull off an ending inspired by The Usual Suspects, you can’t leave the audience asking as many questions as I did. Okay, it is possible I just need to see Now You See Me again. And if it comes on cable some lazy afternoon in a year or so, I may watch it looking for the “A-ha!”

Now You See Me
Directed by Louis Leterrier
Written by Ed Solomon, Boaz Yakin, and Edward Ricourt
Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, and Morgan Freeman
Rated PG-13
At your local multiplex

 

Epic clichés

epic-image04I ended up seeing Epic because I couldn’t abide seeing the other two movies that opened Memorial Day, Fast & Furious 6 and The Hangover, Part 3. I didn’t bother with Fast & Furious 6 because I didn’t see the previous four, and I was worried that I’d be confused. I’m kidding, of course; I’m pretty sure it was going to be the same movie, except louder and flashier, and still without the much needed explicit sex scene between Vin Diesel and Paul Walker. After the jaw-dropping offensiveness of The Hangover, Part 2, there was no way that I was going to see Todd Phillips insult heterosexual men, homosexual men, anyone with race consciousness, or anyone with a sense of humor again, even if my boo Zach Galifianakis was in it. So, I ended up at Hollywood’s counter-programming for the weekend, the animated children’s adventure Epic, which is a strange mash-up of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, A Bugs Life, and The Lord of the Rings, without being a tiny fraction as good as any of them. In hindsight, I wish I’d stayed home and binged on Netflix. Or just slept in. Continue…

Hello, darkness

187442The first question I was asked after I walked out of Star Trek Into Darkness was not, “Was it good?” but rather “How good was it?” After 2009’s glorious reboot of the iconic sci-fi series Star Trek, with JJ Abrams directing Chris Pine as Captain Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Mr. Spock, the expectations for the sequel were high. Very, very high. Over the previous decade, Star Trek had wandered into the darkness: the original cast and movies of the 60s, 70s, and 80s (with William Shatner as Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as Spock) had given way to the celebrated TV series “Next Generation,” and the less so “Deep Space Nine,” “Voyager,” and “Enterprise.” The movies based on the “Next Generation” cast started out fine, and then not so much, and the last one, 2002’s Star Trek: Nemesis, was a dud, earning $67 million, a sixth the box office of what JJ Abrams’s reboot did. Abrams, who co-created Lost, Fringe, and Alias and has been tapped to – gasp! – reboot Star Wars, is a great science fiction filmmaker; his Star Trek was thrilling, gorgeous, epic, and perfectly cast, particularly Quinto as Spock. So, how good was it sequel? Very, very good. Continue…

Gatsby is cipher

The-Great-Gatsby1Even though The Great Gatsby is my favorite novel (and I’ve read it three times) I have always been left a little cold by Gatsby himself. I didn’t fall in love with him like his obsession Daisy did, and I didn’t become utterly enamored with him like the book’s narrator Nick Carraway did. This was the case for me with F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1925 book, arguably the greatest written in English in the 20th century, in Jack Clayton and Francis Ford Coppola’s failed 1974 film with Robert Redford in the title role, and again in Baz Luhrmann’s ecstatic new adaptation starring Leonardo DiCaprio.

Gatsby is cipher; not only is everything about him concealed until the end of the book (or two-thirds of the film) but everything about his character – his affect, his accent, his trappings – are an elaborate and astonishing act. He has created a palace of wealth and excitement on Long Island across the bay from his lost love, Daisy (a luminous Carey Mulligan), all to draw her to him; he charms his much poorer next door neighbor, our narrator Nick (a most excellent Tobey Maguire), because he is Daisy’s cousin; he has constructed a false life story of well-born privilege and war heroism to give him the respectability a woman like Daisy needs. And all of it is a lie except for his desperate love for Daisy, who is married to a brute of an American aristocrat, Tom Buchanan, who Joel Edgerton’s amazingly makes more fully realized than even Fitzgerald did. Tom, after all, is the only one who sees through Gatsby’s veneer, though he of course hates what is actually underneath.

