FILM: The Great Gatsby (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

Being British, I was force fed Shakespeare at school rather than any of the so called 'Great American Novels' and I never got around to reading F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. Bearing that mind I was curious to see what the story was all about.

What's it all about?
Told through the eyes of Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), The Great Gatsby is a story of lost love, glitz and glamour and excess set in the Jazz Age of the early 1920's. After moving to New York to make his fame and fortune on Wall Street, Carraway discovers his rented house borders the huge estate of the enigmatic Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a millionaire renowned for the hosting of New York's most glamorous parties. After making Gatsby's acquaintance, Carraway discovers that Gatsby hopes to reintroduce himself to his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan), a married woman, having made a success of himself in the five years since he left her to go to war.

Should you watch it?

So, could Baz Luhrmann, with Jay-Z at his side, deliver a modern adaptation of the the Great American Novel that would be well received by all? I think the answer from the offset was always going to be no. Instead, Luhrmann delivers a visual feast of a film, one that tries to balance the director's big number style with an authenticity to the source material but one that relies too heavily on narration, some cheap visual effects and ends up failing to fully flesh out the key relationship central to the story.

I don't have any specific problem with Baz Luhrmann's style, I liked his take on Romeo & Juliet and have managed to avoid Moulin Rouge so far. I thought he would be a good match for the glitz, glamour and decadence of the period and I thought this side of the film worked out well. The style factor was never going to be in doubt. The use of music in the film has been the subject of some debate and I'm going to side with the positive. It worked fairly well for me, hip hop goes hand in hand with excess and the modern songs fitted well with the music video style of Gatsby's parties. Lana Del Rey's song Young & Beautiful is mesmerisingly haunting and is the perfect accompaniment for the film's troubled lovers. Having not read the book and therefore not being aware of the literary themes in place this may be an unfair comment, especially if fans of the book appreciated the inclusion, but I felt the direction was slightly heavy handed in places, I certainly felt the references to the all-seeing eyes and green light were more than driven home.

Leonardo DiCaprio gives a mature, refined performance befitting the great nature of the man. Carey Mulligan is also excellent as Daisy, giving what I call a 'bambi' type performance complete with beautifully innocent doe eyes. She is let down by the direction/narrative, wherever you want to lay the blame, which doesn't do enough to make you understand the passion of Gatsby for the girl, especially given the choices she ultimately makes. Tobey Maguire is suited to the role of Carraway, though his key role in the film as narrator, really limited my enjoyment. The guy always seems to come off so square, disapproving and lame.

I enjoyed The Great Gatsby but I'm sure it won't suit all tastes.

FILM: John Carter (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
Following the reviews and declaration as a flop, this was a big budget blockbuster that I always intended to watch to form my own opinion on when it premiered on the small screen.

What's it all about?
Based on the character of Edwin Burrough's early 20th century novels, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a Virginian Civil War Captain magically transported to Mars, known as Barsoom in this universe, where a civil war is being fought between the cities of Helium and Zodanga, both home to humanoid Martian races. Capable of increased strength and jumping because of the lesser gravity, Carter is reluctantly recruited to fight alongside Helium Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), to prevent the mysterious Thern's from scheming towards Barsoom's destruction.

Should you watch it?
Some time has passed since I watched John Carter and I certainly hold no grudges against it. It wasn't the complete write-off I was expecting, although it is certainly not without it's flaws. I think  I preferred it to Battleship, although I can't think of what I must have done to deserve being forced to choose between either.

There are times during John Carter where you could really be watching either Indiana Jones or Star Wars (Episodes I-III) such is the old fashioned, character-led, gung-ho adventure and sci-fi nature of the film. However, despite it being an adventure film of massive budget, I struggle to recall any action set pieces that took place, with the exception of the picture below, despite knowing that there must have been some. This cannot be a good recollection for an action blockbuster. 

I am not familiar with any of Burrough's stories and the screenplay certainly didn't help matters. Although the screenplay doesn't assume any knowledge of the character and the universe he belongs to and I appreciate that the writers are working with the original material, they made a seemingly simple plot far too complicated through the method of delivery. Surprisingly, and the surprise is relative, the script is only slightly clichéd in places and didn't stink to high heaven in the way Battleship's did. I did really like the context of the story being told from a young Burrough's perspective and the twist at the end was unexpected and satisfying.

