Everest

When asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, English mountaineer George Mallory famously answered "Because it's there." The world's tallest point, Everest has long been a source of the impossible, of reaching up to the heavens and doing something humans simply aren't meant to do. In doing so though, climbers take an incredible risk that often results in death. Nowhere is that shown better than the recently released 2015's Everest.

It is 1996 and Mount Everest remains a climber's dream. Things have changed though as expert climbers now guide expeditions up the famous mountain -- the tallest point on planet Earth -- for hefty sums that hopefully get those climbers up to the top where they become one of the few to accomplish the feat. Among those expedition and guide leaders are Rob Hall (Jason Clarke) and Scott Fischer (Jake Gyllenhaal) who have different outlooks on what they do but are both expert climbers. In a crowded climbing season in '96 as many other expeditions go for the summit, both Rob and Scott lead their own teams up. Weeks of preparation and acclimatization ready the teams for a go at the top -- almost 30,000 feet up, the cruising altitude of a commercial airliner -- but no one can know what awaits them on Everest's slopes. There's only a small window to even make a go at the summit, and the window is closing fast.

From director Baltasar Kormakur (Contraband, 2 Guns), 'Everest' is based on the 1996 Mount Everest disaster that claimed five lives (as far as this story is concerned). Obviously, don't read that link if you don't want MASSIVE SPOILERS. The story itself gained notoriety when author Jon Krakauer -- who was part of the expedition -- wrote Into Thin Air, a bestselling book documenting the disaster. It was even quickly turned into an ABC TV movie. This retelling though? Wow. What a moving, uncomfortable and incredibly difficult movie to watch. Trailers and commercials portray this film as more of an adventure story, of spectacle, but it is far-more emotional and personal than I thought. All this is a compliment by the way. It isn't exactly tearing up the box office, but an easy movie to recommend.

Where 'Everest' succeeds best is in its on-mountain portrayal. Much of the first hour is spent establishing the hellish environment the climbers and guides will be attempting to climb. Even base camp is at 17,000-plus feet. By the time you reach anywhere near the summit, you're in what is called 'the Death Zone.' Your body isn't meant to survive in those situations and is literally dying. Kormakur's film gives a window into this terrifying world where ice crevasses and avalanches, frigid temperatures and impending death await around every corner. Even the experts struggle to do it, much less the climbers they're trying to help. The 1996 season for years was the most deadly as the mountain claimed double-digit lives, and you see why. To say you climbed Mount Everest is an incredible accomplishment, but it is far from a given that you will make it to the top.

So that cast...yeah, pretty decent. Jason Clarke is on the cusp of big things, and this is another part that shows off his impressive talent. He's likable, believable and delivers a very real, very human performance as a mount climber who knows the danger but also the glory of making it to the top and finds himself weighing that knowledge in a life-and-death situation. He has some great scenes with his wife (Keira Knightley, excellent as usual) that really help humanize him and give the Rob Hall portrayal another level. Another excellent performance comes from Gyllenhaal (one of my favorite actors) as Fischer, a free-spirit who thinks only legit climbers should see Everest's summit. Hall and Fischer are competitors but still good friends who make a business decision as the final go at the top of the mountain nears. Two excellent performances.

That's not enough though because...well, it just isn't. The main focus on the climbers is Josh Brolin's Beck Weathers, a 40-something Texan with a wife (Robin Wright) and two kids at home, John Hawkes' Doug Hansen, a mailman who's neared the summit twice but come up short both times, Naoko Mori as Yasuko, a climber who's reached six of the seven tallest summits in the world, and Michael Kelly as Krakauer, the journalist writing a story. For the rest of the guide teams, look for Sam Worthington (why is he not in more, better movies?!?), Emily Watson, Martin Henderson, Ingvar Eggert Sigurosson and Thomas M. Wright. Some good performances, especially Brolin and Hawkes and Worthington, among the bunch to round out an impressively assembled cast.

Two things worth mentioning that come as a surprise and make the movie difficult to watch. As I mentioned, previews, commercials and trailers portrayed 'Everest' as far more of a spectacle flick and adventure story because at its heart, it is. It's human beings doing the impossible and attempting to climb Mount Everest. So looking at it solely in that vein, it is a haunting, beautiful movie where Mount Everest becomes an incredible, eye-popping visual character. The long, intimidating and foreboding shots of the mountain in the distance or from far below are a sight to behold. Aided by composer Dario Marianelli's score, the snow-capped, windy, rocky set-up establishing shots are an easy success and a treat to watch. Then you see a speck of a human being traversing up the mountain and it all puts into perspective how difficult climbing the world's tallest summit really is.

The counter is the depths of emotions that get thrown at the viewer. Quasi-SPOILER alert, but the climb doesn't go anywhere near as planned and several lives are lost. Some of the deaths are quick and shocking as we see the Death Zone tear the climbers up as the frigid temperatures and lack of oxygen wreak havoc. The other deaths are slow and drawn out -- with some surprises along the way -- that produce some truly heartbreaking scenes. Surprisingly emotional with a haunting final shot. Not an easy movie to "like," but a very pleasant surprise and a big success on just about every level, regardless of how its doing at the box office. I definitely recommend NOT reading about the 1996 expedition before going to see this one. Go in with a clean slate.

