Maybe it's not possible to portray one of the greatest books ever written on the silver screen. This is at least the third time and I've been really disappointed all three. Neither DiCaprio or Redford (both of whom I really like) catch the true sense of the mysterious Gatsby. At least Redford was a bit detached. His failures of the past are in his head. DiCaprio (or the script he must follow) make him seem like a giddy love soaked schoolboy. He is so obsessed as to appear weak and maudlin. Another issue, however, is with the portrayal of Nick Carraway. Tobey Maguire is just too cute. I never pictured Nick as the little boy seen here (Sam Waterston, while not perfect, at least seemed like a possibility). Again, I like Maguire in other roles, but here he seems nothing more that Gatsby's toy. He's still physically lacking as a leading man. Mostly, it just lacked a bit of pizazz. Luhrman seems to think he can do it all visually, but this is a story of lost souls, trying to recover something they can't seem to reach. It fades and fades and in the end, it's hard to care much. Also, the portrayals of Daisy and Jordan just don't seem to draw us in.
Add a Review
-
Hitchcoc3 January 2014
-
8/10.
I know a lot of the other reviewers will compare this film to the older one and also the book, so if you're interested in a comparison, stop reading here. I want to review this film as a movie that tells a story, like every other film. I don't want to review this as a film that tried to beat its preceding film adaptation.
I myself have read the book and have always been so intrigued with the character of Gatsby, and when I heard a few years back that he would be portrayed on the big screen by DiCaprio, I couldn't wait. The character carries such a mystery about him that was delivered so excellently by Leonardo DiCaprio, and made it so fun to watch. It was almost like I didn't know what the ending was because I was so immersed in 1920s New York, and in the lifestyle of The Great Gatsby.
The film itself, as a film, was awesome! The visuals and soundtrack were captivating and lavish. The acting was great overall, as you can trust these actors to deliver.
I read somewhere on IMDb (message board or another reviewer, I can't remember) that Leonardo wasn't a good fit for the role of Gatsby. I think this statement couldn't be more wrong. If you have read the book, you must have some idea about the depth of Gatsby's character, the depth of his mind, his desires. The false smiles, the phony handshakes, the uneasiness in being in public, the way Jay Gatsby conducts himself in front of Daisy, and in pursuit of her. All these things are delivered so well by DiCaprio. His nerve, his frustration, his determination...all so eloquently portrayed. But most of all, his passion, and as Nick Carraway, our narrator so emphatically reminds us, his hope. The character development of Jay Gatsby, and the development of all those surrounding him gives us such a deep look at the relationships of such a diverse category of people.
The storyline is obviously interesting: A man realizes his new neighbor is a mysterious, and incredibly wealthy man. Like how awesome is that? Throughout the whole film, as the relationships between all the few main characters become deeper and deeper, and the questions become answered, you just can't help but feel so into the characters' lives. Great writing for the characters, great directing, great great great acting.
Overall, this is just a great film. If you go into the theater thinking "oh this'll suck compared to Robert Redford" or "I bet the book is way better", you're setting yourself up for a bad 143 minutes. Don't be so close minded and try to view it as just another film that tells a fictional story, and a great one at that. -
I like Luhrmann's take on films and soundtracks usually - but this film's strange annoying choice of music style was really off-putting. It was so mismatched like they were trying to MTV it with advertising Coke or something mainstream. Shame, would be great to see this with a soundtrack that suits the style of the storytelling/theme.
-
kendavies-0511014 August 2017Whoever decided that blaring modern pop/ hip hop music into a story of the early 20's was a good idea needs their heads examined. It not only removes you completely from the story but jolts you so far out of it that you need a few minutes to try and refocus yourself back into the story. (and that's not a knock on this genre of music, it just has no place here..)
After an hour, I could stand no more, the acting and story seemed great, but the soundtrack was too much to take.
So much great music was made during this time period that if used effectively could have elevated this story. Such a waste. -
bkoganbing30 July 2013Only a poor soundtrack filled with contemporary music spoiled this latest version of The Great Gatsby for me. In a tradition of blond Gatsbys, Leonardo DiCaprio steps into the shoes of Alan Ladd and Robert Redford in essaying the part of the social climbing bootlegger from the Roaring Twenties. All that will make Jay Gatsby's life complete is the love of Daisy Buchanan whom he courted before his service in World War I. The problem is that she's slightly married to upper class Tom Buchanan. Daisy is played by Carey Mulligan and Buchanan is played by Australian player Joel Edgerton.
In fact except for DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway the whole cast is mostly Australian which is to be expected since most of the production was shot there. I have to say that the Australian studio did a marvelous job in recreating New York of the Twenties and the ritzy and glamorous part of Long Island where most of the story takes place.
As the book is written in the person of Nick Carraway it was also a good move to have Maguire narrate the story. Tobey's narration gives us the background of the story and Carraway's character functions as he should.
Leonardo DiCaprio does a wonderful job playing the social climbing Gatsby who weaves his own legend as he gives fabled parties on Long Island where the illegal liquor flows freely. Beneath his self assurance there is a bit of a frightened edge like this is all going to be taken away from him so enjoy while you can.