My biggest gripe with the acting, and being such a massive fan of The Wire it pains me to do this, was with Dominic West. I thought he almost looked embarrassed to be on screen in most scenes and delivered one of the hammiest performances I think I've ever seen. Sorry Dominic. Lyn Collins was a vibrant presence and I felt Taylor Kitsch did enough in shouldering the responsibilities of the lead role, considering the film's inherent flaws. He certainly can't be held accountable for the films failings at the box office.

TV: The Mentalist (S5) (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
Seasons of The Mentalist qualify for routine viewing in my household, these days on the basis that we have watched so many episodes of the show that the only option is to stick it out and hope Patrick will finally catch Red John. I recall reading that the show's runners intended for things to be wrapped up by the end of a sixth season and I'm hoping that still remains the case.

What's it all about?
The Mentalist, Patrick Jane (Simon Baker), continues cracking cases for the CBI, with one eye always turned towards his hunt for serial killer Red John. Having apprehended Red John disciple Lorelei in the previous season's finale, Patrick has plenty of questions to ask but the CBI lose custody as the FBI and Homeland Security mysteriously intervene.

Should you watch it?

If you haven't been watching The Mentalist since it's beginning in 2008, it's unlikely you're going to want to pick up watching it now. I wrote a review for Season 4 last year and this season's review could have read exactly the same. Surely recognising that the show is strongest when dealing with the Red John storyline, the writers move the Red John story along in some form or another in roughly half the episodes this time around, a marked contrast to before when weeks could pass without mention to the serial killer that drives Jane. Take for example, both Homeland Security and the FBI's new interest in the Red John investigation, Jane's clear distraction from the run of mill cases and Lorelei's big reveal that Jane has previously shaken hands with the man himself coming in episodes that don't necessary revolve around a Red John murder.

The remaining episodes are pure filler that occasionally rise above mediocre. The cast work hard with the material, and the characters are likeable but it just isn't the same without any meaty story arcs to hang character development onto.

Normally capable of a decent season ending, the finale this time around was hugely disappointing. Going back into Patrick's past again seemed all too familiar. The finale's ending, a revealing set-up for next season, clearly outlining Red John as one of seven suspects, was the bare minimum I needed to make up for the dross that had been served up over the previous 55 minutes. Fear not though Patrick, I'll be back next season and I want answers!

BOOK: Cloud Atlas, David Mitchell (9/10)

Why did I read it?
Cloud Atlas came to my attention on a list I saw (I would like to give credit but it was so long ago I've no hope of remembering it) that recommended books to read before their film adaptation was released in 2012. I didn't catch the film while it was out so the book will have to do until I do.

What's it all about?
Beginning in the Pacific in 1850 and ending in post-apocalyptic Hawaii in the far future, Cloud Atlas narrates the stories of six individuals linked together across centuries of time. Half of each story is told, in chronological order, until each is interrupted seemingly incomplete. This continues to the sixth story which is told in it's entirety before each of the stories are then concluded in reverse order.

Should you read it?
Cloud Atlas is certainly one of the most ambitious books I have ever read. Covering such a variety of settings, dialogues, plots and means of narration is a challenging read but the read always stays fresh and the reader is always aware that the story will be changing just around the corner. 

I'll admit that I did not enjoy the first half of the first story, 'The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing', and it took me until the second story, set in inter-war Belgium, and the appreciation of this story's antagonist of the first story and the connection between the two to really pique my interest. From this point on though I was hooked. The concept of leaving each story incomplete, using the following story to fill in some blanks, before closing the stories in reverse order had me reading at record speed to return to the incomplete stories.   

Capable of some wry humour, grand themes and a rather bleak outlook on the future of human civilisation, Mitchell provides the reader with a fascinating journey from past to present to future. However, on the subject of grand themes, I can't help feeling that I didn't quite fully appreciate the notion of the characters being reincarnations of themselves. Mitchell details the identical birthmark that several characters share (or mention anyway) and Luisa Rey knows deep down that she has heard Frobisher's composition before but without having read the ideas of reincarnation in connection with the film I would have been in doubt (and I still am!) as to Mitchell's grand meaning.  

