Stoh80

First off, my biggest complaint is how they changed the narration of the story unnecessarily. Throughout the movie, the real story, the story involving Gatsby and Nick and Daisy, is continually interrupted by Nick later on at a psychiatric ward—something that wasn't in the book. Nick being at a psychiatric ward was entirely made up the director, and as it doesn't contribute anything to the movie, I honestly can't see why they put it in there. Now, I can understand how they might want to change up the story to make it different and fresh, but this narration "story within a story" technique added nothing to the movie and only served as an annoying break from the real plot.

I also got the feeling they were trying to "modernize" a lot of the story, especially with their choice of soundtrack, but most of the time came across as anachronistic. Of course, it is not a bad thing at all to have songs from out of the time period. But there are so many more appropriate, actual 1920s songs they could have picked for the movie, that they would have gotten across the theme of partying and excess a hundred times better.

However, the cast and acting was good. Leonardo DiCaprio and Toby Maguire played their roles pretty well, and there wasn't a moment in the movie that I felt that they should have picked another actor for their parts. Every character in the movie is how I could have imaged a character from the book.

The movie just tries too hard. It hits you over the head with symbols like the green light and the optometry billboard that should have way more subtle. Several scenes are overdramatized, with tons of effects and music and overacting thrown in there that it makes the viewer dizzy.

It was very over stylized. Words fly around the screen in a few scenes in line with the actors' dialogue, which just looks more silly than anything else. It felt like they were trying to replace any actual meaning of the book with glitzy parties and (albeit stunning) visual effects. It wasn't a bad movie, but it could have been way better done.

Wes Anderson's very unorthodox take on Roald Dahl's classic Fantastic Mr. Fox really shows what animation can do. Here, fabled director Anderson, known for his hipster-esque style and dry humor, portrays the story of a fox who, going through a mid-life crisis, decides to get back into his old line of work and start stealing chickens again. Though the story is simple, the aesthetics and overall emotional appeal of the movie is astounding.

Some might scoff at motion-stop, but the animation really does fit well with the film. The world it is set in is charming and colorful, and the movement of the characters is realistic when it needs to be, and cartoonish when it doesn't. The whole barrage of stars that lent their voices for this film is pretty impressive—George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Owen Wilson. These actors portrayed their respective characters very well, making their lines sound natural and lifelike. From Davy Crockett to the Beach Boys, this film also features an eclectic, yet appropriate, range of songs.

I found Fantastic Mr. Fox most memorable for all of the little things. Every gesture, every facial expression, every under-the-breath comment from one of the characters adds to the film. In just about every scene you can find something interesting going on in the background, things you probably won't notice the first run through. The movie beckons you to pay close attention so you can truly get all of its emotional undertones and quirky character nuances. These little things may not ultimately contribute to the overall story of the movie, but that's not a bad thing. It's refreshing to see a movie that includes these unnecessary details that adds depth to the characters and environment (even if they are puppets!). In fact, I found these characters to be more lifelike and relatable than those in many live-action films. The chemistry between them is great, and even casual, seemingly unimportant conversations among these woodland creatures left me chuckling ("No you're not. You're disloyal."). Though a dry and somewhat awkward comedy, it can also be touching or even profound at moments, making it a very enticing film indeed.

Though marketed as a children's movie, it is obvious that this film has something for people of all ages. For anyone a fan of Wes Anderson, Roald Dahl, or animation in general, I wholeheartedly recommend this vastly underrated film. Anderson is off on the right foot for this genre, making me await any animated film he hopefully comes out with next.

I was not disappointed with this movie, but I wasn't impressed either. I went in expecting to see a somewhat humorous teen party movie, and that is exactly what I got, with "party" being a bit of an understatement. The first half of the movie is about three high school friends who, tired of not being popular, decide to throw a party of their own. After that it is basically nothing but partying, with a few funny but not very memorable moments.

I found it very similar to Superbad, except WAY more over the top and exaggerated. Even Thomas, the main character, reminded me a lot of Michael Cera's character in Superbad. However there is nothing "more" to Project X. There are no serious parts, no lessons to be learned at the end, as was the case with Superbad. The movie seems to try and make it feel genuine by throwing in some conflict between the characters, but in the end it really adds nothing to the plot, which is nearly non-existent. The movie simply progresses as the party gets more and more out of control.

One thing I found unique was the way the movie was filmed. Much like the movie Chronicle, which I happened to see right before Project X, it is in a first-person point of view. Most of the filming is done by the character Dax, whom the three friends higher to record the night's events. Some shots are done by flip cameras, cell phones, or even news cameras, all which are being held by actual characters in the movie. The director Nima Nourizadeh said he did this to make the audience feel like they were actually participating in the party, and for the most part, it was successful.

I saw this movie for free at a prescreening, and I'm glad I did. It was worth seeing with friends, but I definitely would not pay to go see it. If it happens to be on TV, or if you want to get in the mood for partying, I might recommend passively watching this with a group of friends.