Perhaps the producers thought that no one would see a film with old music in it. There is some there, Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue comes to mind. But the contemporary music on the soundtrack is jarring and out of place.
But overall this is a good telling of F. Scott Fitzgerald's tale of the Roaring Twenties. -
Baz Luhrmann really has outdone himself in this film. The cast is beautiful as is the script. The scenes are a visual feast. It is as if Luhrmann reached into Fitzgerald's vision of the 20's, pulled out the heart of it and merged it with what society is today, over nine decades later. Alongside personal strife, we see social inequality, abuse of drugs and alcohol, political and moral corruption, and the failure of financial institutions and their responsibility to people. This film will make you feel that these issues will always be relevant, and that not much changes from generation to generation.
The achingly romantic and hopeful Gatsby is played impeccably by DiCaprio. He has aged into a beautiful man while still possessing those boyish good looks. The beginning of the film has the viewer itching to see Gatsby and hear him speak, and when he finally appears he holds on and captivates throughout the film. The film may awaken something in you, a memory of when you were crazy in love with a person or in love with an idea for what your life should be. DiCaprio embodies a dream and makes you root for him, even though he is shown to be a liar and a man who is desperately trying to steal another's wife- all that does not matter because we see the gentle child-like frailty in him and identify with it. DiCaprio is an excellent actor and was perfect for the role.
I must say that I didn't think that Mulligan can pull the role of Daisy, who in my mind was supposed to be a flawless beauty. However, she didn't disappoint. It made Gatsby's love and desire for her even more fascinating- she was beautiful to him and that's all that mattered. Mulligan was able to play the spoiled and dazed rich girl well, while adding an emotional dimension to the character. Tobey Mcguire definitely held his own, and his story line had an interesting deviation from the novel which was enjoyable. All in all I think it is a must see this year for movie buffs. -
saya-luke29 August 2021The sound director of this movie should never find work again.
-
copyright90814 May 2013THE GREAT GATSBY There is no movie I have been more prepared to dislike than this one. How dare some Aussie come over here and tell us about the meaning of one of the great works of American literature. Especially this Aussie, Baz Luhrmann, who is known to overload, over-hype and overcook his theatrical product into a glittery miasma of small meaning and little consequence. (i.e. Moulin Rouge)
But I was wrong.
Jay Gatsby has achieved success in a fashion beyond most imaginations, excepting his own. In true Horatio Alger tradition he has worked hard to improve himself, but when his past creeps up on him and threatens his well crafted self image, he suavely and effortlessly changes it, his past, and he inhabits the change until it becomes the reality. He is the self made American man in every way. He is the American success myth both personified and perverted.
Unlike Alger's heroes, he has not followed the straight and narrow. He has acquired his fabulous wealth through bootlegging and stock swindles.
This belief, that he can change his past, to correct it as it were, has given him a veneer of respectability that has put him in good stead with his underworld connections. But it is not for them that Gatsby has made this remarkable metamorphosis. No, he did everything, and I mean everything, for the love of a woman.
Daisy was Gatsby's great love, but he lost her, and now in one final herculean effort he is going to correct his past this one last time. He is going to win her back and make things as they should have been.
Leo DeCaprio is the only actor of this generation that could play Gatsby, just as Robert Redford could only play Gatsby the previous generation. Redford's Gatsby seemed reticent and insecure about his past; regretful that he must live a lie in order to accomplish his goal. DeCaprio's Gatsby is forceful, decisive; he is a determined man of significant accomplishment and great ability. He has a plan and he is going to execute it and as far as he is concerned, for all the right reasons. For myself, it is DeCaprio's best and most powerful performance.
This decision (both DeCaprio's and Luhrmann's) to take Gatsby down from some ethereal literary icon into a flesh and blood human being gives the movie an intensity that the 1974 version and most of the literary criticism of the book that I have ever read, never perceived. This is not a shining white knight rescuing a damsel in distress; this is a bare knuckles brawl for the hand of Daisy, and she is going to have to choose.
Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) is Gatsby's antagonist. He and Daisy were married when Daisy could no longer wait for Gatsby to prove himself worthy of her. Tom is as rich, maybe even richer than Gatsby, but his money is old, he is an aristocrat with a deep sense of entitlement. He has status and wealth because he's supposed to have status and wealth, and he's not about to give up all that, and certainly not his wife, to this new money usurper Gatsby, without a fight.
Bruce Dern played Tom as a kind of loopy (Dern's specialty) racial conspiracy nut, but Edgerton gives Tom a much harder edge. When Tom espouses his vile racial philosophies one might think that someday he might actually do something about it.
Daisy (Carey Mulligan) is a tough role. For all the time that Gatsby spends trying to prove he is good enough for Daisy, the audience, for the book or the film, is led down the path that she is not good enough for him. Mia Farrow played Daisy as an airhead and a dingbat, but Mulligan gives Daisy a bit more spine, and fashions a character that has a pretty good idea where her self-interests lay.
Luhrmann and co-writer Craig Pearse stay pretty close to the text with a few additions and devices, most notably, to those of us who read the book, know that it is Nick Caraway (Tobey Maguire) who tells the story, and is a firsthand witness to all the events, but we never knew from where he tells the story. Luhrmann tells us it is from a sanitarium where Nick is drying out from excessive alcoholism.