FILM: The Amazing Spider-Man (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
I never read any comic books as a child, learning of the best Marvel and DC had to offer through Saturday morning cartoons instead. Spider-Man is one the biggest of the bunch and when he gets a new film, it's a sure thing to be watched eventually in my house.

What's it all about?
The Amazing Spider-Man sees Spidey's origin story rebooted following the cancellation of the planned fourth film of Sam Raimi's franchise. Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) replaces Tobey Maguire as the web-slinging hero and Emma Stone plays love interest Gwen Stacy rather Mary Jane in a noticeable difference between franchises. Once the origin story is relaid, Spidey battles Dr. Curt Connor's Lizard to save New York's inhabitants.

Should you watch it?
It is too easy to compare Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man to Raimi's first effort, primarily because for the first half at least they are the same film, or are at least both films telling the same story. Pages and pages have been written on the reboot debate so I won't add to them only to say that I think I enjoyed the updated take on the origin story more. The conspiracy behind Peter's parents deaths adds some complexity to the story and Peter's first experience of Spider-Man's abilities is made into an amusing sequence. Credit for that must go to Andrew Garfield, who improves on Maguire's take on Parker no end, proving that Peter can be geeky without being too pathetic. Perhaps it was setting the story in high school, with the sympathies that come with being different in that environment, that makes Garfield's Peter more likeable.

Once the origin of Spider-Man is complete, the film moves through the gears and the budding romance and chemistry between Peter and Gwen is sincere and likeable. With a supporting cast including veterans Martin Sheen and Sally Field, there is no shortage of strong performances.

What a crock

The film is a bit heavy handed with it's vigilante right or wrong mantra and I was hugely disappointed with Rhys Ifan's Lizard. Ifan's performance as Connor's is decent enough but for me visually the Lizard didn't fit closely enough with the character's traditional appearance. Maybe it was an attempt to make the character realistic in a Christopher Nolan manner but rather than look like a lizard (with a lizards head) he looks like a generic green monster that could appear in any film.

An enjoyable, if unnecessary, return to Spider-Man's roots with a fresh bunch of characters that is worth a watch even if just for a comparison with the original trilogy.

FILM: Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
I had never watched an anime film before and a friend recommended Spirited Away to me. After I missed that one, they also recommended I watch Nausicaa, which the channel was showing the following week as part of an anime season. 

What's it all about?
I tried to keep up with things so here goes..., sometime in the future, civilisation has been destroyed by an apocalyptic war and toxic jungles inhabited by giant insects spread a poison known as the Fukai across the world. Princess Nausicaa lives in the Valley of the Wind, a settlement protected from the poison by the wind. Her life changes when an airship carrying a long extinct powerful warrior, that the Tolmekian nation plan to unleash on the jungles, crashes into the valley.

Should you watch it?
The fact that I had not seen an anime film prior to this was not just coincidence, I was never a fan of it when it started to appear on children's TV when I was younger. Who knows if this was the best anime film to start with. In any case, I probably didn't start watching Nausicaa from the most neutral standpoint, try as I might.

Nausicaa's plot is certainly something I expected from an anime film, pretty abstract and warped but certainly original, although the environmental responsibility undertones that the film hammers home were not, though perhaps they were back in 1984. This might seem daft but the film's setting reminded me of a Star Wars movie, different nations, obscure looking creatures, monsters and a desolate planet that in some places definitely reminded my of Tatooine.

The animation doesnt look all that dated and some of the killer insects created, in particular the swarm of Ohmu, were pretty cool to look at. I found the way that the film's score completely switched up to a loud and frantic number when a battle scene occurred very reminiscent of video games from my childhood! Not surprising considering the majority were probably developed in Japan.

Being my first anime film I've nothing to compare Nausicaa against and while I found it quite interesting and eye-opening I wouldn't go as far as saying I particulary enjoyed it. I really do need to watch Spirited Away to see how it compares.

