THE GREAT GATSBY Review

In its exuberant excess -- a signature style of Baz Luhrmann that he brings to a culmination here of pure flash, glitz and glam -- the director, perhaps unconsciously, evokes the same distant observation of that very excess F. Scott Fitzgerald described in his novel. It's not so much a classic adaptation than it is, mirroring the world Gatsby inhabits, a perfectly over-the-top display of crass indulgence. The fact that Lurhmann's audacious film is so grossly decked out in bells and whistles is more fitting than unnecessary in capturing the spirit of Fitzgerald's masterpiece: the over-the-top parties, the roaring 20s sensibilities and, most of all, the aching despair at the center of it all.

"The Great Gatsby" is also probably the only movie this year that will use 3D to proper effect. Luhrmann and cinematographer Simon Duggan put artistry in their use of the technology to soar above Manhattan, over the city and back into the illustrious mansions, twirling in and out of Gatsby's extraordinary parties. It creates an entirely sensory space, a highly stylized vision and nearly picturesque world where every scene is a perfectly choreographed dance. We open on a black-and-white Gatsby logo that pulses into golden life and zooms in on the infamous green light, the light upon which Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) gazes from his palace on East Egg across the bay into West Egg wherein lives the desired Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan).

Next door to Gatsby is the curious and wide-eyed Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) who moves to town to become a writer but ends up in the bonds business. He goes across the bay to visit his cousin Daisy and meets her husband Tom, (Joel Edgerton) who almost openly is having an affair with another woman, Myrtle (Isla Fisher), while the couple's friend, Jordan (Elizabeth Debicki), watches everything through a lens of close scrutiny and awareness. She also has information on the illusive Gatsby about which rumors swirl and has peaked Nick's immediate interest. Nick soon receives a personal invite from Gatsby to one of his big bashes to which everyone else in town just shows up. And it's not just any bash; it's the biggest bash in town.

The first Gatsby party awashes the audience in shimmering decorations, flowing champagne, and dancing and music galore. It's the pinnacle of booming decadence, Lurhmann gleefully throwing money into his grand production as if he himself is the Gatsby of filmmaking. The party scenes are dizzying and reminiscent of the zaniness of "Moulin Rouge!" highlighted, of course, by the film's largely promoted soundtrack that lives up to the hype. Flappers bust out to the beats of Jay-Z while the late-party hangover -- deflated decorations and discarded bottles covering the floors -- is set to a somber, crooning Florence Welch.

The introduction of Gatsby is the idealistic movie star moment. Panning up, we see a man smiling knowingly, sly and so confident, holding up a glass of champagne, fireworks over his head. It's bombastic, so very Baz and so fitting for introducing such a character -- and only Leonardo DiCaprio could've pulled off the role. It's hard to picture anyone else bringing potent vulnerability to such a famed literary character. He also looks as if he stepped out of a time machine from his days of "Titanic."

The core of the film is the ill-fated romance between Jay Gatsby, the powerhouse, and Daisy Buchanan, the delicate flower. Set to the anthem of Lana Del Rey's "Young & Beautiful," the high point of the film's robust soundtrack and score, we watch this superficial, material-driven world come crumbling down within the dark side of the American dream, the beautiful and tragic world that it is. And in the daring director's ability to capture that exact essence, that pointed feeling of wasteful extravagance, he succeeds immensely.

Archive: "Spider-Man 3" (2007)

Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man 3" packs in a bit too much, giving it the feeling of simply being overstuffed. Two new villains are introduced, one of which is supposedly the actual killer of Peter Parker's uncle. The other man Spidey exacted his revenge on earlier was merely an accomplice. The other villain is hardly used and could've been put to much greater use, but more on that later. There's also a pesky new photojournalist, played by "That 70s Show"'s Topher Grace, who is trying to take Peter Parker's spot on the Daily Bugle. Meanwhile, the relationship between MJ and Peter Parker becomes a foe all in itself. Her Broadway career is failing while Parker's fame is taking off as he just keeps getting more recognition as Spider-Man, and so she feels detached from him. And remember Harry Osborn, son of the Green Goblin, who vowed to kill Spider-Man? Well, he's back, and conveniently got a nice bump on the head, causing a loss of short-term memory. And so, they're back to being friends until Harry starts remembering and becomes his friend-turned-foe-turned-friend-turned-foe-turned-friend yet again, and also the man who MJ finds solace in when Peter's off being a jerk; more on that later, as well.

