The latest episode of the podcast is up, featuring a Luhrmann-trospective before reviews of The Liability, Flying Blind, A Stoker, In the Fog and The Great Gatsby. Press play here :

That will be up on this blog (which you can get updates for on twitter at @moodreviews) for 3 weeks, but is available to stream or download indefinitely at our podcast website. Follow us on twitter/like us on facebook for podcast updates, or to get in contact/ask a question/suggest a segment.

In Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby, he reunites with his former Romeo+Juliet leading man, Leonardo DiCaprio. And if there is one thing to be said about this film it is that it is precisely that: Baz Luhrmann's version of it. For a couple of reels or so it has the same divisive techniques and styles of his other films (particularly Moulin Rouge!), with the frenetic editing and outrageous pratfalling behaviour from the characters on show. Eventually he calms down, that smoothes out, and rather like Australia that's when the story really begins.

If it wasn't Baz Luhrmann, and he didn't start off most of his films in this way, it might be tempting to view it as a comment on the superficiality of the party-scene of the time, as the mysterious Gatsby's extravagant shindigs in the roaring 20s are the veneer beneath which the heart of the story lies. It is Baz though, and this is just how he rolls, so it's either something to enjoy or endure until the entrance of Mr. DiCaprio brings the bulk of the shenanigans to a close. Not everything about Luhrmann is a negative though, and if anything the man knows how to inject a bit of romance in to a story, and he certainly tries his level best here even if the story as presented doesn't necessarily lend itself too much to that.

This is hardly an actors film, and in Luhrmann's hands The Great Gatsby does not live or die on the performances of the cast, but in general they struggle to do anything to elevate the material they're given. Like the film as a whole, it's a mixed bag, with DiCaprio being quite effective, Elizabeth Debicki hinting at far more than is there (I want the story told from *her* point of view, based on this film), Joel Edgerton doing a serviceable job, and then Carey Mulligan and Tobey Maguire sucking any life or human emotions out of their characters and fundamentally letting the side down in the process. It's like having two wingers who don't have the pace to be a threat in attack and refuse to track back and fulfill their defensive responsibilities. If substitutions were allowed in films, these two should have been back on the bench before halftime.

Despite Mulligan and Maguire's efforts to drag this down into complete tedium, the basics of the story retain a mild interest (even if it's very predictable, even for those unfamiliar with the novel), and Luhrmann's visuals add layers that give the film a depth that their performances can't. The way the light at the end of her pier is used is very well done, as Mulligan and Edgerton's unawareness of its existence mirrors the backstory with DiCaprio, and it makes for a lyrical anchor Luhrmann keeps coming back to. This may not be the best adaptation of The Great Gatsby that Baz could have done, but it's probably the most Baz Lurhmann adaptation he could have done, and that's certainly what he was going for. It has its moments, but they're just bubbles that occasionally rise to the surface in this glass of champagne of a movie.

Yes, I still have my backlog of proper reviews to do, but in doing the films for next week's podcast already, plus this, I can't fall any more behind for a few days and should make a dent at some point. Okay, so there's four films here to talk about, a bit random, but it's what I've been watching online in the last week.

First up is a Japanese film called Blowfish, about a woman who breaks up with her boyfriend, sells his fish online as revenge, and then starts a relationship with the man she sells it to. This actually has echoes of a few films I really like, as his loner-guy (whose wife has left him) going out for noodles is straight out of In the Mood for Love, and her finding his ex's clothes still hung up everywhere upstairs recalls the adorable Tony Takitani. Sadly, it's not even a tenth as romantic as those films because it leaps into very jarring sexual scenes, going for the lowest common denominator. It does have some nice moments and ideas though (him keeping the clothes out being a metaphor for his feelings for his ex, the detailing of the new woman bringing him out of his shell, etc.) so it is a decent film, it just doesn't really appeal to my sensibilities in the execution.

Moving on, a trio of comedies and I'll start with the one I liked the most, 10 Years, which is an ensemble piece about a group of people coming back to their hometown to attend a 10-year high school reunion. This has a lot of people I like in it (Ari Graynor, Chris Pratt, Aubrey Plaza, Justin Long, etc.) and a fair few I've been decided non-plussed on (Channing Tatum being at the front of that particular queue). This is a consistently amusing film with a fair few one liners and some funny situations. The standout in the cast was Anthony Mackie giving a hilarious little turn as a womaniser, but the heart of the film is the relationship between Oscar Isaac's rock star and Kate Mara, who he's clearly very interested in. They add a Before Sunset-type vibe amidst everything which culminates in the best scene of the film with Isaac singing his "big hit song". Not everything's perfect as there are some misses to go along with the high spots, but when it hits it really hits, and a well-used soundtrack coupled with a very good pace make for an entertaining watch.