As for Luhrmann's reputation for excess: Well, he certainly visualizes Gatsby's parties as excess, but they are supposed to be excessive, excessive materialism is part of the point of the story. There are times when Luhrmann can't resist himself and feels the compulsion to punctuate matters with some visual flourish, but I did not find it too distracting. His decision to go 3D however, I think was wise. The characters seem to come out of the screen and get next to you. You get to know them personally, and after all this is a very personal story.
I think this story has survived the test of time so well because it is basically a love story. Whatever the viewers or readers opinion of the characters are, Gatsby and Daisy do love each other, but Fitzgerald was not interested in boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl and they all live happily ever after. Where Fitzgerald reached his own aspiration of creating high art is in wondering if living happily ever after is even possible in an age of class consciousness, even class warfare, that is driven by a compulsive materialism in a world changing so fast that we can't even formulate the question before we have to come up with an answer. Luhrmann stays true to these themes and displays an avid curiosity about them himself.
What he has created is a work of art that stands very well on its own.
check out http://blognmovies.tumblr.com/ -
I watched this film with a sort of tender curiosity.
It was deliciously excessive and exaggerated, as expected from a Baz Luhrmann production. Leonardo DiCaprio made Gatsby his own ("Old spor'!") while retaining a feeling of familiarity. The screenplay was a faithful adaptation and even helped me understand some of the novel's themes more clearly. And though you'd think hearing dubstep during the Jazz Age would be jarring, the soundtrack worked very well.
But I couldn't love it. And it's (mostly) Tobey Maguire's fault.
Gatsby loomed so large in the original story that it's not hard to forget all about Nick. But it can be argued, and often is, that it was Nick and not Gatsby who was the protagonist of the novel. Fitgerald's story, told from Nick's first-person point of view, was only as good as Nick's narration; Gatsby was only so great because Nick viewed him that way.
Unfortunately, Maguire fell completely flat in his role as narrative guide. There was always so much else going on and so much of Luhrmann's dreamscape to absorb that Maguire seemed to get lost in it all. And — with him — so did the viewer. Without a strong presence from Maguire, Nick was relegated from having a role as interpreter of events to being just another character (and a rather unimportant one at that).
Luhrmann tried to maintain Nick's narrative frame by having him tell the story — first as a patient speaking to his doctor at a sanitarium, then as a writer trying to explain his grief through prose. But those scenes came across (at best) as heavy-handed expository or (at worst) as Maguire's uninspired take on an abridged audiobook version of "The Great Gatsby."
I wanted to love this film. I really did. It had so many wonderful qualities. But with no Nick (only a Tobey) to help make sense of the people and events, "angry, and half in love with {it}, and tremendously sorry, I turned away." -
After seeing this film I was more than a little disgusted to see so many negative reviews. The main problem with this film I find is in the first 20-30 minutes, a common problem I spy in Luhrman films that should by no means define an entire film. Giving away nothing the film begins at a brisk and overly flamboyant pace but after a bit it hits what I like to call "Baz's golden point", slows to absolute perfection. That first half hour will leave more than a few shaking their heads, but power through it and you will find The Great Gatsby in all its glory. Luhrman stays as true to the source as he can and Dicaprio gives yet another glorious performance. If I'm going to be honest I think a lot of the negative reviews coming in are due to the "classic" status of the book, people want to act like the hours of school discussions should make this film less fanciful and serious 100 percent of the time. Thing is we have that version twice over in the 1974 & 2000 adaption. Gatsby 2013 is beautiful, over the top, heart wrenching, and thoroughly enjoyable flick that I shall always highly recommend.
-
TheLittleSongbird18 November 2013F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is a great, no, wonderful book, a beautiful story and just as brilliantly written and one of those books where you can read in one sitting and not feel bored at all. In my reviews of the previous three versions it was said that I wasn't entirely sure as to whether it was one of the all-time literary greats. After reading it again in preparation for this film- considering that it is based on a great story though it's also by Baz Luhrmann(whose style you either like or dislike)- it does deserve this distinction as well as a contender for the best American novel.
Before seeing this films, I saw the 1974, 1949 and 2000 versions. All had good things but also a fair number of flaws, neither really doing the book justice. That is not saying at all that this film is 100% perfect because it isn't, and it doesn't completely do justice to the book. However despite some questionable stylistic touches the spirit of the book and prose as well as of the Jazz Age are here in the way that the other three versions didn't really do so well. It is easy though to see why people criticise the latest version of The Great Gatsby.
The first 20-30 minutes are very rushed and overblown with editing that is so dizzying it could induce a seizure. There are a couple of nice moments in the soundtrack, like some of the background music and a bit of Gershwin(the use of Rhapsody in Blue was clever), but the hip-hop/rap was overused, overbearing and anachronistic(I confess also that I detest that style of music so there is some bias). The CGI was overdone and not needed, it also looks a little too cartoonish. Tobey Maguire is the weakest of the Nick Carraways(the best being Sam Waterson), the observer and the glue of the story, he's too wide-eyed and too much of a blank and doesn't really convey the dignity, carelessness and social awkwardness.