Everest (2015): *** 1/2 /****

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Okay, I'll admit. I am a diehard Planet of the Apes fan. I know....it's a complete shocker for anyone who follows the site. The original series -- 5 movies -- is fun to watch from beginning to end, even if by the fifth film, things were running on empty. Then there's that Tim Burton remake/reboot version that....I don't know, was just awful. And then there was 2011's Rise of the Planet of the Apes, one of the most pleasant surprises in years for me in big-budget theatrical releases. Which naturally leads up to 2014's Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, currently raking in piles of money and critical acclaim.

It has been 10 years since a virus has torn the world apart, wiping out a majority of mankind across the planet. Little pockets of humanity have managed to survive, working together to do so. But north of San Francisco, the intelligent, genetically-evolved ape, Caesar (Andy Serkis), is leading a community of apes that has moved on with no interference from humanity. It's been so long since the apes have even seen a human they begin to wonder if any have even survived. That wonder is answered when a small group of humans, led by Malcolm (Jason Clarke), walks into the woods in hopes of reaching a nearby dam, a dam that if restarted up could power the life of their colony of survivors waiting in fortified San Francisco. Caesar must now decide what to do. Allow the humans to repair the broken-down dam and refuel their colony? Don't allow them to pass and risk a violent response from the humans who have become increasingly desperate? The ape community hangs in the balance.

Revisiting 'Rise' before jumping into 'Dawn' this weekend, I came away impressed again with where the series/franchise has gone. I can't say enough how surprised I was, how genuinely good 'Rise' was. Naturally, I was psyched for the sequel, to see what was done with the follow-up (Yes, I support sequels as it suits me). Director Matt Reeves takes the helm and does it well. It isn't necessarily what you'd expect from a summer blockbuster. It isn't mindless, stupid action on a grand scale. Yeah, it has action, but the focus and grand scale is more interested in the story and the characters, developing it all so the action actually means something. It's not just random explosions. The action and the story work together seamlessly. This isn't a mindless blockbuster. This is a good movie, and it is most definitely the better for it. 'Dawn' takes the baton and keeps on running, a worthy sequel, one that lays things out nicely for another sequel should they so choose.

What helps set this sequel apart from most inferior sequels is that rehashed idea from the original series that started way back in 1968 with The Planet of the Apes. 'Dawn' creates a story in a new world, a world that has gone most of 10 years without much in the way of human involvement. The roads have been claimed back by nature. The towns -- we see San Francisco as the main human backdrop -- are falling apart, nature, plants, weeds and greenery growing as far as the eye can see. Amongst this world without too much human interference, the Earth is getting back to the basics. In this world, little communities have popped up, including Caesar's ape village up in the Muir Woods National Monument, and the Colony in San Francisco, human survivors banding together. It seems simple to commend a movie for creating a world -- that's what they're supposed to do -- but 'Dawn' works. We're thrust into a dark, gloomy, dreary world where survival comes above all else. Simple as that.

Picking up right where he left off, Andy Serkis again steals the show as Caesar, the highly intelligent ape leader who has even learned to speak (the other apes coming along nicely in that department). At no point watching the apes do you ever really consider you're watching computer-generated images. It just looks real. It looks natural. The visual is key because if it didn't work, you're taken completely out of the movie and that can be impossible to recover from. Beyond the visual though, the best part of the movie is the development of the Caesar character. The revolution of the 1st movie is gone so the apes settle into a new life, Caesar as their leader. We see him struggling with decisions, struggling with leadership, struggling with what to do. He's now got a family to consider too, his wife, Cornelia (Judy Greer), and his son, Blue Eyes (Nick Thurston). The performance is the heart of the movie, Serkis carrying the movie from beginning to end.

So go figure, but there is far more interest here in the apes story than the humans. That's not to say the humans aren't interesting, just not as interesting as the apes. Along with Caesar and his family, we also see Koba (Toby Kebbell), Caesar's fiery friend, a rescue from a science lab, Maurice (Karin Konoval), an already intelligent former circus ape and Caesar's closest friend, and Rocket (Terry Notary), another friend from the ape habitat. As for the humans and along with Clarke, look for Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), the leader of the San Francisco colony, Ellie (Keri Russell), Malcolm's girlfriend, a doctor, Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee), Malcolm's son, with Kirk Acevedo, Jon Eyez, and Enrique Murciano as assorted other humans we meet.

The coolest dynamic that develops in 'Dawn' is between Caesar and Malcolm. They're both working to accomplish something, both working against incredibly tough odds to get that done. Their scenes together are pretty perfect, both men/fathers realizing how tough their situations are. They don't complain or pout, instead continuing to chip away and work at getting where they need to be. The ape-human dynamic there gives a different dimension to the already interesting story. And yes, the finale packs in the action, a violent night battle in the abandoned streets of San Francisco. It's got a lot going for it, drama, action, some surprising laughs, a little bit of everything. There's also some nice touches for series fans, including the soundtrack using quick samples of composer Jerry Goldsmith's score from the original 'Planet.'

A more than worthy sequel, one that hopefully propels the series forward into another entry!

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014): ***/****

Public Enemies

In the age of the gangsters, the 1930s in Depression-era America, one name stands out above the rest. Sure, there's Pretty Boy Floyd, the Barkers, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly, Alvin Karpis, even Bonnie and Clyde. But the name John Dillinger stands out, Public Enemy No. 1, a gangster, bank robber and possible killer who rose to notoriety in the early 1930s. I reviewed this movie from 2009 that works as a quasi-biography, but rewatched it recently and updated the review. Here were go with 2009's Public Enemies.