So let's back up here. First, there's Flint Marko, played by a strangely tan and buff Thomas Haden Church. He's a convict on the run and is just trying to get money to cure his sick daughter, which is his justification for accidentally killing Uncle Ben. We're supposed to feel sympathy for his situation, especially during a most forcedly sentimental speech he gives to Peter for why he must forgive him. Yet how can we feel sympathy when he's flying around the cityscape as a disastrous cloud of sand? While on the run, Marko falls into a pit where scientists just so happen to be conducting a molecular fusion test, and he gets fused with the sand and becomes the Sandman. The other villain is this sticky, black goo that immediately finds its way into Peter's apartment, and eventually takes him completely over, donning Spidey with a new black suit. This ominously exciting new suit with seemingly extraordinary yet dangerous powers was supposed to be the highlight of the plot, right?

Wrong. I was expecting grand darkness, a layer of some intense character development on Spidey's part, allowing Peter Parker to learn from his thoughts of revenge. This is entirely not the case, and it isn't even all that clear why the black suit is so appealing. No new spider senses or other powers are demonstrated and yet Peter Parker still puts up with the horrible side-effect of an annoyingly aggressive attitude. Just when Peter is being a pompous, uncaring jerk to MJ, he slaps on this suit and completely transforms into even more of an asshole. Apparently a dark suit and black, slicked-forward hair represents the newfound darkness. Oh, and the rumors are true: There is a musical number, and yes, two instances where Kirsten Dunst sings. Sadly, though, it's Tobey Maguire who dances. He struts down the street as a clueless egotistical loser, pointing his fingers at disgusted women. To spite MJ who recently called it off with him, Peter goes on a date with a Spider-Man fan named Gwen (played by Bryce Dallas Howard finally in a role as a normal person) to a jazz club where MJ works as a singing waitress. Next thing we know, Peter is tearing up the place with his shameful dance moves, pelvic thrusts included.

So, instead of putting the vengeful black suit idea to good use, it's used to create the single-most embarrassing scene throughout the entire movie. You see, this black goo is actually the villain Venom; he only comes to full form when he's able to manifest himself into somebody else. His later host is the scrawny Topher Grace, which is an odd combination to say the least. Venom is actually a really cool villain, or at least he could be. Once the gooey Venom stops taking over Peter and becomes something really threatening, he's defeated almost immediately. He ultimately feels like an after-thought, with the tons of other side plots in the way; it's a real shame, too. The movie feels like a blatant attempt to make this the biggest and best installment yet, which ironically strips away what could've made it all the better.

I admired the first "Spider-Man" for its colorful presentation and lively, energetic feel. I thought "Spider-Man 2" was quite possibly not only the best sequel ever made, but also one of the best super hero movies ever made. It was beautifully structured, wonderfully acted, and had just the right balance of exciting action sequences and deep, heartfelt emotion with a hint of light-hearted humor on the side. There were likable characters fending off truly menacing villains without too heavy of plot getting in the way. "Spider-Man 3" includes surprisingly bland performances from good actors: Kirstin Dunst is whinier than ever and Tobey Maguire is boyishly arrogant, and neither of them was like that before. The emotions feel forced, but the humor is still there, except sometimes unintentionally so. And there being two villains doesn't compensate for the fact that they're both pretty lame. Lastly, there's just too much plot going on all at once, almost like Sam Raimi lost touch with the ideal simplicity of the first two films. Sometimes less is a whole lot better.

What haven’t changed from the previous two films are the dazzling action sequences. The special effects are absolutely eye-popping, except there aren't enough of them. Sluggish sequences link the gap between the brilliantly vibrant and fast-paced web-slinging or superhero brawling sequences. As a whole, it meanders through mostly uninteresting side plots, and nothing ever really adds up into anything truly satisfying come time for the conclusion. However that may be the case, I must say that "Spider-Man 3" is entirely watchable if not at least a little enjoyable. It only comes as a disappointment to me just because "Spider-Man 2" showed me what these movies are truly capable of; it was a fault on my expectations.