On the other hand, the film on the most part looks great, it is beautifully shot and the lavish costumes and sets are never short of exquisite. The party scenes generally have the glitz and glamour any party of the 20s would do. Also period-detail wise it's the most authentic to the 20s period, like for example Daisy's clothing and cropped hair. Where The Great Gatsby(2013) scores the best of the four adaptations is in the depiction of the Jazz Age, it is glitzy but there is also the sense of fun, danger and excitement that weren't there before. While there is Luhrmann's style written over the spirit of the story is essentially there.
Nick's narration has a lot of lines directly lifted out of the book and much of the dialogues are the same(the old sport utterings get too much though admittedly). The story has the life, emotion and passion that the 1974 film as a consequence of being too faithful did not have. And the structure and essence are present with Gatsby still an enigma(always was part of the book's allure, 2000's ruined that quality by revealing Gatsby's background and who he is far too early). From the first 20-30 minutes there is a real temptation to turn the film off, but if you stay with it it does slow down and becomes a huge improvement to what was seen before. Some won't like the sanitarium stuff, actually Nick telling the story in retrospect to someone else was not too bad a storytelling device and did better than how the 2000 version did it.
As with the acting, it is very good and is the most consistent cast of the four versions. Only Maguire didn't across as well as he ought to have done. Leonardo DiCaprio lives up to his character's greatness. There is a sense of him paying homage somewhat to Robert Redford's mannerisms but instead DiCaprio is much more charismatic in the role and there is much more of sense of mystery, more charm, more yearning and a sense of arrogance. This is also the only one of the four adaptations where I found myself really liking and relating to Gatsby. Carey Mulligan is also the best of the Daisys, a character that wasn't played very well at all previously. With Mulligan she is pretty and doesn't play too blandly or stridently, there is a charm and spirit about her but she doesn't make us forget that Daisy is shallow and selfish as well. The chemistry between the two is more convincing than that of the other versions, in a way it is somewhat cold but it is in keeping of the sense that their love is incompatible.
Joel Edgerton is the second best Tom after Bruce Dern. He resembles the character better physically, but is the only actor after Dern to actually get the attitude and mannerisms of Tom exactly right, he is a real hard-edged brute but with a glimmer of tenderness instead of being too suave or too soft. Jason Clarke is good as George, he does show a tormented side but also a sense of not being the brightest bulb on the block. Elizabeth Debicki is beautiful and witty and brings depth and assurance also to Jordan, despite being somewhat underused, and Isla Fisher is appropriately conniving as Myrtle if not as much a sleaze as Karen Black. Luhrmann does direct efficiently with much of the drama being allowed to breathe while bringing his own style to it, though there are scenes with it being too much. The pacing is rushed to begin with but when it slows down there's not much of a problem.
Overall, not the great motion picture it could have been, but I found it very enjoyable and the best of the four adaptations. The best version will always be the book though. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox -
TheConnoisseurReviews11 May 2013Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby," is fairly accurate to the classic novel and keeps most of its themes intact. However, Luhrmann's own flair adds a new dimension to the story. Visually this film is incredibly stunning. From grand sets to the detailed period dresses, this film is a treat for the eyes. Never once does it not take your breath away from its impressive scenery. Many people might be worried about the updated music, but there is nothing to fear. Jay-Z's track works incredible well with the film and complements the era in which it is set.
The direction in this film is impeccable. The cinematography is marvelous and really lets the viewer absorb the sheer artistry that has gone into making this film. Luhrmann keeps a high level of energy throughout the film and the party sequences are choreographed and edited in a way that it makes you feel envious of not being apart of it. Editing in the film is seamless and really keeps the viewer engaged. A common criticism the film receives is that it is more style than substance, however, I must disagree. This modern interpretation doesn't forget its themes and morals from the classic F. Scott Fitzgerald tale.
Performances are phenomenal by the entire cast. Carey Mulligan's Daisy is every bit as careless as one would expect, but she also manages to show some complexity in her role. Tobey Maguire is a great avatar for us to take on as we enter this film. He is very much the viewer as he sees everything happening, but is ultimately helpless to change anything. The true standouts in the film are Joel Edgerton and Leonardo DiCaprio. Edgerton as Tom Buchanan brings a lot of personality to his character that I thought was absent in the book. He's a bit more tender and more vulnerable, especially when he finds out his wife's secret. The true award recognition worthy performance comes from DiCaprio's Gatsby. He hones on being a respectable, but idealistically insane man. His performance is not only compelling, but also charming and quit hopeful. He truly deserves some recognition come Oscar season.
Overall, "The Great Gatsby" is a fantastically entertaining and enthralling film. It is horribly underrated as it is filled with awards worthy visuals, sets, costumes, direction, and performances. It is a great time at the movies for anyone that enjoys the classic novel or who haven't even heard of it. Not only is this film dramatically satisfying, but also quite humorous and a spectacle like no other. I give it 4.5/5, a great adaptation of one of the greatest novels ever written. -
billygoat107121 May 2013The Great Gatsby tells a lot of stories and gains more themes so on. This new adaptation takes a different direction and unique scale. The experience feels familiar to other Baz Luhrmann film, which means it's quite dazzling by his fabulous style and creating an over-whimsical version of the setting. The easiest thing to say is it's fun as a Baz Luhrmann film, but it kind of glosses over the story too much. While it's generally stunning, it didn't dig deeper within the context. The Great Gatsby is fascinating enough but it could have been much grander than what it was shown on screen.