It's 1933 in Crown Point, Indiana and John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) has been caught and is just being brought to prison, or so his guards think. Instead, the notorious bank robber has arranged a breakout, a group from his gang busting out with him. With his gang back together again, Dillinger goes on a spree, robbing banks all over Chicago and into Indiana and Wisconsin. The gangster feels the noose tighten around his neck, his notoriety forcing the government's hand in bringing him to justice. The Bureau of Investigation (the FBI) is in its infancy, J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) placing a young but capable agent, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), in charge of bringing Dillinger to justice. Using all the technology available to them, Purvis and his agents do everything they can to capture Dillinger, but can the notorious bank robber continue his crime spree?

This 2009 crime thriller is based off a book of the same name, Public Enemies, by author Bryan Burrough. It's a great read, non-fiction at its best. Burrough's book covers a ton of ground about one of the more violent, turbulent times in American history. The 1930s were the time of the gangster, killers, bank robbers and thieves working on a grand scale with a trail of fast cars, money and riches and dead bodies. Almost every single one of them died bloody and violent. It was a bloody, violent, fascinating time in American history. Originally thought of as a miniseries, Burroughs turned his research into a book. With so many people, places and incidents, the film version was condensed to John Dillinger vs. Melvin Purvis. It's a wise choice because Burroughs' novel as is would have been overwhelming.  

We meet other people, but this is Johnny Depp's movie as he brings John Dillinger to life. A sympathetic character? No, not quite. It is on the other hand a fascinating character to watch. The people who met him during his crime reign of terror, a lot of witnesses said he was charming, likable and friendly. One of the biggest movie stars around, Depp is the best thing going in this movie, making Dillinger a human being, not just a historical name. Depp's Dillinger seems to know the life he's chosen necessitates a live-fast, live-hard mentality. Knowledge of the historical facts or not, you just know Dillinger is leading a doomed life. Sooner or later, his luck will run out. It's really the only character here given any sort of development or characterization too, John given a love interest in Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), a coat check girl from a poor background who falls hard for the gangster, as does he for her. Depp and Cotillard have a believable, real chemistry, giving the story that necessary human element.

Who best to direct a high-arcing crime thriller? How about a director with movies like Heat, Thief, Last of the Mohicans and The Inside to his name? Michael Mann takes the helm here for this style-heavy period piece.  'Enemies' was filmed on location in Chicago and around the Midwest where much of the story actually took place. Chicago serving as a backdrop for a story is never a bad thing, giving an air of authenticity here. The suits, the hats, the gentleman gangsters, the cars, it all adds up a to a more than worthy time capsule to 1930s Depression-era America. If there's a fault, Mann is too interested in the style, not the substance. He shot with a digital format, giving those scenes an odd, fuzzy look. The editing is fast and hard -- almost schizophrenic -- to the point the movement is hard to follow. Replace some of that aggressive style which doesn't necessarily work with some more story and characterization, and then we're talking.

Depp's movie, no doubt, but in star power, Christian Bale isn't far behind. It's just star power though. Bale is a really good actor, but he's given little to do here. The real-life Melvin Purvis was a bit of a dunce, the movie choosing not to delve too much into that angle. Bale is okay, but it's a necessary, workmanlike part, nothing more. Crudup does a good job with his quick scenes as Hoover, a glorified cameo. As for Dillinger's gang, look for Jason Clarke, Stephen Dorff, David Wenham and another violent gangster, Stephen Graham as maniacal Baby Face Nelson. Stephen Lang is memorable as a Texas lawman, Charles Winstead, brought in to help Purvis, Rory Cochrane playing one of his fellow Chicago FBI agents. There's also quick parts for Channing Tatum, Carey Mulligan and Giovanni Ribisi, and in the case of Tatum and Mulligan, don't blink or you'll miss them. There's plenty of other appearances that probably deserve some attention, but they're not around long enough to mention.

That's one of the weaknesses in Mann's film. Condensing Burroughs' book and doing so with just one focus -- Dillinger -- is still a daunting task. I think it tries to accomplish too much. A year-plus of story, countless speaking roles, and a whole lot of history. Depp is excellent, that's not in question. The action is very exciting, especially the infamous Little Bohemia shootout. Mann does action and does it well. The heavy, automatic machine guns, the B.A.R.s, the heavy pistols, these are guns that pack a punch so there's something visceral and adrenaline-pumping in the action scenes. Something is missing though. It's cool, but the movie doesn't have a ton of heart. The last 30 minutes are the movie at its best, Purvis and the FBI closing in on Dillinger. One what-if scene has Dillinger walking into the Dillinger Squad office, surreal and cool. The same for Dillinger's death, a stylish, cool scene aided by Elliot Goldenthal's musical score.

A good movie but with some serious flaws. It could have been a classic, and maybe with a miniseries it would have been. Still, Johnny Depp is cooler than you.

Public Enemies (2009): ** 1/2 /****
Rewrite of July 2009 review

Texas Killing Fields

I'm gonna be honest here. I was aware of this movie, even thought it looked pretty decent despite some middling reviews. I liked the cast and was curious what it would off. But then it sat there on Netflix glaring back at me for quite awhile. What changed my mind? I fell hard for HBO's True Detective -- still working my way through Season 1 -- and wanted to watch a gritty police procedural, hence our sitdown with 2011's Texas Killing Fields.

