Second Chance Review: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 (PG)

Score: 2.5/5

*SPOILER ALERT: 

CONTAINS SPOILERS FROM THE FIRST FILM*

Recently, I’ve been a bit unsatisfied with the lack of variety on this blog in terms of what movies I review. I mainly review new theatrical releases and not much else. Therefore, I have decided to introduce three new types of posts that I will write sporadically.

The first is “Second Chance Reviews,” in which I will take a look at films that I wanted to see in theaters but didn’t get the chance to. For example, I wanted to see “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2,” but I simply didn’t have time to check it out when it was in theaters. Now that it is out on DVD, I will finally be able to see and review it, making it my first “Second Chance Review.”

“Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2” attempts to bring back the clever charm that made the first so memorable. The results are mixed.

As a fan of the original “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” I had my doubts about a sequel. I was especially concerned that the original writers (Phil Lord and Chris Miller – writers of “The Lego Movie” and “21 Jump Street”) did not return to write the sequel. Though they still helped conceive the story, the writers of the box-office bomb, “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone” took the helm this time around. The first film had such a tight ending that I honestly could not think of how they could continue the story. The answer is simple: they didn’t.

The beginning of this sequel completely contradicts the ending of the first movie, which didn’t seem in any way to imply a sequel. To demonstrate this, I will provide a brief summary of the first film.

In the first movie, a down-on-his-luck inventor named Flint Lockwood (played by Bill Hader) invents a machine that turns water into food. After it gets launched into the sky, the machine mixes with the moisture in the atmosphere to turn rain into food to feed his whole town. However, in a rage of gluttony, the mayor of the town (played by Bruce Campbell) manipulates Flint into ignore the dangers of his machine and use it more frequently. Eventually the machine malfunctions and sends humorously cataclysmic storms of food onto the town. Flint eventually succeeds in shutting off the machine and is crowned as a hero once he does. In the credits, it is shown that the town is revived from the disaster and Flint and his father start a company using a special rubber Flint invented as roof sealant.  

However…according to the sequel, another famous inventor named Chester V shows up after the first movie and offers to clean up the leftover food that destroyed the town. He then offers Flint a position at his company “Live Corp.” to which Flint accepts. This triggers the plot of the second film. This was quite jarring, especially since the movie starts off by showing clips from the first movie. It’s almost as if Sony wanted a sequel so badly, that they had to change the ending of the first movie.

                Moreover, this sequel continues the first movie is with the sudden introduction of a new character. His name is Chester V (played by Will Forte of “Nebraska”), a Steve Jobs-esque genius that apparently inspired the main character Flint Lockwood to invent things.

                “Now just hold the phone here,” I immediately thought to myself. In the first movie, Flint’s mother inspired him to invent to tell him it was okay to be a “nerd,” before her death later on in his life. Sure, she’s mentioned in this movie as one of Flint’s inspirations, but with the introduction of Chester V, she is no longer the main influence for his inventions. That’s right; they actually changed one of the main character’s backstories for the purpose of introducing a sequel. I was truly taken aback by this, but I was willing to ignore it if the rest of the movie was good.

                 Besides the massive continuity errors from the first movie, the sequel on its own does have quite a few positive aspects. One of these aspects is the “foodimals,” a group of food/animal hybrids created after the events of the first film. They alone made me want to check this movie out, and the creativity used to put them together is astounding. One “foodimal” is the apple pie-thon; a snake with apple pie and vanilla ice cream for a head, a strawberry twizzler for a body and tic-tacs for a rattle. Another is a mosque-toast: a mosquito with toasted bread for wings, a cinnamon stick for a body and raisins for eyes. These and more are bound to delight the viewer, and it is a pleasure to watch them on screen.

                The scenery itself is beautiful, lush and charming as well, with bogs made out of pancakes and syrup and mountains of rock candy. The art department certainly deserves all the praise it can get for creating such wonderful visuals. The same goes for the animation, which is fluent and smooth as can be. It really is one of the best looking animated films I’ve recently seen. It’s just unfortunate that the screenplay that the film sets its foundation on is not as astounding.

                Don’t get me wrong, this film does have its moments, and there are some clever jokes and quirky dialogue scenes that elevated the film for me. One instance is a character trying to storm off while struggling to walk in maple syrup. The food puns, a criticism among many reviews, was actually something I didn’t mind and found kind of cute. The dialogue itself flowed well too, and it could have thrived with a better story.