The film did follow the book, it takes a lot of time exploring its setting, characters, and conflict, but explores only little on what's beneath it. The Great Gatsby actually has something more than just romance, but the film's storyline ambition mostly lies in there. The film mostly glosses at the points that suppose to provide more depth to the story which makes the possible satires of the period feels missing. But the film still has plenty of life. Beginning with the performances, Leonardo DiCaprio is definitely the kind of actor who can perfectly play the role and he did standout to be the better Gatsby than anyone else who portrayed the role. Tobey Maguire did what he usually do in movie but he is fine enough as Nick Carraway, same goes to Carey Mulligan as Daisy. Joel Edgerton steals all of his scenes by his intense performance as Tom Buchanan.
The direction is spectacular however. Baz Luhrmann still perfectly uses his own style to tell the story. There are many extravagantly magnificent sequences, especially the party scenes that works amazingly even in 3D. The style really shows how ambitious this film will be and it transcends the scale which makes it wholly an interesting cinematic ride. Around with visual pleasures, there's the soundtrack and music score also keeping things groovy.
It's hard to deny how enjoyable the experience is, but it could have also taken a higher perspective to the actual story. To be much fair, it did a remarkable job bringing it to the screen in a spectacular way with a cast who are very enthusiastic. While the visuals flare endlessly, the storytelling makes the overall film gripping. It's somewhat disappointing how some of its morality was left as a background even though people will say it's not necessary to take it seriously, but everyone has their own aspect on reading the book. The Great Gatsby is not as satisfying as it deserves but it manages to be incredibly eye candy and thoroughly entertaining. -
Leofwine_draca31 December 2017I suppose the thought behind hiring Baz Luhrmann to direct THE GREAT GATSBY was that he could bring the Roaring Twenties as described in F. Scott Fitzgerald's book to life in a lavish, vivid, and colourful way and he does that all right. The first thirty minutes of this film is a headache-inducing overload of the senses, with everything directed in a way which makes over-the-top sound like a tame description. It's as if a kid ate a jar of sugar and then went berserk with tins of paint in an all-white room. The effect is nausea-inducing, and the worst thing for me is the use of anachronistic music (hip hop) and the like instead of period-era fare. The rest of the film settles down a bit, but the story still feels lightweight and drawn out, with a minimum of characterisation. Leonardo DiCaprio does the best he can with what he's given but you feel a bit sorry for him due to the lack of direction he receives, while others like Tobey Maguire and Carey Mulligan are miscast and out of place. Isla Fisher is embarrassingly bad. This is the kind of disappointment that I do my best to erase from my memory soon after watching.
-
0U15 February 2020I've read The great Gatsby book several times and I watch the original movie before Han d. Of the two movies this one really captures the essence of the book. On people complain about the narration but it was only solution to really accurately convey the story. The parties are epic and that's what I kind of felt they were in the book. DiCaprio deserves more credit.
-
cornflakeboy209 May 2013Watching Gatsby, one gets the impression that Baz wanted to remake Moulin Rouge! In 3D and couldn't find a good way to retrofit it, so made a non-musical story on similar themes, using some of the exact same camera shots. However, the movie is not as gaudy or over-the-top as I fear/hoped it would be. But it does feature cartoonish elements that distract from the seriousness of the overall story.
The first point are the performances. Often, when modern actors try to imitate old fashioned acting styles, they fail miserably. Often this is the case with actresses doing mannered/expressive acting common in the 30s and 40s. However, the actresses in this movie do a better job than the actors. The only flaw is that some characters, especially Daisy (who really is a shallow and symbolic character) are presented with much greater depth than they were meant to possess. Meanwhile, Tobey Maguire gives a performance so mawkishly earnest and cornball, he's sometimes like something out of a Capra movie. Leo DiCaprio looks better than he has lately in a Redford-esque role, but his accent is all over the place (could it be that he's a self made invention or just can't master an accent? We don't know). His pronunciation of "Old Sport" is jarring. And while the movie keeps telling us he has charisma, he does not project enough of it. Joel Edgerton, as Tom, is giving a performance as a type of man seldom seen in modern movies and does his level best, but we are never quite sure what to make of him. He seems at turns goofy, villainous and sympathetic. The scenes of Tobey and Leo together highlight the sublimated homoerotic tension many people have discerned in the book. It's almost like they're picking up where they left off with their quasi romance in This Boy's Life.
Secondly, overwhelming all else is the camera-work and atmosphere. The 3D is occasionally distracting, but also brilliant in bringing out small details, like the exquisite sets and costuming and tiny elements like confetti or pearls. The photography can also overwhelm the Moulin Rouge! party scenes and make certain elements look cartoonish (when you see people hanging out of cars it's reminiscent of the weasels in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?). I would not have wanted to see this movie in 2D, or certainly not on the small screen, because of the visual treats I might miss. I'm not sure it would be a different movie entirely. The incorporation of modern music is not overly distracting, and done in a similar way to Marie Antoinette, with modern music simply played over a period scene with period dances. I wouldn't say that any particular song is moving or evocative enough to rise to the level of great uses of song in romantic films, but it's also not terribly distracting. The use of rap music does highlight gaudiness and false showy glamor, as opposed to stately tasteful wealth. And in a sense, Jay Gatsby does represent this factor, so it sort of works.
