She has the face of a flower and she still believes that the world is an enchanted place that cannot hurt her. She does not understand what is going on around her, but we do.
Her name is Maisie (the exquisite Onata Aprile). She is seven and she lives in New York with her parents, a fading rock star named Susanna (Julianne Moore) and a British art dealer named Beale (Steve Coogan). They are self-centered and feckless, and she does not yet realize that their hugs are more about themselves than about her. They split up, and then, incapable of being alone and primarily to reassure themselves and spite each other, immediately take on new, very unwise partners. Beale begins a romance with Maisie’s nanny, Margo (Joanna Vanderham). And Susanna, feeling doubly betrayed, one-ups him by impetuously marrying a bartender named Lincoln (Alexander Skarsgård). This comes out when Lincoln, who Maisie has never really met, appears at her school to pick her up. “I’m sort of like Maisie’s…stepfather,” he sheepishly tells the teacher.
Maisie’s clothes often have fantasy elements, like a tiara, showing the gloss of fantasy she brings to her world — and the casual indulgence of the adults in her life. Moore’s neediness, as a woman who is losing her career, her romantic partner, and her child, is raw and affecting. Coogan gets a rare chance to show what a fine serious actor he can be. In one scene, he impetuously invites Maisie to go to England with him, and then immediately changes his mind. We see every thought on his face, including his chagrin at recognizing that he is betraying the daughter still young enough to believe in him.
This movie feels very much of this moment and has a very specific sense of place in its shabby chic New York settings. But it is based on a book by Henry James written more than a century ago. Directors Scott McGehee and David Siegel have a delicacy and sensitivity that gives their superb cast the chance to create complicated characters. They are not afraid to mix moments of humor with selfishness, heart-wrenching loss, and tragic choices.
Parents should know that this movie deals with themes of parental neglect and family dysfunction. It includes sexual references and non-explicit situations, drinking, strong language, and many poor choices.
Family discussion: What will happen to Maisie? What will she think of her parents when she gets to be a teenager? A grown-up? What has changed since Henry James wrote the book?
If you like this, try: “Careful, He Might Hear You”
Kids, here’s a hint: Don’t think you can pass a sophomore English exam on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s jazz age classic and high school reading list perennial by watching this movie. While this version of the story of a man who changes everything about his life so that he can win back the woman he loves hits the Cliff’s notes highlights, spending more time on the green light on the dock than Gatsby and on the eyeglass billboard than Nick Carraway, co-writer and director Baz Luhrmann misses the forest for the trees. His trees are fun to look at, though. Copyright Village Roadshow 2012
It goes off the rails from the very first moment, when it turns out that narrator Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is telling the story in a snow-covered sanitarium, presumably because the events he is about to disclose are so traumatic they have caused him to have a breakdown. Or, perhaps this is Luhrmann’s way of eliding Carraway with Fitzgerald himself, though there is no indication that Fitzgerald wrote this book as therapy.
The more significant violation, though, comes from the mangling of the book’s famous opening lines. Like the book, the movie begins with Carraway telling us that his father warned him not to judge people. But it leaves out the most important part — the reason why. “In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since. ‘Whenever you feel like criticizing anyone,’ he told me,‘just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.’” This is crucial for understanding the way Nick looks at Gatsby and his rival, Tom Buchanan. But Luhrmann inexplicably does not think it is worth including.
Perhaps it is because he is so eager to get to what matters to him, the pageantry. He is the genre/mash-up “Moulin Rouge” guy whose motto seems to be “more is still not enough, even with glitter on it. And firecrackers. And 3D. And Jay-Z.”
The story takes place in 1922. Nick is a WWI veteran who has literary tendencies but is working at a low-level job “in bonds” on Wall Street. He is living in a small cottage in the Hamptons, next door to a vast mansion owned by a mysterious man named Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), who gives fabulously decadent parties but is seldom seen. They are across the bay from the old-money side, where Nick’s cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) lives with her wealthy, upper class, polo-playing brute of a husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). He is having an affair with Myrtle (Isla Fisher), the restless wife of the struggling owner of a garage.
It turns out that Daisy and Gatsby knew each other five years earlier, when he was in the military and before she was married to Tom. But “rich girls don’t marry poor boys.” Gatsby has changed everything to change himself into the man Daisy could have married. He lives across from her home so he can look toward her (and the green light on her dock). He hopes that his parties will lure her to his home. When he discovers that his neighbor is her relation, he goes to great lengths to assure Nick that he is trustworthy and to persuade Nick to invite him to tea with Daisy, so he can see her again. He is convinced that they can erase the past and go on together as though five years that included her marriage and child never happened. Nick admires Gatsby for his ability to hope. And in Lurhmann’s version, that is a quality that more than makes up for the compromises and selfishness of Gatsby’s single-minded quest.