                Before I get to the true flaw of the screenplay, the increased use of juvenile humor compared to the first film is quite irritating. The first film did have toilet humor, but it was only one or two tiny jokes that barely distracted from how good it was. This film piles on more gross-out jokes, which is really out of place in a film about food. Jokes involving a strawberry defecating jam and a monkey writing with fecal matter really bring the value of the screenplay down. On the contrary, the toilet humor is nothing compared to the real problem with this movie: mediocre conflict.

                The first film had fleshed out conflicts like Flint’s relationship with his father (played by James Caan) and Flint’s ambition to be liked for his ambitions and inventions. In this film, they decide half-way through to introduce a conflict of Flint shunning his friends’ advice in favor of Chester V’s. This could have been a decent conflict if they fleshed it out more, but instead it pops out of nowhere like the Kool Aid Man bursting through a wall.

What’s worse is that this turns out to be one of the main conflicts in the movie. It is sort of implied in the beginning when Flint takes the position at Chester’s company instead of making a new one with his friends, but his friends encouraged him to take the position, and it seemed like the reasonable thing to do. It’s not even mentioned until midway through when Chester suggests that Brent (played by Andy Samberg) may still be a bully since he was one before Flint became a hero. It feels like the writers forgot to add a conflict and decided to throw one in at the last minute.

               

                 Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 is not an awful film. Like I said, it does have its charm and its clever moments. Kids that loved the first will definitely get a kick out of it. Compared to the first film, this film’s taste buds aren’t as refined.  

Final Grade: C+

Need for Speed (PG-13): A Bumpy, but Fun Ride

         

          About a month ago, I placed “Need for Speed” as number five on my top five list of least-anticipated spring movies. While this movie certainly does have its flaws, it is far from the disaster it could have been. I dare even to say that with the delay of the next Fast and Furious movie, this is a pretty decent holdover for vehicle-based action fans.

                

          “Need for Speed” tells the story of a driver and mechanic named Tobey Marshall (played by Aaron Paul of “Breaking Bad”). Marshall seeks to avenge the death of his brother by defeating his slaughterer, millionaire car-enthusiast Dino Brewster (played by Dominic Cooper of “Captain America: The First Avenger”). Not wanting to be bested, Brewster places a bounty on him, and it is up to Marshall to get to the race before Dino’s goons kill him.

Let me start out by saying that I have not played any of the “Need for Speed” video games, even as a kid. I’m personally more of a fan of the Midnight Club games. Nevertheless, I’m at least sure that fans of racing games in general will love the set-pieces in this movie. Many of the vehicle stunts use real cars, and the near-flawless cinematography fits the high-octane race scenes perfectly. Viewers will certainly be on the edge of their seats with every crash and tight turn. The cars themselves are also pleasing to look at. From Ferraris to Lamborghinis to Mustangs, every vehicle is sleek and a pleasure to watch race on the track.

The race and chase scenes themselves are were this movie really shines. With every set piece come the sounds of revving engines and screeching tires, set perfectly to fine camera work and editing to give a truly exciting experience. While I am not one to complain about the use of CGI, the lack of it in the film’s production gave a much more believable look to the crashes and races, especially when the film cuts to go-pro-filmed footage of the airborne vehicle. To me, the use of the go-pro gave me the same exciting, immersive feeling that I felt while watching the barrel scene in “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.” When used well, I can honestly encourage filmmakers to use the go-pro camera to film

              

          A common criticism of the plot is that it is completely ridiculous and not in any way plausible in the real world. While this is certainly true, I feel that in an action/eye-candy oriented film like this, that it is best to leave your complaint notebook at the door and immerse yourself in the film’s world.  

When the suspension of disbelief is applied the story itself is not half bad. “Need for Speed’s” story was conceived by Academy-Award nominated screenwriter John Gatins and his brother George. Without giving anything away, the plot provides plenty of interesting events to keep the story moving and even bothers to throw in some character development. It’s far from an all-out character study like “Her,” but there are still a decent amount of scenes that bother to get the audience to care about the characters. Each character is given a decent amount of screen time, and I actually walked out remembering some of the characters. From the brooding but sincere Tobey Marshall to the comic relief of his friend Benny (played by musician Scott Mescudi –a.k.a. Kid Cudi), I felt that the fleshed out characters really added some meat to the action.