In Texas City, Texas, a darkness hangs in the air. Unsolved mysteries seem to plague the police department, dead bodies turning up far too often in the maze-like, trance-like bayous that surround the oil fields to the point the area is dubbed 'the Killing Fields.' Two detectives, Mike Souder (Sam Worthington) and Brian Heigh (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), are called in to investigate when a dead body turns up, a teenage girl who may have had ties with drugs and prostitution. A former NYC cop, Heigh is still adjusting to a different style, a different way of investigating while Souder grew up learning the system. The clues don't seem to lead anywhere and everywhere at the same time. Heigh begins to suspect they may be dealing with a serial killer, but can the two detectives put it all together? When they receive a call from the killer as he executes a victim, their motivations become amped up even more.

This movie should have been better. There, I said it. 'Fields' comes from director Ami Canaan Mann -- daughter of Michael Mann -- and certainly has a lot of potential. The story is loosely based on a true story of the murders of many women along a stretch of road in Texas along the I-45 corridor. I really liked the style, the darkness, the sense of doom that hangs in the air. Cinematographer Stuart Dryburgh films a story that is uncomfortable, dark and eerie, like evil is hanging in the air, composer Dickon Hinchliffe's score aiding the cause in creating that ever so dark mood. The bayous just have something dark about them, these expansive yet claustrophobic fields holding all sorts of doom and evil. It doesn't have much of a positive outlook on life, evil waiting to descend on all of us. Hard to beat that in a police procedural where the detectives are pushed to their absolute limits to find the murderer.

With some obvious dark drama, the variation here is on the buddy cop flick (hold the laughs of course). I'm a fan of both Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Sam Worthington so it was cool to see them paired up as two very different cops. Their differences, their dynamic works well. Morgan's Brian is the crusader, wanting to save everyone and anyone he can, becoming obsessed with the cases that cross his desk. Worthington's Mike similarly wants to solve each case, but he's also been worn down by the region he's worked in for so long. Murder is far from accepted, but there's also little surprise in this veteran cop when new bodies pop up. Their differing outlooks clash, their arguments fueling the case. Brian sees the potential that the newest victim is tied in with other unsolved murders. Mike simply wants to find the murderer as it impacts his jurisdiction. Two solid if unspectacular performances.

Because the case drama isn't enough, we need some personal drama. Mike's ex-wife and a detective from the state police is played by Jessica Chastain in a wasted part, the drama never really clicking. Chloe Grace Moretz is good as little Anne, a teenage girl who Brian keeps helping because her mother works as a prostitute at home. Jason Clarke, Stephen Graham, James Hebert and Jon Eyez play possible suspects in the case.

So style to burn, stock characters who are still interesting, what's missing? Simply put...the story. It's so convoluted that nothing ever clicks together. There's the one victim, then there's others, then there are others that may have been from other murderers. Who are we looking for? Are the killers those ones or these ones? Sure, I'm convinced that's what actual police and detective work is really like. Leads that don't go anywhere, leads and clues that are misleading, suspects who can't be convicted. It's all there. But in a 105-minute movie why pack all this in there? I was never quite sure what was going on, a huge red herring going absolutely nowhere. Realistic? Most likely. Good for the sake of the story? Nope. A disappointing end result.

Texas Killing Fields (2011): **/****

White House Down

In 1993 and 1994, it was Tombstone and Wyatt Earp. In 1998, it was Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line. In 2011, it was Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached. All similar movies released in a tight window, forcing audiences to choose which one (because who sees both?!?) to go see. Well, 2013 had its own deja vu entries, Olympus Has Fallen, and now, White House Down.

A veteran of the war in Afghanistan, a highly decorated one at that, John Cale (Channing Tatum) is now a Capitol Police officer assigned to the Speaker of the House, Eli Raphelson (Richard Jenkins). It's pretty straightforward, even boring, duty, John aspiring to be a Secret Service agent even though his credentials aren't quite there. He's also a divorced father, and he's managed to secure two passes for a White House tour, bringing his daughter, Emily (Joey King), to the President's home. While on the tour, John and Emily even meet the President, James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx), who even speaks briefly with the politically-obsessed Emily. Only minutes later though, a bomb goes off in the Capitol Building, and soon the shooting starts in the White House. A group of gunmen are trying to take the President hostage. Separated from his daughter, John must now try and find her and make sure she's safe while also doing his damnedest to save the President.

This action-heavy political thriller from director Roland Emmerich hit theaters last summer, just months after the similarly-themed Olympus Has Fallen. It did all right in theaters, struggling some in the U.S. but making over $200 million internationally. Why did it struggle? Was it released too close to 'Olympus'? My money is on 'no.' I saw Olympus, liked it a lot, admitting it was cheesy, pretty dumb, predictable, obvious and a hell of a lot of fun. 'White House' is all of those things except....well....it's awful. It isn't fun. It's stupid, mind-numbingly stupid. I guess I shouldn't be completely surprised. Emmerich is the master of the big, overblown but ultimately entertaining blockbusters -- Independence Day, 2012, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow -- but that trend seems on the downhill. 'Tomorrow' was just dumb, I didn't see 2008's 10,000 B.C., and 2012 was laughable. 'White House' most definitely continues that downhill trend.