Moving on from that I saw What's Your Number?, which also had Graynor and Pratt in small roles, and for the first hour or so I was enjoying it quite a lot due to the exchanges between Anna Faris and Chris Evans. Unfortunately though, as soon as the dynamic changes and of course, because it's a "rom com" he has to realise he actually wants her, it falls off the cliff because they've set him up as a git too well and if anything it comes across as anti-romance by the end. Ultimately, this finishes with a very sour taste in the mouth as it drops a mark out of ten every ten minutes for the last three-quarters of an hour, but it's not without merit as it started quite well.

Lastly I caught Starter for 10, which I've been meaning to for a while as I like Rebecca Hall so much, and I finally got around to it. This does have a fair few funny moments, but equally a deal of cringe-worthy ones to go along with that. Some of the plotting is a bit silly and other aspects a touch too trite, but in general when they don't go obvious with it all that works nicely. It is a bit underwhelming though and I've no idea why it's set in 1985 when the soundtrack is full of late-80s songs by The Cure, but I suppose this is just trying to be nostalgic all round. James McAvoy anchors it nicely and it doesn't outstay its welcome, but the end is a tad rushed and underwhelming after spending that much time on the various strands.

Watching Helen McCrory in Flying Blind feels as if it's a glimpse in to the future. This is because her performance as a flight engineer who begins an affair with an Algerian man is so mannered, full of tics and misjudged that it's like boarding a time machine to see the sort of thing Keira Knightley might be doing a couple of decades from now. She'll do the right thing at the wrong time, and never disappear beneath her technique to reveal the character, which isn't necessarily her fault because it's hardly as if there's a character to reveal.

The central premise behind this film is that she's working on a military contract for drones, and if the young, Arab guy she's seeing is genuine or just using her. Now, with the way the suspicion is drip fed it's so ham-fisted and unconvincing as every time a potential red flag comes up it's obvious she won't just end the whole thing, and given that there's practically no backdrop or detailing to either character it's impossible to know why the relationship continues, or care if it does.

What the filmmakers rely on therefore is the wider backdrop and setting, i.e. that he might be working for a terrorist cell, and so the only possible interest in their relationship (which is alarmingly 2D and rushed) is that aspect of things. Unfortunately because it's drawn as such a purely sexual encounter it's emotionally arctic, and the preconceptions and prejudices of the society are only looked at on the most superficial, plot-based levels.

All of this means in order for this to even drag itself up to average it would need fine performances to elevate the material, but McCrory is so painfully present as an actress in every scene and Najib Oudghiri fails spectacularly to convince on any level, so all you have is a string of sex scenes sandwiched between over-amped misunderstandings, alongside some thoroughly unbelievable plot points and skated-over political comment. The opening sequence is intiguing, arresting, and sets everything up quite well. It's just such a shame that when the story actually starts it ends up dragging down and slogging away to the point that it's such a genuine chore to watch.

With his sophomore effort, Take Shelter, Jeff Nichols made a really promising film that was let down in the last five minutes. With his follow up, Mud, it's long before the "5 minutes to go"-mark that the problems set in. This is because the one real problem with the film is the worst one you can possibly have: the screenplay is quite terrible.

The set-up of the story is that Matthew McConaughey (the eponymous character) is stuck on an island where a couple of teenage boys discover him hiding out from the law in a boat in a tree. For about an hour, as the various characters are introduced and their relationships are explored it holds enough intrigue to keep it all together, but the longer it goes the longer it feels, as the bush is thoroughly beaten around before the ridiculous climax is ushered in.

The script is fraught with problems, with some eye-rollingly forced parallels between the main lad and Mud, and plot holes, fridge-logic moments and contradictions galore. The two things that Nichols makes sure that the film has going for it are that the acting is uniformly good, and it's well shot in his now-customary Terrence Malick-wannabe kind of way. Those elements can only sustain enough interest for about half of the runtime, and when the plotting and story falls apart at the seams no nice photography can hope to save it.

When the credits roll, the overwhelming feeling Mud provokes is one of frustration because Nichols has his strengths as a filmmaker, but has no idea how to bring his stories to a satisfactory conclusion. Take Shelter was forgivable because it was the very end that let it down, but this is the equivalent of running a marathon and being asked to drag a buffalo carcass around the final 10 miles of the route. The best thing about this film is that the likes of Sarah Paulson and Sam Shepard are in it and being given work, and the lasting one is that it's another example of McConaughey's recent attempts at a fashioning a respectable career for himself. Outside of that, it's one to be put in the rear view mirror and left to disappear into the horizon as quickly as possible.

Here's the latest episode, where we dive straight in to Star Trek Into Darkness after a brief opening on various news from the week. After that we review Mud, Deadfall, Vehicle 19, Dragon and take a look at the first half of NBC's series Hannibal (as prompted by a listener request). Press play here :

That will be available here for three weeks, but you can also stream/download it on our website, which has our entire back-catalogue. Like us on facebook/follow us on twitter for updates/to get in contact (this blog has a twitter account too with updates - @moodreviews), or reply here.