Though the story and characters themselves are not too shabby, I had a lukewarm opinion on the screenplay. Unfortunately, John Gatins only helped conceive the story. His brother George wrote the screenplay by himself, and his results are mixed. In films like “Fast and Furious 6” and “Iron Man 3,” the screenplay is well balanced with good humor and light drama to blend well with the fun factor. Here is a different story; the film’s tone will often switch from humorous antics (one such scene involving streaking at an office) to borderline-melodramatic scenes (such as one hospital scene). It is quite jarring and it feels as if Mr. Gatins was trying to take the film more seriously than it should have been taken.

Another thing I have to say is that this film felt a tad too long. Clocking in at over two hours, “Need for Speed” does contain some scenes that feel like they could have been cut and are there just for filler. While I did admire the development of the characters, some of the dialogue simply repeats what was already stated, leaving me to say “OK, I get it” a few times in my mind. Perhaps if the film was trimmed about 10-20 minutes short, then it would have been much smoother to suit the sleek action sequences.

This film is far from perfect, though to be honest, I was honestly entertained by it. While it’s impossible to deny that Hollywood has had a bad reputation adapting video games into movies, this was honestly a pretty good attempt. It’s not the saving grace of video game adaptations, but in my mind it is absolutely a step up from busts like “Resident Evil: Retribution” and “Silent Hill: Revelation.” If you love thrilling races and colorful cars, I can almost guarantee that you’ll be entertained.

Final Rating: B

Pompeii (PG-13): Enjoyable Eye Candy

It's pretty much impossible to say that "Pompeii" is a flawless film. It's love story is cliched and and its lighting at times leaves much to be desired. On the other hand, I believe the term "guilty pleasure" fits perfectly here, as I certainly enjoyed this movie enough to recommend it. 

"Pompeii" tells the story of the legendary natural disaster that covered the Italian city of Pompeii and its residents in ashes, preserving their bodies for eternity. Like "Titanic," "Pompeii" mixes in a star-crossed lovers story into the disaster genre. Following the rich-girl-loves-poor-boy trope, a wealthy woman named Cassia (played by Emily Browning of "Sucker Punch") falls in love with an enslaved gladiator named Milo (played by Kit Harrington of "Game of Thrones"). When Pompeii’s volcano erupts, it is up to Milo to save Cassia from being left to die in the eruption (there is more to the story but I don’t want to give anything away).

Admittedly, the love story is by far less convincing than the one in Titanic. The two leads Cassia  and Milo spend a bare minimum of time getting to know each other and their relationship lacks development. However, in a disaster movie that focuses more on providing audience-pleasing thrills, this is much less of a problem than it could have been.

On the contrary, Milo's relationship with a fellow slave named Atticus (played by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje of "Thor: The Dark World") is surprisingly well developed throughout the film. In the first act, Milo learns that he must face Atticus, a man who has been promised freedom after one more battle. Several scenes of dialogue in a prison cell and action in the arena they are forced to fight in give the audience a good feel for who these characters are and give a good enough reason to root for them. Considering that this is a disaster movie made by Paul W.S. Anderson, both characters have a substantial amount of substance to them, and the actors give good enough performances to make their friendship believable. 

On the subject of Mr. Anderson, I have never really been a fan of his work. "The Three Musketeers" was mediocre at best and his "Resident Evil" movies are absolutely dreadful. Here he seems to have improved his ability to tell a story, though there are a few flaws here and there that carry over from his other works. Much like "Alien vs. Predator," Anderson struggles to properly light a few nighttime scenes, casting what could have been a great looking shot into 50% blackness. In addition, his editing can occasionally be choppy, but compared to something like "I, Frankenstein," it's nowhere near as jarring.  

To his credit, which I believe is often overlooked, Mr. Anderson certainly knows how to stage and take advantage of an action setpiece. One scene involving gladiators fighting soldiers chained to a spiked pillar made full use of its environment, and will likely have audiences entertained. Something else worth nothing are the special effects; they are very well done and it is clear that the VFX team put a lot of effort into bringing the legendary eruption of Mt. Vesuvias to the big screen. What's even better is the 3D; lately 3D has been sorely mediocre in Hollywood films, but in this case it is very effective. From volcanic ashes to falling beams of wood, "Pompeii" succeeds in taking full advantage of the 3D technology with stunning results. 

             The last act of the film is among one of the most thrilling disaster scenes I have ever scene in recent years. Fans of disaster movies will likely be pleased by all of the mindless carnage and destruction, and like "2012," the visual grandeur is seat-grippingly epic.

"Pompeii" is nowhere near a high-quality film, nor is it free from typical Hollywood cliches. However, this was not a film that left me feeling insulted or just jaded. Rather, this was actually a memorable disaster/action period piece that I could easily recommend taking some friends to see. The experience alone is pretty damn cool. 