Yes, I know this is a movie that's supposed to be fun and dumb and entertaining. It isn't meant to rewrite Film as an entire entity. But does it have to be so cliche-ridden? So forced? Much like 'Olympus,' the premise certainly has some promise. What's protocol when the President of the United States' home comes under attack, a house that is heavily fortified and seemingly impregnable? That's cool. The action is cool. A shootout on the White House lawn, a fortified limo being chased by armored and heavily armed SUVs? Yeah, I can get on board with that. But that's it. These really cool moments, some potentially great action scenes get shot right in the foot because of a script that absolutely refuses to try anything even remotely unique? Sorry, screenwriter James Vanderbilt, this script was the biggest reason this movie flops. Disappointing when I realized Vanderbilt wrote The Losers, Zodiac, Basic, all movies I really liked. Cliches in an action movie are one thing, but this tested me. Late in the movie, repetitive at 131 minutes, I only stuck with it for the sake of a review. Yeah, I'm pretty honorable like that.

I've come around on Channing Tatum. With the right movie, the guy can act. He's likable on-screen, is a solid presence and can more than carry his own in action sequence. I still don't think he's a great actor (potentially, he could be), leaning more toward the movie star angle. This is a mixed part for him. Again, the script does him no favors. He's a divorced father, his busy schedule making it hard to be a good parent for Emily (King is a solid, young actress), pissing off his ex-wife (Rachelle Lefevre). Oh, and he's kinda absent-minded, not detail-oriented, but aw shucks, he's an American hero and really, really wants to be a Secret Service agent!!! Wouldn't you know it? The Secret Service agent (Maggie Gyllenhaal) in charge of hiring agents is an ex-girlfriend! Trapped inside the White House, he's also the only trained personnel that thinks to dodge gunfire, the Secret Service agents just standing there and getting shot. Tatum is okay -- not great, not bad -- and is clearly doing his best to have some fun.

The rest of the cast comes from Stock Characters 101. Jamie Foxx is okay as President Barack Obama, um, I mean President James Sawyer, but I don't know if he was a great casting choice to begin with. James Woods is the bad guy because what else would James Woods be doing in this movie? He's okay, a little overdone, as Martin Walker, the treacherous head of the Secret Service. His small army of gunmen/terrorists are led by Jason Clarke's Stenz, a mercenary with vengeance on his mind. Clarke is over the top but at least interesting in the villain department. His fellow gunmen are pretty faceless, Jimmi Simpson providing some odd comedic relief as the hacker, Kevin Rankin the right wing nut, Killick, who's crazy because he has a thin mustache, doesn't wear a shirt, just body armor, and screams a lot. As for the assorted political types to go with Jenkins and Gyllenhaal (legitimate actors legitimizing the movie...to a point), also look for Michael Murphy and Lance Reddick.

There's just too many painful moments here, too much to prevent it from being tolerable. When you think you're safe, the ending feels like a Scooby Doo ending. "If it wasn't for you meddling Capitol police, I would have got away with it!" At one point, Woods asks Clark "Want some cake?" to which Clark answers "No!.....I've got diabetes!!!" What?!? Later, Foxx's President Sawyer, having opted for some Air Jordans for his getaway, kicks a terrorist trying to hold him down and yells "Don't....touch...my....Air....Jordans!" The attempts at catchy, fun lines are awful, especially Tatum's one-liner when he dukes it out with Clarke, as is the solution to the White House coming under attack. It's certainly one I questioned, but then again, by then, I was questioning a lot of things. I don't want to give away too much of the awesomeness. Feel the pain yourself.

This one stunk.

White House Down (2013): */****

The Great Gatsby (2013)

One of the few books/novels I had to read for AP/Honors English in high school and college and actually enjoyed was F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, a condemnation of the Jazz Age, rich folks, all sorts of waste, and all that good stuff. It's had several reincarnations since, including one film starring Robert Redford, and more than a few other film and stage productions. In the age of the remake/reboot, here we sit with 2013's big-budget The Great Gatsby, as lavish and over the top as the story condemns.

It's 1922 and Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) has moved east to pursue a job in business on the stock market, leaving his Midwestern roots and his dream of being a writer behind him. He rents a small cottage on Long Island and can't help but notice the lavish, ridiculously over the top parties on almost a nightly basis at his next door neighbor's mansion. His neighbor? The mysteriously rich Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a man in his early 30s who no one knows much about. Specifically invited to one of Gatsby's parties, Nick shows up and is amazed at what he finds and sees, a party unlike any he's ever seen. He meets Gatsby, taking an instant like to this amiable, quirky man with all sorts of unanswered questions hanging over his head. Who is he really? How did he come to this spot? Nick will most certainly be surprised when he finds out, but will he care or will he just be worried about his new friend?

When I hear the name Baz Luhrmann, I think of one thing; one, big old extravagant director. With movies like Romeo and Juliet, Moulin Rouge and Australia to his name, Luhrmann has a track record for hugely visual, highly stylized films that reek (in a good way) of extravagant sets, goofy style, color, movement and more color. He continues the tradition/trend here with one crazy visual movie. It's style, style and style. We're transported to 1920s NYC courtesy of some pretty obvious but pretty cool CGI. The modern soundtrack is a little much -- songs from Jay Z, Beyonce, Andre 3000, Jack White among others -- and calls too much attention to itself at times. It's not just that the movie is stylish. Luhrmann and his crew commit to bringing it to life. Even if the story sucked or wasn't interesting, you could just sit back and revel in the visual. Thankfully, it's not just style and no substance.