Better than anyone else has in the myriad adaptations, Dicaprio manages to play Gatsby’s complexity, by acting fake and acting real in strategic succession. His charisma, both Gatsby’s and Dicaprio’s, is admittedly powerful, but perhaps because I knew how it all would end, I couldn’t quite succumb. Perhaps it’s because Gatsby encapsulates the American Dream: the capacity for reinvention, for hope, to offer the shimmering promise of wealth, and to send us on a pursuit for happiness. And for many of us, that American Dream is bunk. Gatsby, however, never gives up hope, never sees that the green light on Daisy’s dock across the bay symbolizes too much for him, that it’s not, in the end, worth it. That’s what makes him so tragic. Fitzgerald, a heartbroken drunk, wasn’t a cheerful man.

Baz Luhrmann, however, has no such affliction. His films, the best of which are Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge, are, like Gatsby, tragedies. But they are ebullient, gorgeous, lush, and enrapt tragedies, full of fauvist color, baroque styling, and anachronistic music that is less an attempt at post-modern disjuncture than a manipulation of the audience’s capacity to recall the emotional resonance they feel for some songs. In this case, it’s Beyoncé and Andre 3000 covering Amy Winehouse’s “Back to Black,” Jack White doing U2’s “Love is Blindness,” and Jay-Z, the film’s music supervisor and executive producer, throwing in such iconic songs as his “Izzo (H.O.V.A.)” and his, Frank Ocean’s, and Kanye West’s “No Church in the Wild,” as well as a new, but probably soon to be iconic, “100$ Bill.”

The music is combined with Luhrmann’s sets, costumes, 3-D cinematography and CGI, and the results are simply outrageous. To me, this works so well because unlike Clayton and Coppola’s dully naturalistic version, Luhrmann treats Fitzgerald’s lyrical, astonishingly beautiful language with the reverence it deserves. When Nick isn’t narrating in voiceover, Luhrmann transforms Fitzgerald’s words into indelible images bursting with almost garish color and ostentatious detail. This is the first adaptation of a Fitzgerald work that seems to be as in love with Fitzgerald’s writing as Gatsby is with Daisy. Unlike Fitzgerald, whose novel is perfectly tempered and constructed, Luhrmann makes errors of both under-emphasis and exaggeration, but the end result is still a wondrous experience, unlike anything you will see on screen this year.

The Great Gatsby
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Written by Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, and Carey Mulligan
Rated PG-13
In 3-D
At your local multiplex

Subversively reluctant

the-reluctant-fundamentalist08If you were offended by Zero Dark Thirty, and there’s good reason to be, you may find solace in The Reluctant Fundamentalist, which is as subversively anti-American and anti-imperialist as Zero Dark Thirty was pro-American and pro-fascism. Based on the novel by Mohsin Hamid, it is the story of how Changez (Riz Ahmed) is transformed from extremely eager, extremely competitive capitalist – from Princeton to investment banking – into the heroic professor of anti-American student protesters (and possibly terrorists) in Lahore, Pakistan. Changez tells his story to Bobby Lincoln (Liev Schrieber), a journalist covering the kidnapping of one Changez’s university colleagues, an American scholar. It’s a fascinating process, and Ahmed gives one of the great performances of this year (and I suggest you goggle his rap song “Post 9/11 Blues), but as usual with most movies directed by Mira Nair there are too many missteps and odd moments to make it great film. Kate Hudson, playing Changez’s American girlfriend, is dreadfully directed, and Schreiber gives the worst line readings of his career. Kiefer Sutherland, as Changez’s banker boss, is great, but he and Ahmed are not enough to make up for weak pacing and bland cinematography. Still, it’s a powerful story and a useful counter to the mindless anti-Muslim and silly jingoism of most American films.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist
Directed by Mira Nair
Written by Mohsin Hamid and Ami Boghani
Starring Riz Ahmed, Liev Schreiber, and Kate Hudson
Rated R
At Landmark Hillcrest