Of course, thoughtful consideration of issues like those is not the purpose of this film. It is a confetti gun of a movie, all sensation and senseless mash-up. The party scenes and period details are gorgeous for the sake of gorgeousness, with no sense of perspective or irony. Fitzgerald, who had a love-hate relationship with wealth and status, had some ambivalence in his descriptions of the characters luxuries, but in general Lurhmann’s portrayal of the negligent opulence of the old money Buchanans and gauche display of the new money Gatsby is somewhere between awe and envy. The Jay-Z-produced soundtrack is not as anacronistically intrusive as one might fear, only because the sensory overload barely allows it to register. But it is thin compared to the book. Fitzgerald’s carefully chosen songs and the lyrics of the era that he included are far more evocative and illuminating as words on a page than all of the thump thump thumping of the music we hear.
Luhrmann may be trying to make some point with the marginalization of African-American characters, relegated to playing music, dancing, and looking on at what the white folks are doing from tenements. But it is distracting and unsettling to see them treated as just another set of props. But then, the white characters are not much more than props, either, with a director more interested in posing them and moving the camera than in any kind of performance. Daisy’s friend Jordan (Elizabeth Debicki), impossibly long and thin, is like a Giacometti sculpture towering above mere mortals. DiCaprio has some affecting moments, but seems too old and too sleekly comfortable for the role.
After at least five unsuccessful attempts to make this novel into a movie, it may be time to declare it unfilmable. There is no cinematic equivalent to Fitzgerald’s voice. This is not “The Great Gatsby.” It’s an often-visually pleasing kaleidoscopic music video with a 3D shower of shirts.
Parents should know that the movie features violence including murder, suicide, a fatal traffic accident, and domestic abuse, also drinking and drunkenness, pills, smoking, sexual situations that are explicit for a PG-13, and brief strong language including racist and anti-Semitic epithets.
Family discussion: What do the green light and the billboard symbolize? Why does Nick say that Gatsby is hopeful?
If you like this, try: the book by F. Scott Fitzgerald and compare this to the other versions, including the 1974 Robert Redford film, the Mira Sorvino miniseries, and the updated “G”
Rate R for sexual content, some graphic nudity, language, violence, and drug use, some involving teens
Profanity:
Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:
Drinking, drug use
Violence/ Scariness:
Tense emotional confrontations, some violence, gun
Diversity Issues:
Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:
April 19, 2013
Viewers will spend much of this movie mentally imploring the characters on screen not to do what it is all too disturbingly clear that they are ineluctably drawn to do. This is a very scary movie with three stories about the disastrous consequences of revealing too much online. And the scariest part is off-line. Far more devastating than the painful consequences of the bad choices they make is the reason they make them, the yearning for connection.
Grief over the death of a baby drives a couple apart and they separately seek online support to make them feel less helpless and isolated and are ensnared by an identity thief. A devoted but distracted father does not know that his shy, sensitive son is being catfished by a couple of classmates, much less that the boy . An ambitious television reporter wants to write a story about an underage online sex worker, and that means she must get him to trust her. In their own ways, each of them is seducing the other for professional reasons.
These fact-based stories could easily come across as cheesy Lifetime dramas, but documentary director Henry-Alex Rubin (“Murderball”) gives it an intimate, natural tone. Sensitive performances from the entire cast are absorbing, especially Jason Bateman in his first full-on dramatic role as the father of the boy who thinks he has an online girlfriend and that she has asked him to send her a nude photo and Frank Grillo as the single father of one of the boys whose prank turns tragic.
The weakest of the stories involves the grieving couple, who decide to take things into their own hands when identify theft drives them to the brink of financial ruin and the revelations of their online activities drive them to the brink of marital disaster. But even that storyline has some gripping moments as the experience shocks them into talking to each other with more singularity of purpose and honesty than they have shared in a long time. The journalist’s involvement with the underage online sex worker has some superficially sleazy moments, but Andrea Riseborough (Wallis Simpson in Madonna’s “W.E.”) is excellent in showing us the character’s struggle with ambition, compassion, professionalism, and vulnerability. “It’s my job!” various characters cry out at different moments in the movie. It is just a way of declaring how that makes them responsible, and how it defines them.
As we have had to develop a new term, catfishing, to describe online relationships based on fictional character attributes, and even an entire television series on the subject, we are only just beginning to understand the way our brains are constructed to fill in the missing elements of these connections with elements from our own subconscious, a sort of romantic Rorschach test. What draws us in to these stories is the recognition that we bring so much hope and need to these online connections. But what keeps us thinking afterward is its reminder that while the in-person, real-life connections are what scare us most, it is because that is what we long for so deeply.