Early on though, I'll admit to being rather worried about what I'd gotten into. As the movie finds its tone and pace, the first 20-25 minutes were rough for me. Things are righted the minute DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby appears on-screen for the first time. Talk about ideal casting, DiCaprio is perfectly cast as the mysterious, charismatic, engaging Gatsby. Let's face it. DiCaprio is a good-looking guy and that certainly helps here. He brings a certain charming energy to the part. Reading the book in high school, I really liked the Gatsby character. He's rich beyond anyone's dreams, but he isn't some smarmy, condescending millionaire. His past is slowly filtered out as we learn about his love for Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), Nick's cousin who also happens to be married to an equally rich man, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). We learn that Gatsby is like most people. He looks for happiness, for love, for someone to share his riches with. It's an excellent part for DiCaprio, again showing what a good actor he is.

The rest of the cast is uniformly solid behind him. I'm not a fan of Maguire going back to his Spiderman days, but he's pretty decent here. His Nick is our window into the story, Nick seeing and exploring as we do into this very rich world. His narration gets to be too much at times -- simply trying too hard -- but it's cool to see his friendship develop with Gatsby. Mulligan and Edgerton provide some interesting characters as Daisy and her husband, Tom, Daisy and Gatsby's love providing the spark for the second half of the story. We also get to meet Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debicki), a young, up and coming golfer who Nick meets soon after moving to NYC. Isla Fisher plays Myrtle, Tom's mistress, with Jason Clarke playing her husband, the owner of a gas station.

Having read the book (even if it was years ago), I had a certain worry heading into this flick. How close would the script stay to the novel? I worry about it with most books I've read that are turned into films. Thankfully, this adaptation sticks pretty close. While I liked the style and the visual appeal is obvious, I got more enjoyment out of the second half when Jay and Daisy's love steps to the forefront. The style is still there, but it's here we see more substance and get to know the characters far better. The sense of doom arises because we know everything can't end well for all those involved. Where will it head? Will it keep driving toward Fitzgerald's inevitable end? It's in the second half of the movie where 'Gatsby' finds that groove, that right mix of style, story, substance and characters. A pleasant surprise for sure.

The Great Gatsby (2013): ***/****

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

One of the more iconic movies to come out of the 1980s, 1987's Wall Street is memorable because of star Michael Douglas and his infamous line, "Greed is good." The movie itself is pretty good, and 23 years after its release, director Oliver Stone decided to return to his iconic character and continue the story with 2010's Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.

After spending 13 years in jail for insider training and securities fraud, Gordon Gekko (Douglas) is finally given his parole. Some seven years pass, and now he's promoting his new book 'Is Greed Good?' when he meets a young stock broker, Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf), who is engaged to Gordon's estranged daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan). Gordon wants to form a relationship with a daughter who might as well consider him dead. At the same time, Gordon begins to help Jake, a talented, intelligent broker in his own right, as he starts a new job with a high-level firm broker, Bretton James (Josh Brolin), who has rubbed plenty of people the wrong way in his rise to power. With millions and billions of dollars on the line and the massive egos to boot, an epic confrontation looms, but the struggling economy may have the last laugh over everyone involved.

For starters, let's get this somewhat obvious statement out of the way. Like just about any sequel ever, this is basically the definition of unnecessary. Why go back to a movie from 23 years ago and revisit a character -- however iconic -- and story that didn't need revisiting? Oh...the sequel made $130 million in theaters? I suppose that's as good a reason as any. Well, in business at least. Other than the epic economic issues of the last 10 years, there's no real reason to make this sequel. That said, it's not bad. The biggest thing working in positive fashion is the acting. The story lacks a bit of punch -- it's missing something in the energy department -- but I liked it just the same. Unnecessary? Oh, you betcha, but you could do worse.

I like movies, sports, reading. I can B.S. my way through a fair share of conversations. The financial crisis of 2008 is most definitely not one of those things. I have a very basic knowledge of the economic collapse that this sequel goes into in depth, but I'm far from an expert. In other words, some background and/or understanding in big money, Wall Street, stocks, and everything financial will no doubt help your enjoyment of this flick. Because my knowledge of the subject material is limited, I wasn't always crystal clear on what was going on. I still liked it, but it's an issue just the same. End of sidenote.

Without question, the best thing going for Stone's sequel is the return of Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko. His introduction is perfect, Gekko getting his parole and being released from prison after serving 13 total years in jail. We see him get his possessions back from a suit to a watch to a rather massive cell phone. The message is clear; times have changed, and Gordon is a dinosaur who has to adjust with the times. I think Stone makes an incredibly wise choice. For much of the movie, Gekko is a secondary -- if incredibly important secondary -- character that fleets in and out of the story as needed. Any scene with Douglas in it is worth watching, his appearances bringing the entire movie up a notch just by being there. He makes the others around him better. The new movie itself is unnecessary, but Douglas's appearance makes it worthwhile.

The rest of the cast is solid if unspectacular. It seems no matter the movie, LaBeouf takes grief for any number of things -- wooden acting, bad acting, off-screen antics -- but as long as he's not in loud, obnoxious, and obvious Transformers mode, I like him. It isn't a flashy part (that is left to Douglas, nailing it in subtle fashion), but LaBeouf's Jake is the main character, and for me, an interesting one. Mulligan too is pretty good as Winnie, Gordon's estranged daughter who wants nothing to do with her father. Behind Douglas, I thought the best part was from Brolin as the Wall Street rival with some ulterior motives. Frank Langella is a scene-stealer as well as Louis Zabel, Jake's aging mentor who hates what Wall Street is becoming, Susan Sarandon plays Jake's mom who's heavily invested in real estate, Eli Wallach as a Wall Street dinosaur, and Jason Clarke as the NYC Fed chief. Not necessarily great performances, but it's fun to see all those names assembled.