Final Rating: B-

Top Five Most (and least) Hyped Spring Films

Ah yes, the springtime movie season of March and April; a time where studios warm up audiences for the big releases of summer. As opposed to last year where we were stuck with duds like "The Host," "Temptation" and "G.I. Joe 2," this year there are actually quite a few spring movies worth looking forward to. Of course there are some duds coming out too, but we'll get to those later. Here are my top five hyped springtime movies.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Top 5 Most Hyped Spring Movies

5. Muppets Most Wanted

In 2011, Jason Seigel succeeded in his ambition to bring the Muppets to the public eye after several mediocre television movies and specials. Last Thanksgiving, the popularity of the Muppets took a hit from the ratings dud: "Lady Gaga & The Muppets' Holiday Spectacular." Hopefully, the latter won't negatively affect this film. This time around, it looks to be another blast to the past with the pop culture jokes and celebrity cameos that the Muppets got their start on. "Muppets Most Wanted" looks to be a whole-heated effort from a committed fun-loving cast and crew.

4. Divergent

Coming off of the success of the hit novel, "Divergent" could easily be another interesting entry in the dystopian and young adult sub-genres. What makes this movie more appealing is the fact that its star: Shailene Woodley is not dolled up in revealing outfits or tons of makeup (this does not pertain to the poster -seen above- which puts a strange emphasis on her skin-tight pants). This makes her outcasted, revolutionary character seem more believable and nowhere near the shallow mary-sue type character it could have been. With an appealing story of a world controlled by an aptitude test and a guaranteed visual flare, "Divergent" could very well be another early-year hit. I'll certainly check it out when it hits theaters.

3. Transcendence

Christopher Nolan's production company strikes back with a unique sci-fi film about a man brought back to life with a web-based computer system, practically downloading his brain to the internet. Besides the obvious visual eye candy, "Transcendence" seems to offer an interesting tale from a fresh-on-the-scene writing/directing. Even more appealing is the fact that the director has had plenty of experience as a cinematographer, serving as the photography director for films like the Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception. The film has the possibility of being a disappointment, but given the talent behind it (including Johnny Depp in a performance that could be a comeback after "The Lone Ranger"), "Transcendence" looks to at least be an enjoyable day at the movies.

2.  Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I personally found the first "Captain America" to be one of the best Marvel films. Though this film will lack the retro-50s flare of the first, it looks to be just as entertaining with thrilling set pieces and an overall sense of grandeur. This time around, Black Widow (among my favorite Marvel characters) joins the ride and Scarlett Johansson is guaranteed to put bums in the seats. That and a menacing-looking villain could very well make this another smash hit by Marvel. Even if you thought "Thor: The Dark World" was an underwhelming disappointment, it seems pretty hard to pass up a film like this, especially with "The Avengers 2" scheduled for 2015.

1. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Love him or hate him, Wes Anderson is an undeniably unique and colorful film maker. I for one absolutely love his films, and his love for symmetry and colorful eloquence looks to shine again in his next film. It is odd that the studio decided to release this film in March; after the triumphant "Moonrise Kingdom," one would thing that a film like this would be put in November for an Oscar campaign. On the bright side, a film like this so early in the year very much subverts the trope that early-year movies are of poor quality. With a massive but tasteful ensemble cast and a gleeful color palate, I'm marking my calendar for a 2 hour trip to Budapest this March.

_________________________________________________________________________________

And now, because I want to pad out this post, here comes the top 5 least hyped films of March/April of 2014.

Top 5 Least Hyped Spring Movies

5. Need for Speed

Clearly somebody wants to capitalize on the massive success of the Fast and Furious movies. While those films have strayed away from street racing in favor of an action/heist style to widen audiences, this film looks to bring street racing back to the forefront. While I do give the film credit for trying to bring car culture back to the forefront, the film itself still looks forgettable. As most films based on video games, this strays far from the plotline of the series and simply seems to have the name "Need for Speed" to attract fans of the game. Though it is partially written by Academy Award-nominated writer John Gatins, what I've seen so far is less than appealing, with dialogue that tries too hard to be epic and a brooding tone that doesn't match the high-octane thrills the film promises to provide. There is a possibility that it could be a fun little joyride, and I will give it a chance when it arrives. Considering the history of attempted video-game based films though, that is unlikely.