FILM: Cocktail (4/10)

Why did I watch it?
This was on TV a few weeks ago and I debated whether I should watch it or not. What swung it for me was the fact that I  have not seen so many of Tom Cruise's 80's films like Risky Business or The Color of Money, Cocktail included.

What's it all about?
After leaving the army, Brian Flanagan (Cruise) returns to New York with an 'I want everything, and I want it now' attitude. Unfortunately for him he can only swing a job bar-tending alongside Doug Coughlin (Bryan Brown) while studying for a business degree. Full of charm and adept at flairing, Brian is popular with the ladies and after a fallout with Doug, heads to Jamaica to earn the dollars necessary to achieve his dream and open his own top class cocktail bar. Here Brian meets Jordan (Elisabeth Shue) and love blossoms until he risks it all to chase his dream.  

Should you watch it?
25 years old now, Cocktail is probably, more than any other film, the best example of the 1980's. The colours, the soundtrack, the cheese, it screams of this decade. To me it seems like the writers decided to take all the 80's elements of Top Gun (three years its predecessor) and 'Eighties' them further without stopping to really think about the film itself.

The plot is wafer thin to say the least and most importantly I simply couldn't relate to Coughlin and Brian scheming to come into money by luring women with wealthy purses, how shallow a premise is that? Despite both the film's and his character's flaws, Cruise still manages to appeal throughout as the lead, I don't know what it is but you just can't not like the guy. 

If you have yet to see Cocktail, then I wouldn't rush to do so, unless you are either a Cruise or Eighties fanatic. A regretful trip back to the 80's at their worst. 

TV: The Following (S1) (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

Seems a while ago now but I think I must have bought into the big marketing campaign for the show.

What's it all about?

Having already caught infamous serial killer Joe Carroll (James Purefoy) once, the FBI turn to former agent Ryan Hardy (Kevin Bacon) to help recapture Carroll after his escape. This time however, Hardy isn't just hunting Carroll but also his cult of like-minded killers cultivated during his time in prison, all striving to serve Carroll in his desire to get revenge on Hardy and those closest to him, starting with his own wife Claire (Natalie Zea).

Should you watch it?
The season premiere of The Following was one of the best, if not the best, openings to a show I've ever seen. TV shows have long been capable of film quality drama and production, but for suspense and horror, the pilot was as good as any slasher film I've seen. Within 45 minutes, we were introduced to Hardy and the FBI team as well  as Carroll's wife and son, who are soon secured following Carroll's escape. Also secured was Carroll's last victim and the only one to survive, Sarah Fuller. She seemed set for a role in the show yet it turned out that through his cult, Carroll's reach is vast and her death summed the first episode up, dark, scary, brutal and unpredictable. 

Created by Kevin Williamson, the writer of Scream 1 & 2, I Know What You Did Last Summer and The Faculty, perhaps it was not surprising that The Following ventured further into a darker, macabre nature than most procedural police shows. The idea for the show was certainly original from the cult perspective but the notion that Carroll was an Edgar Allan Poe fanatic and based his murders on his works seems too hot on the heels of the 2012 film The Raven to be original. Also, it has to be said that Bacon's character ticks a fair number of boxes on the 'former agents returning to the job' cliché list.

Talking Heads

Unfortunately, the show's pilot episode was it's strongest and all later episodes were hampered by the contrived nature of Carroll's plot, the stupidity and ineptitude of the FBI agents involved, weekly introduction of the latest member of Carroll's cult to 'play their part' before inevitably being gunned down senselessly by the FBI and irritatingly repetitive metaphors to the structure of a book's plot by Carroll.   

As leading men for a TV show go, Kevin Bacon was a pretty big catch for FOX and on occasions you do feel that he is the heart and soul of the show and maybe the only reason you are still watching. That's not to take anything away from the likes of James Purefoy, though not quite as menacing as Hannibal Lecter as serial killers go, Shawn Ashmore, Natalie Zea and Annie Parisse, all of whom contribute willingly.

The season ended on the up, if slightly predictably, and I dare say I will be tuning in to see how the events of the season finale are carried forward.