This 2010 sequel is missing that special something from making it an above-average, truly enjoyable flick. It's good enough, but it's never more than that. Clocking in at 138 minutes, it feels incredibly long in certain stretches. Lots of dialogue isn't a bad thing, but at times, it gets a little tedious, a little slow. Douglas certainly helps the momentum pick up a bit, especially late when we see the Gekko we all love to hate. Charlie Sheen even makes a cameo as Bud Fox, the protagonist in the original Wall Street. I liked this one, didn't love it. Not bad stuff.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010): ** 1/2 /****

Zero Dark Thirty

With her 2008 film The Hurt Locker, director Kathryn Bigelow created a film that was timely, moving, unsettling and in the end, especially memorable. She would have been hard-pressed to duplicate or improve on that formula, but her follow-up film tackled an even bigger topic, the decade-long hunt for terrorist Osama bin Laden, and tackled it well. Gaining the early buzz for a handful of Oscars is 2012's Zero Dark Thirty.

In the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA takes a new mission on; tracking down and capturing Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda terrorist behind the attacks. Among the agents and operatives in the process is Maya (Jessica Chastain), a young agent who while highly intelligent is rightfully a little stunned and taken aback by the hunting process. Days to weeks, weeks to months and months to years, Maya and countless other agents work toward capturing bin Laden, but it is a tedious, monotonous process that entails pursuing countless leads and rumors. The terrorist seems to have receded back into the Earth, disappeared like he never existed. Maya continues the hunt, following a lead involving a possible courier, Abu Ahmed, who may have a link to bin Laden. Will the never-ending hunt amount to anything? Will Maya be pushed beyond the brink as the hunt becomes an obsession to her?

Tackling a movie detailing the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden is a mammoth, gargantuan task that had to be at least a tad bit intimidating for Bigelow in the director's chair. Somehow, she didn't even manage an Oscar nomination for her work. I didn't love the movie -- I don't think you're supposed to love it -- but Bigelow deserves credit where it's due. 'Zero' is far from conventional, and that's most definitely a huge positive. In a story that spans 10 full years, a ridiculous amount of information, names, places and people are thrown at the viewers. The development is linear, but it's almost episodic in execution. We see the developing hunt through ups and downs, theories, doubts and conspiracy theories, clues that result in nothing, others that lead to a dead end, and that one perfect little tidbit that will produce an actual lead.

Along with Bigelow's directing, the best thing going for 'Zero' is Jessica Chastain as Maya, a role that's earned her a Best Actress nomination (one I think she'll win). We're introduced to her as she arrives at a CIA Black Site as a veteran agent/interrogator, Dan (scene-stealing Jason Clarke), as he starts the long process of breaking down a detainee. Trained and intelligent, she's nonetheless surprised at first at what she sees. As her investigation continues though, we see Maya develop as a character, a driven, frustrated, even obsessed agent who will stop at nothing to catch bin Laden, even when everything and everyone around her doubts the effort. Chastain creates a great lead character, one that comes into her own as the hunt continues and the years pass. When she finally finds a clue, she's the only one who believes it will lead anywhere. Another impressive performance from an actress who keeps climbing onward and upward.

Chastain is the constant in the movie as the story moves from year to year and location to location. Bigelow's storytelling technique is almost documentary-like in its execution. We're taken from CIA Black Sites to CIA headquarters in Langley, isolated locales to crowded markets in countless Middle Eastern cities. The story highlights further terrorist attacks following 9/11, and it all leads to an ending that we all know, but is sickeningly interesting to watch develop. Through all the clues, leads and informants, Bigelow's best decision is a complete lack of opinion. It's a perfect choice. She presents the hunt, the name and the background, and that's it, reflecting that documentary-like storytelling. 'Zero' doesn't vilify bin Laden (it doesn't need to) or try to create a bigger picture of what's going on in the world. This is the hunt. This is what we need to see, and that's all Bigelow's film is trying to do.

The documentary/episodic story allows for some solid supporting parts around Maya's ever-continuing hunt and obsession. I especially liked Clarke as Dan, the underplayed CIA agent who shows in such subtle fasion how to interrogate/torture someone, always keeping them guessing and unsettled in a horrific way. Kyle Chandler plays the U.S. station chief in Pakistan, needing to complete objectives but the odds are against him with Jennifer Ehle and Harold Perrineau as two fellow in-country agents. Along with Clarke as a field agent, Edgar Ramirez is excellent as Larry, a CIA operative working to pursue a lead Maya has found while Mark Strong is also a scene-stealer as George, a CIA supervisor who has to work down the middle, working with his agents while also appeasing his own superiors. Also look for James Gandolfini as the CIA director and Stephen Dillane as the National Security Advisor.

If there is an issue with 'Zero,' I would say that at 157 minutes it feels long at times, especially early as the groundwork is set up for the second half of the story. Not dull, not boring, but a little sluggish maybe. Things pick up in a quick way when Maya's investigations lead to a heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The whole hunt is transfixing to watch, but upon the arrival of Seal Team 6 into the story (headlined by Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt) goes up a notch or two. We don't see their training, just the night of the raid on the fortified compound that supposedly hides bin Laden inside. It is an incredible extended sequence as the SEALs fly into Pakistan, land near the compound (with one major issue) and then efficiently move into the compound. Intense doesn't begin to describe this true-to-life sequence. The nighttime raid is filmed with both night vision and shadowy, foggy darkness. You know where the scene is going, and it's still almost unbearable to watch.