The adaptation of the book seems fairly reverent in every regard except what I have mentioned about modern music and crazy camera work.
It was hard to get a read off the preview audience, and I think this movie will be divisive. In the 70s, they did a big budget version of Great Gatsby, trying to make it the new Gone With the Wind, and it failed. Here, a 100+ million effort at combining Titanic and Moulin Rouge! could also be an Ishtar level disaster. On the other hand, I think when you get sucked into the world of the film, it really works. And as in Moulin Rouge!, repeated viewings might take some of the shock out of cartoony or jarring elements and bring out the human, small touches that really won me over. -
laura-alter2216 May 2013For the record, I've read Gatsby at least every other year since I was 17, so, believe me when I say I have been counting down the days and minutes until the new movie opened.
Here it goes then, I saw Gatsby last night and......absolutely loved it! In retrospect (as in halfway through the movie), it just clicked, Leonardo was perfect. He wasn't Redford, but in my humble opinion, better! He nailed it, portraying Gatsby as this truly multi-dimensional character. At first, we're introduced to Gatsby, the well-rehearsed old sport telling his canned story about studying at Oxford, Montenegro medals, etc. etc., but then slowly that forced veneer peels away, and he gives us this angsty, desperate, so-happy-in-love, we can remake the past, tortured soul. Much, much better than Redford. And, the same goes with Daisy. Mia Farrow's Daisy was all flighty and light as a feather, pretty pathetic and self-absorbed, you wonder, what's the big deal with this woman who everyone loves....but with Carey Mulligan, you get it. The scenes of the two of them as young lovers explain it all. Finally, Tobey McGuire....I love him as Peter Parker, Homer Wells and now Nick Carraway. I thought the idea of having him author Gatsby from a hospital was very clever, allowed him to read long passages directly from the book. As for Jay-Z et al., I really didn't mind it, as far as I was concerned, it didn't distract and certainly worked to illuminate the frenetic energy of the 20's. Please, give it another try, see it again. From my experience, a Baz Luhrmann movie is always better the second time around (Moulin Rogue). -
chris-59501 June 2013OK, when I read this book, I hated the Gatsby Story. But I loved that Fitzgerald made me feel like I was in New York in the summer of 1922- the heat, the droning of fans, the smells, the ashes...
Knowing that I didn't care for the story, THAT was what I wanted, to feel like I was there. I wanted to see 1922 New York, to be a part of a party in the Roaring 20's, to sweat with the characters, to feel the wind in my face during a ride in an open 20's era car...
It almost did it for me... except the music. The pounding bass and the rap just ruined it for me. I wanted some amazing jazz. I wanted a real Roaring 20's party. The Rhapsody in Blue was cool, but I was already disappointed.
The cast was great and the acting superb.
Leonardo was impressive, maybe one of his best roles. Mulligan, breath-taking, she looked like an angel. Toby McGuire was a great choice for Carraway- who else could pull off an awkward mixture of likable guy, wallflower, and main character? They did a great job of sticking to the plot and emphasizing famous lines of the book.
Overall, everything was done really well... but why couldn't we get era-appropriate music? -
MarkRomance17 May 2013I've now watched The Great Gatsby a total of three (3) times, one in 3D. Though there are plenty of harsh critic reviews for this film, an yes I said film and not movie, is because they are too focused on the length of the film and the complex story line and not understanding fully the range of the time period set.
The Great Gatsby is a touching tale of an interloper, person on the outside looking in from the perspective of a young coming yuppie. Truth be told it is another star crossed lovers tale of missed chance and opportunity and the lengths one goes to rewrite the past and mend the wounds felt for years. Like all tragedies, this film does no better in having hopes up. Staying true to the book, the characters lives all end tragic one way or another. The fond and curiousness felt by the main narrator Nick for the infamous Gatsby fuels the story along, intertwining the 'Golden Girl' Daisy; a minx'd bombshell villianized by her brut 'polo' playing husband, the ever unfaithful and racists Tom. Upon meeting Gatsby, Nick is enthralled by the complexities of Gatsby's demeanor and back story as well as enjoying the ever entertaining side to the secretive bachelor. The plot to re-win Daisy's heart and fulfill the empty void in Gatsby's broken and tired soul didn't come easy. Along the way the other challenges were both infidelities and the accidental murder of a mistress. After all of this, Nick is still recovering pierces of the Gatsby puzzle and figuring out ways to make complete sense of all events take place when in the end some gaps are left unfilled.
I enjoyed the intense performances by Leonardo Dicaprio and Tobey Maguire. Both playing cozily off one another and both gave superb vocal and facial workouts. I really liked the easiness of Carey Mulligan's character Daisy. She spoke eloquently enough to pull of the soft and rough tone of a 1920's wealthy east coast flapper gal. Joel Edgerton as Tom, what can I say? Born to play the role of a thick and broastic rich-mistress-having- know-it-all who can't stand to lose anything, not even a potential side sway with a beautiful actress.