Moving swiftly on (or not really swiftly, it's been a slow afternoon and I just dropped 73 pts in an 8 minute quarters game on Hall of Fame difficulty in NBA2K13 myplayer mode, and am about to go out to see Star Trek, so *now* it's a bit of a rush), three italian films I've seen recently, all of which are fairly recent.

First up I'll take Reality, which is Matteo Garrone's follow-up to Gomorra. This is a satire following a fisherman whose children push him in to auditioning for the tv show Big Brother, and the ensuing grip the obsession with getting on the show has on his life. As a comedy it only really starts to hit in the second half, but as a critique of the culture it's far more successful. The final scene is what really makes the film, with the metaphor both refusing to spell *everything* out for the audience and at least make them think about it, but there being a very direct point in there, so it's rewarding. The acting is uniformly good, it's nicely made, and a very refreshing surprise after Gomorra.

Also doing the rounds in cinemas recently was Io e te (Me and You), incredibly Bernardo Bertolucci's first film in almost a decade. The set up is that an introverted teenage lad ditches a school skiing trip to spend the week in the basement of his apartment building, but his solitude is interrupted by his junkie half-sister who is in need of a place to go cold turkey. Despite the confines of the setting Bertolucci tries to make things interesting visually, and there are some aspects of their relationship that do intrigue. Ultimately not enough happens to truly compel, and there's only so many cool songs you can put inbetween scenes of him being annoyed and her groaning, but it's a very decent watch and they play it quite well.

Lastly The Red and the Blue, which is a cross between The Class and Detachment. I saw this online because it won't come out here and Margherita Buy was so good in White Space I'll watch her in anything. This is about three teachers in an Italian school and what happens when they've come too close to people they've taught. Some of the plotting is a bit too neat and some of the personal relationships on the periphery are underdeveloped, but the basics of the education system are looked at well enough and the central dramas work for the most part. It's very smoothly put together and very well acted, I enjoyed this one quite a bit.

That describes the backlog I have at the moment. It's really because I've been watching a lot of tv (particularly Parks and Recreation) over the last couple of weeks (review a film or watch 2 episodes? ... Poehler wins), but it was already stacking up before then. I'll get a load of non-cinema offerings out of the way here, before doing some stuff I've done on the podcast but not written up yet.

First up I'll take Safety Not Guaranteed, which I checked out because I'd heard nice things and it was an obvious move after seeing Aubrey Plaza on Parks.... I thought this started off really well, being very funny quite consistently and having a nice sense of its own ridiculousness. A couple of things let it down though, namely a slightly mis-cast Mark Duplass (who lacks the level of charm to really make it work and doesn't fit that well opposite Plaza) and the writer having no idea what to do at the end at all. As a result it's extremely underwhelming because the set up was so promising, but the payoff so, so, rushed and weak. It is still a cute little watch though with a fair bit going for it, sadly it ends up being nothing more than that.

After that I saw a film that Plaza has a cameo in, The End of Love, which is written and directed by Mark Webber, who I have a big soft spot for after The Hottest State. The fictionalised story here is of an actor named Mark struggling to raise his child whilst struggling to pursue a Hollywood career. At its heart, when it focuses on his new relationship with Shannyn Sossamon's character, it's quite interesting and played well, but this is a fairly aimless, wandering film that shuffles along. It does get across the relentlessness of being a parent and it does get across how soul-destroying chasing the Hollywood dream can be, but it doesn't really say anything new or interesting about grief, though, no matter how well Webber acts the big moments when they come. Either way, he's a compelling performer and it's worth a look, despite the odd piece of clunky plotting.

Moving on, I was given a copy of Whole Lotta Sole to watch (in America it was called Stand Off), which is a very random Irish comedy starring Brendan Fraser and directed by Terry George. It's pretty silly stuff, but a fair bit of it is quite amusing, with it essentially turning into a small town version of Dog Day Afternoon. The cast are all solid and do nice work, it shifts along and doesn't outstay its welcome: this was a very easy little watch.

Keeping in the Irish vein, I was also given a copy of The Guard, which I'd been interested in seeing for a while. In comparison with Whole Lotta Sole this was funnier, more stylish and has better acting, even if the humour relies far more on one liners than the situations created. The Tarantino influence is all over this, but the calling card really is the script, allowing Brendan Gleeson, Don Cheadle, and especially Mark Strong to come and play. This is pretty much a "does what it says on the tin"-type film, as it's entertaining throughout and hits far more often than it misses.

Lastly, I'll briefly mention a couple of films I've talked about on the podcast. I saw All Things To All Men, which was a very by-the-numbers British crime thriller starring Rufus Sewell, Toby Stephens and Gabriel Byrne. There isn't really much on show here, but it's watchable enough for the most part, even if the finale isn't half as gripping as they probably were aiming for. I also saw Come Out and Play, which is a horror film starring Vinessa Shaw. This was a poor example of the genre, with the director aping the likes of David Lynch but merely creating an uneven, overlong piece as a result. The shocks aren't shocking, the jumps don't work, the tone isn't refined and the predictability certainly doesn't help matters. Only watched these two to give us something to talk about.