'Zero' has its fair share of moments like that. It is a movie to watch and appreciate more than one you love and watch once or twice a year. It has taken some flak for any number of things -- a pro-torture stance, possible help from the Obama administration on some details -- but none of the issues are enough to detour an otherwise excellent movie. We get an excellent look into the intelligence underworld that feels authentic from beginning to end. Definitely worth checking out as award season goes into full swing.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012): ***/****

Death Race

One of the great cult films of all time, 1975's Death Race 2000 is a great example of a low-budget pile of schlock actually amounting to something.  By all accounts, it is a horrific movie that should by no means actually work.  It does though, mostly because of the badness.  It's so funny, so stupid, so cheap, and ultimately so mind-blowingly ridiculous that you end up liking the movie.  I'm not a huge, die-hard fan of the Roger Corman produced flick, but I liked it enough. Still, I was rather skeptical when 2008's Death Race was released.

My usual reaction to any remake is what's the point? Is a new version of an old movie going to add anything or improve on something? In the case of the original Death Race, a lot was left to be desired, but because of the low-budget factor you went along for the ride. The 2008 remake thankfully does switch things up, adding some cool touches to the same basic premise.  The cast is solid -- especially two key supporting roles -- and the action is fun, the premise more than interesting, and in the end, it's an entertaining action flick. With a movie like this, I'm not looking for Academy-Award winning stuff, just to have fun.

It's 2012 and the American economy has collapsed, and a new entertainment venue has emerged to keep the masses happy. Private corporations run the prison system, and one warden, Hennessy (Joan Allen), has put together 'Death Race,' a three-stage race where hardened killers, rapists and crooks compete against each other in heavily armored cars featuring tons of vicious weapons. Jensen Ames (Jason Statham) is a former race car driver framed for the murder of his wife who's sent to Hennessy's Terminal Island prison. She needs Jensen to pose as the most infamous of the drivers, Frankenstein, a man so scarred by previous races he wears a mask at all times. All he needs to do is race, win once, and he'll get his walking papers. Jensen agrees, knowing the warden won't keep her promise, but this man with revenge on his mind has other plans.

From a low-budget drive-in movie from 1975 to a high-octane, big-budget action movie, everything has been ratcheted up a notch or two or ten.  The film's look is grayish and washed out, almost like some sort of post-apocalyptic hell.  The story is straightforward and fairly obvious, but with a movie called 'Death Race' you're not exactly looking for Shakespeare, are you?  The action is pretty much non-stop once the background is established. Following the good old Roger Corman (who produced the original and remake) formula for success, director Paul W.S. Anderson has assembled a movie with tons of violence, tough guy actors, and ridiculously gorgeous female cast members who are required to look ridiculously gorgeous. When handled right, that always sounds like a good movie to me.

Say what you want about Jason Statham's acting range, but the guy is one of the coolest action stars out there.  He's usually right in that silent to ultra-silent category, using words like they pain him to say anything. I think he's made some poor decisions with the movies he's taken (the Crank movies, In the Name of the King), but I've always liked him. As Jensen Ames, he doesn't need to show much range. He is pissed at the world, and he's going to get his revenge one way or another. Tyrese Gibson takes over for Sylvester Stallone as Machine Gun Joe, a rival driver in the race and Jensen/Frank's biggest competition. The same goes for Gibson as it does Statham. He isn't the best actor around, but he's always a presence and looks like he's having a hell of a good time.  Natalie Martinez is the completely unnecessary eye candy as Case, Jensen's navigator. Her character is the equivalent of a GPS with a Barbie doll body. Her line deliveries are so bad it's laughable. Watch the slow motion scene where she steps out of a classic car though, and you'll see why she was hired. Not a complaint by any means either.

With this type of schlock, I had to wonder. Were Joan Allen and Ian McShane blackmailed into doing this movie?  These are two supremely talented actors so what are they doing here? As actors, they legitimize the movie just by being there. They don't have to do anything or say a word, and the movie is better for it.  Of course, they don't just stand there. Director Anderson takes advantage, giving them two great supporting parts. Allen has one of the most amazing line deliveries I've ever heard (see if you can figure it out at IMDB's Memorable Quotes HERE). She is icy, steely-eyed, and ruthlessly brutal. McShane gets all the great lines and hams it up with the best of them as Coach, Jensen's pit-boss who has lost track of how many years he's been in prison. His last line is the best though, listen toward the end of the race. Coach's pit crew includes Jacob Vargas as Gunner, the mechanic, and Frederick Koehler, as Lists, the mousey genius. Jason Clarke plays Ulrich, Hennessy's top guard and henchman.

In a movie dominated by the bloody three-stage race, my issue comes from the editing as it so often does with action movies of the last 10 years or so. The driving sequences are so hyper, so frantically cut that the scenes are almost indecipherable.  You can barely see what's going on with all the shaky cam, smoke and explosions.  Because of that, the driving scenes even get a little tedious.  How many times can you see one car blast away with machine guns and rockets at another? There are some cool surprises for the racers, but even that gets old fairly quickly.

Predictable, yes, but the last 15 minutes do provide a couple of solid twists.  You know those twists are coming because of some rather obvious hints, but they work regardless.  And if nothing else, the remake does try something different with its ending as opposed to going for the same one as the original.  It's a good enough movie to be judged on its own from the original, and that's always a good sign for a remake.

Death Race <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****