All in all I enjoyed the film production value. Also I am sad that the film waited so long to be produced and released, but a little happy because it gave enough time to include Lana Del Rey to the film soundtrack and score. I enjoyed the film despite the critics. All I can say is reread the book and watch the film again and tell me that Baz Luhrmann didn't try to make an emotionally driven artistic masterpiece with great actors and amazing focus shots. I give this film 10/10, but that is my own opinion based on many different category factors.
I hope you enjoyed this review. Thank You. -
A remake of a remake of a remake of a novel that pretty much every high school in America includes in its curriculum is not an easy legacy, but I think Baz Luhrmann does a fantastic job of tackling the material. His somewhat flashy, story-driven methods give the novel life in a way that's never been seen before. I'm not going to compare it to the other remakes, because that feels redundant and pointless, but insofar as the book goes, it was a great adaptation. The director stuck close to the author's intent and really got the audience invested in these characters. The cast gave a great performance, with Mulligan and Clarke going above and beyond. Maguire, as usual, is unintentionally comedic in some of his expressions, but as someone who is not a fan, I thought he did pretty well. The sets, costumes, music...everything was flashy and exuberant and perfectly matched the mood of the movie.
I know a lot of people are complaining about the soundtrack, but that was one of my favorite things about the film. Luhrmann didn't even try to stay period appropriate, because The Great Gatsby is a novel that transcends the time it was placed in. By using contemporary artists, he was able to effectively position the film in the audience's mind as something they could relate to. To borrow and roughly paraphrase a quote from the book/movie, the soundtrack invited them within, even as they were without. I'll admit, he made a few missteps where the music just flat-out took the viewer out of the movie entirely (a certain Jay-Z number comes to mind), but overall, it was a brilliant directing choice.
I'll also say that the movie ran a bit long, with certain parts feeling overdone and unnecessary. I watched it in 3D, which I would not recommend unless you really, really love 3D. The movie is visually stunning and does not need the added dimension; in fact, I'd go so far as to say it hurts the tone of the film. That said, it was a great film and I would definitely recommend it. -
ianmustata6 September 2020This movie is great. The characters fit so well and the scenes are always leaving a good taste in the watchers mouth. Architecture is also very good ... With Gatsby's castle and Tom's mansion also Nick's little house is very nice. What I can say more about this movie is that it has a great story behind and it will always be re-watchable.
-
I think everybody has read this book during high school. I don't know why they want us to read it, but it probably has to do with it being a linguistically sophisticated, intellectually teaching about the political, moral, and social fabric of our nation. In my opinion, it's not the greatest American masterwork novel of all times and no way represented how the people should seek the American Dream. I have to say, 'To Kill a Mockingbird' was a better novel than this. I read the book, but 'The Great Gatsby' wasn't never sacrosanct to me. I think F. Scott Fitzgerald 'This Side of Paradise' was a better novel than this. Still, I did like Great Gatsby in an odd way because it was a cautionary tale. How faithful is Baz Luhrmann's movie 'The Great Gatsby' is to F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel. In my opinion, it somewhat follows the novel. Nick Carraway (Tobey McGuire) is an upstanding young man from the Midwest, moves to New York to seek his fortune in the bond business. He rents a cottage on Long Island, next to a mansion occupied by a man of mysterious origins but manifest wealth: Jay Gatsby (Leo DiCaprio), known far and wide for his extravagant parties. One day he is invited to his party, and learns his deepest secret. Everything he has work up for, was designed to attract the attention of his first love: the beautiful Daisy (Carey Mulligan) who happens to be Nick's cousin and marry to an unpleasant cheater of a husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). He pursuits her, only leading to tragic results. The movies does well in establishing a lot of F. Scott Fitzgerald themes. Such in the case toward the end, in the hollowness of morals of the upper class and how greed decayed social and moral values. The film makes great use of the Green light that represent Gatsby's hope and dreams of the future, and the Eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg that represent God. The visuals in the film are stunning. The movie did change a few things in the story that work and didn't work. The biggest changes of the story is that of Nick Carraway, who in the film is not in a relationship with Jordan Baker. I didn't miss that part of the novel so much in the film, as it really does freed up space in the film to focus more on Gatsby and Daisy. Fitzgerald did devoted a lot of work to Nick and Jordan's relationship which was sadly cut. It would have been nice to add on the end of the film, rather than the depressing ending, the film put out there. The movie does reveal some of Gatsby's past way too soon in the film as it is repeated yet again toward the end. It would have been stronger to reveal his past toward the end, for a bigger reaction from the audience. The biggest problem with the film is while Fitzgerald's book always feels very much a product of a particular period in time, Luhrmann's work always seems like one grand costume party, irrevocably modern and full of rap music. This movie reminds me, too much of 2001's Moulin Rouge. Rather than having good songs like Moulin Rouge had, this just had badly made contemporary music. In no way does Jay-Z rapping help this film with the 1920's feel. I could have done without all the rap music. I just didn't feel it adding anything to it and seem out of place. I do like the Jazz score. In every film, he directs, Director Baz Luhrmann can really make a party seen fun, but gees, this are the most unrealistic parties I ever witness. F. Scott Fitzgerald 'The Great Gatsby' was very humorless. At less, Baz add a bit of humor to it. While Luhrmann's film is loud, bright, vivid extravaganza of color, action, and drama in 3D. The film could cut down a bit on the CGI & 3D; and focus more on the story. The 1974's Great Gatsby served Fitzgerald's novel better even if it's a bit slow then this. The acting in this 2013 film is great. DiCaprio was perfect as Gatsby. He plays the character exactly how he is in the novel. Still, could have there been a scene where he doesn't call somebody, Old sport for once. Joel Edgerton and Carey Mulligan were great in their role. Tobey McGuire was pretty OK, but since his character was cut down a lot when not talking to Gatsby. He didn't have much acting to do, besides walking around and watch people. About the characters. Yes, it's about rich people having parties. So it might be hard to identify with any of the characters, as most of them have little to no redeeming values besides many Nick Carraway. They can all be a bit unlikeable. Let's remember the film and book shows the lack of empathy is in New York society. Nick and Gatsby are the only ones who show any empathy in the film. It's the carelessness that is being criticized here and their lack of morality. That is what makes the book so great. In my opinion, the film works because of that, so if you ever get the chance. Watch this film and learn what makes Gatsby, so great.