Parents should know that this cautionary tale includes nudity, explicit sexual references, very strong language, drinking and drugs, and underage sex workers.
Family discussion: Does this movie make you think differently about your online presence? How should the rules be changed? Why was it easier for these people to open up online than in person?
Rated R for sexual content, graphic nudity, violence, some grisly images, and language
Profanity:
Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:
Drinking
Violence/ Scariness:
Violence and peril with guns, fire, chases, car accident, taser, choking, and torture, some very disturbing images, characters injured and killed, graphic wounds, dead bodies
Diversity Issues:
Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:
April 12, 2013
Date Released to DVD:
July 22, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:
B00D3DJI3Q
Before he was the establishment figure who won Oscars for prestige projects (“Slumdog Millionaire”) and masterminded the fabulous opening ceremonies for the London Olympics that had the Queen and James Bond jumping out of a plane, Danny Boyle was a skillful director of highly styled and deliciously nasty films about not-so-deliciously nasty people doing dreadful things (“Trainspotting” and “Shallow Grave”). His latest is “Trance,” a deliciously nasty heist film about the theft of a 27 million dollar masterpiece by Goya, tellingly titled Witches in the Air, and about the mistrust and betrayal that comes next.
Part of the fun comes from having our assumptions turned upside down — and then inside out. So I don’t want to give too much away. The title comes from a hypno-therapist named Elizabeth (the stunningly beautiful Rosario Dawson), brought into the den of thieves because one of them has misplaced the painting and, thanks to a head injury, cannot remember where he stashed it. The problem faced by alpha-thief Franck (ferret-like Vincent Cassel) is how to arrange it so that Elizabeth can get inside the amnesiac’s head to find the missing painting but not let her find that that by doing so she is abetting a rather notorious crime. Dawson, too often underused, gets a chance to show what she is capable of in a performance of intelligence and subtlety. As she explained in an interview, “I wanted to be specific on who she was and make her disappear at the same time.”
The film itself becomes a sort of trance, with deeply saturated colors that shimmer like a dream, and Dawson’s magnetic voice. We, like the characters, must begin to mistrust what we see and what we think we know as the story turns upside down, inside out, and then, as soon as we think we’ve figured it out, Rubik cubes our minds again. This is a movie you’ll be talking about on the way home, and probably shivering about in your own nightmare.
Parents should know that this film includes sexual references and explicit situations, very explicit nudity, violence including guns, taser, car accident, torture, fire, characters injured and killed, disturbing and graphic images, very strong language
Family discussion: What do the title and subject of the stolen painting have to do with the story? What do you think will happen next?
If you like this, try: “Inside Man” and “Side Effects”
Director Terrence Malick has made a movie for those fans who loved “Tree of Life” but thought it was too linear and easy to follow.
“To the Wonder” is an impressionistic story of love and loss. Theoretically it stars Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Javier Bardem, and Olga Kurylenko, but in reality the star is the sun,. It seems to be the focus of almost every exquisitely framed shot, with sunlight flaring always just so through the meticulously arranged tree branches behind the beautiful woman who loves to twirl. This movie has a lot of sunlight and a lot of twirling. Also a lot of what I will call affectionate rough-housing, which I think — can’t be sure about anything here — is the primary, if middle-school-ish, way these characters indicate that they like each other.
It does not have a lot of dialogue, and what conversations we do overhear are almost incidental. The talk we hear is mostly the murmured, diary-like narration of a French single mother who falls in love with an American and brings her daughter to live with him in a barren house in a barren landscape that is in sharp contrast with the “wonder” of the rich environment she left behind. Malick seems to have a devilish pleasure in withholding information. The daughter, Tatiana, is the only character whose name we are allowed to know.
It is maddeningly opaque at times but undeniably lyrical. It does not just break free from narrative; it explodes it into an almost-pointillist kaleidoscope of images, whispers, and detours. Where “Tree of Life” had a dinosaur, “To the Wonder” has a zig into an underwater scene with sea turtles before it zags into a separate segment (I can’t say story) about a sad priest (Bardem).
If is more tone poem than movie, it is an intriguing one, touching on themes of connection and disconnection, love and betrayal, at the level of society and individuals. At times it is annoyingly opaque, but there are also moments of stunning beauty. If he continues down this road, Malick’s next movie will be delivered to the theater in individual frames, to be tossed toward the screen in random order, and many of them will feature sun flares. But I’ll still go to see it.
Parents should know that this movie includes sexual references and situations, briefly explicit, including adultery, nudity, smoking, and drinking.
Family discussion: Why is the story told through narration instead of dialogue? How does the issue of contamination of the soil and water relate to the story? Why is the house unfurnished?
If you like this, try: “Tree of Life”
Parents should know that this movie includes some nudity and explicit sexual situations, including adultery. Characters drink alcohol.