4. The Single Moms Club

Tyler Perry has not been doing well lately. With critical duds like Temptation and A Madea Christmas (the latter under-performing significantly), "The Single Moms Club" looks to be another attempt to appeal to a fixed audience that contains an uneven tone of broad humor and dismal melodrama. Considering that "A Madea Christmas," alternated scenes of Madea "humorously" tying a bratty child to a cross with serious scenes of child abuse, this movie looks to do the same. It's unfortunate that Tyler Perry keeps cranking out movies like these when he could make competent films like "For Colored Girls" and "I Can Do Bad all by Myself." He's not even that bad of an actor. This film, while not looking nearly as bad as "Temptation," does nothing to grab my interest.

3. 300: Rise of an Empire 

Zack Snyder does not come across as a good writer. "Sucker Punch" pretty much proved that he pays little attention to the story and tries to waddle his way out of writing something decent with incoherent attempts at being artsy. To be honest, I wasn't really a fan of the original "300." It had its moments, but it came across as a monochromatic, overacted action movie that didn't know whether to be serious or silly. This looks to copy that, adding nothing more than a rehash of the same slow-motion effects and bloody but  forgettable fight scenes. What's more troubling is the fact that this film serves as a prequel, a sequel, and even a midquel to the original "300." This pretty much guarantees that the film will be a mangled up mess of plotlines and
shallow characters.

2. A Haunted House 2

Apparently "Scary Movie 5" was so bad, that people thought that the original "A Haunted House" was a masterpiece and asked for a sequel. While it was indeed superior, "A Haunted House" was still a painful display of mugging by Marlon Wayans and a slop of racial stereotypes and lazy slapstick. "A Haunted House 2" will repeat this indeed, and unless you are a fan of the first one, it will be the ultimate movie to skip this March.

1. The Other Woman

A rehash of the film "John Tucker Must Die," "The Other Woman" sees a group of women trying to get revenge on a man that cheated on all of them. From what I've seen so far, this looks like nothing more than a bland buddy comedy with unlikable, immature characters much like the abysmal "Bride Wars." I could also mention that this will include the fearful acting debut of Nicki Minaj, but I'm betting that it will be an overblown cameo that is not worth mentioning. Cameron Diaz is far from a bad actress, but she needs to be more selective and pick something that does not look as forgettable as this.

_________________________________________________________________________________

On a closing note, I'd like to add that my review of The Lego Movie will be up soon, as I plan on re-watching it in the near-future.

Quick-Write: No Lego Review This Week

          I did indeed see The Lego Movie last weekend, however I did not review it. Why? Because I couldn't grade it fairly. You see, I went into the movie expecting a fun-filled and giddy adventure with plenty of action setpieces and humor. While this is true for the first two acts of the film, the final act takes an emotional and somewhat downbeat turn that I did not expect. I cannot spoil it but I can say that there is an emotional plot twist that confused me. Emotion is the last thing I expected out of a film like this, so I at first thought it was a total tone-shifter and did not belong in the movie. However, at the same time, there is nothing wrong with a movie having emotion.

         Just look at Toy Story 3, the whole movie is full of emotional scenes and downbeat moments mixed in with the jokes. However, upon first viewing, I loved it and found nothing off about it. That was likely because I expected it from a trilogy-ending Pixar movie. For a movie about toys, I did not expect Lego to have ANY emotional scenes, but that is not a problem with the film. Therefore, I need to view The Lego Movie again with proper expectations so that I can fairly grade it.

I, Frankenstein: Not Worth Reviving

Score: 0.5/5

To say that “I, Frankentein” was a waste of time would be an understatement. Much like “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters,” “I, Frankenstein tries to re-invent a classic tale for the action audience with little success.  Though to be fair, “Witch Hunters” at least had some moments of memorable silliness and creative set pieces. “I, Frankenstein” has neither, nor does it present its audience with decent writing or memorable thrills.

The plot itself is a mangled-up mess and a failed attempt to re-invent Mary Shelly’s classic character. In this film, Frankenstein’s monster (played by the seemingly disinterested Aaron Eckhart) somehow gets involved in an ongoing battle with demons and gargoyles after the events of the classic story. Everything from his backstory to the motivations of the demons and gargoyles is told in rushed exposition and gives absolutely no time for the audience to care about any of the characters.

It doesn't help that the editing and pacing is extremely choppy, often skipping hours and years into the future with no reasonable transition. In the span of what feels like five minutes, the film tells Frankenstein’s backstory, introduces the demons and gargoyles, explains their ongoing war, shows a training montage of Frankenstein learning to use the gargoyle’s weapons, and suddenly cuts from the 18^th century to present day.

The dialogue is beyond terrible, and I actually found myself sitting in the theater predicting the lines the characters would say. Nine times out of ten, I was correct. To all writers out there: it is not a good sign when someone can predict your stale dialogue. 

Now, I’m sure many people can overlook a lackluster script if a movie has “good action.” Unfortunately, this movie fails in this department too. All of the fight scenes are bland and dull with redundant, badly executed CGI. Perhaps the most frustrating example of this is that every time a demon is killed on screen, it turns into a swirling fireball. This effect looked cool for about a minute and it quickly got stale, especially when the demons are dying left and right and the effects start to look like they've been copied and pasted.

It's even worst that the PG-13 rating takes away the possibility of even a little gore to entertain the horror buffs. This is especially a shame because there are some very sleek and polished weapon designs that look like they could have been used for some good ole hack-and-slash fun.

Little effort seems to have been put into this film, and even a big-time star like Aaron Eckhart can’t elevate the material. Here he seems dazed and bored, almost as if this film was just a project to waste some time. In fact, none of the actors seem interested, and with the exception of maybe two awkward line readings, there is nothing to laugh at either.

Like many films released in January, “I, Frankenstein,” comes across as filler and it is not even worth a view on Netflix streaming. Between the poor script, the dull characters and the bad effects, there is next to nothing here worth enjoying. After watching this, I actually appreciated “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” more; at least it had some effort put in it.

Final Rating: D-

The Great Gatsby (PG-13): A Visualized Novel

     

     When I first heard about writer/director Luhrman's return to film; I was actually pretty excited; his visual thrills and his mixing of modern pop culture and period drama made Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge two of the most aesthetically memorable films ever. However,  Many people reasonably questioned his ability to bring F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby; one of the biggest novels of all time to the big screen. The book put more of an emphasis on character drama and conflicts in society than artistic grandeur. Having just seen it, I can honestly say that his direction was as much of a success as it was a problem.

     The film centers around Nick Carroway (Played by Toby Macguire of Spiderman and Brothers), a former writer, telling the story of how he met the infamous Jay Gatsby (Played by Leonardo DiCaprio- see below); a small town man who turned his life of low income and misery into a wealthy life of parties and liquor. Throughout the film, Nick gets caught in the middle of a series of scandals including his married cousin Daisy (Played by Carrey Mulligan of An Education) and Gatsby's secret romance. What follows is a slew of chaotic events that could destroy everyone and everything including Nick, who didn't want any part of it.        

     As one can imagine, this film about the roaring 20's contains a lot of drama, betrayal, lust and intensity. All of these elements ad more are expressed through the film's use of colorful sets and costumes as well as its refreshing use of modern music from artists like Jay-Z and Lana Del Rey. All of these qualities really enhance the story and Luhrman's vision of the classic tale is quite admirable. From the sleek custom cars to the sparkling flapper outfits, there is always something gorgeous to grab your attention.

     As expected from a Baz Luhrman film, the cinematography is flawless as well. The use of fabric to symbolize happiness and the wide shots of people eating, partying and enjoying themselves added a lot to the film and honestly, it all looked incredible.

     On the other hand, I did have a problem with this high emphasis on visuals. The party scenes and set pieces do their job, but sometimes they keep going on longer than they should, leaving less time for character development. For example, the character Myrtle (played by Isla Fisher) is show to be very important by the film's end, but we hardly see her on screen or get a real sense of who she is. 

     I didn't really care for the dialogue half the time either. For the most part it was tolerable, but at some points it seemed rambling and a bit unrealistic. I'm not really sure if this is just my problem though; I'm personally a fan of crisp, realistic dialogue and don't really like scenes of lengthy explanation. It may not bother you but it was a bit of an issue for me.

     As for the performances, Leonardo DiCaprio and Carrey Mulligan steal the show. Both actors give a real, almost method portrayal of their characters and never hesitate. DiCaprio has been trying for years to win an Oscar and while such an award is not necessary to leave a legacy, he has a bright future if he continues his career with performances like this.

     So would I recommend this film? Well in my opinion it was pretty decent, but as with Luhrman's Moulin Rouge, I feel like this movie is a love-it-or-hate-it experience. One thing that is for certain is that people who don't like surreal "artsy" visuals or modern music will be annoyed by the movie. It's been a while since I've read the book, so I'm not sure how faithful it is, but I still recommend fans of the novel to check it out and make their own judgement.