-
"It is invariably saddening to look through new eyes at things upon which you have expended your own powers of adjustment." ~ Chapter 6, The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald
People, you think you understand the book enough to criticize Luhrmann's movie? Let me begin this review within that heart-breaking note from chapter 6 while I'm telling people how I respect Baz Luhrmann's look at the novel by Scott Fitzgerald. If you've got your own way to dip yourself in the story about Gatsby, this director certainly got his own. And there's no doubt that Baz Luhrmann is a great name because of his own power of expressional adjustment.
Following are 4 main reasons which enable me to vote 10 stars for The Great Gatsby 2013.
1. Music --- I don't know why many people dislike the OST of this movie. I've been listening to Young and Beautiful (L. D. Rey) and Happy Together (Filter) and Back To Black (Beyonce feat Andre)... everyday. For me the music here is quite an intelligent touch to make me feel that the story of Gatsby could absolutely happen in any summer, any era. It's a smart way to link the man named Gatsby of 1920s to every man who was, or who is, or who is going to be 30-year-old. In the novel, Nick Carraway told us many times about this detail, that they - Nick and Gatsby, and Tom Buchanan - were at the same age, 30 year old.
Book, chapter 7: "What'll we do with ourselves this afternoon," cried Daisy, "and the day after that, and the next thirty years?"
2. Cast --- Jay DiCaprio or Leo Gatsby, which name is right? I can't believe if someone else could ever be more brilliant than Leonardo playing Gatsby. And Carey Mulligan is the most beautiful Daisy. I like the whole cast. Tobey Maguire, I totally like him in this movie. There're many bad comments about Luhrmann's choice for Nick Carraway, I can't get their underestimation. Definitely Tobey shows us the real Nick who participated through out the story with an appearance that looks younger than men at his age. I think Tobey, with kind-of-naive eyes and efforts, successfully embodies the best character of Nick. Let's discuss the detail again: men at around 30-year-old. People spend much time drawing the portrait of Gatsby but not many ones can imagine the right picture of Nick, even me. Thanks to Baz Luhrmann, now I remember the eyes of Tobey, the eyes of Nick, and the eyes after the glassed of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg.
Book, chapter 2: "But his eyes, dimmed a little by many paintless days under sun and rain, brood on over the solemn dumping ground."
3. Sreenplay --- I won't tell much because I don't want this review to be a big spoiler. The only thing I can't help writing about is the green light. Yes, the glamorous green light from Daisy's. You see it at the beginning. It's Baz Luhrman who knows how Gatsby was haunted by that green light. I'm a woman and I don't know much about a man's psychical motivation that leads him to dos and don'ts, but now I can imagine more exhaustively the deceiving hope of Gatsby. And the answer for the question "Why Gatsby is great?" may come clearly: it's his primitive love raised by the idea that once a green light is visible you can take it, you will take it at any price. Well, inspired by this I got a wish that every woman could seed such green light into a man to make him as great as Gatsby. And I know Luhrmann's sreenplay makes me love the novel much more.
Book, the end: "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. . . . And one fine morning---- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
4. The 3D era --- Everything looks more splendid, more "real". But the best impression showed up right at the beginning: the old W. Bros logo dimming out and the introduction in 3D comes, then... the green light appeared! I think about an Oscar statue for best production design. Much appreciate to see a modern film being designed that way in praise of the immortality of a literary classic like The Great Gatsby.
Book, chapter 1: "If personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures, then there was something gorgeous about him, some heightened sensitivity to the promises of life, as if he were related to one of those intricate machines that register earthquakes ten thousand miles away. This responsiveness had nothing to do with that flabby impressionability which is dignified under the name of the "creative temperament"--it was an extraordinary gift for hope, a romantic readiness..." -
q-anniee14 August 2013I have always looked in those deep, intense, passionate blue eyes and wondered what would that man be like in real life? Perhaps he wanted to answer that question for all those out there like me, so be became the Great Gatsby of F.Scott Fitzgerald. Or perhaps he loves mysterious characters. And that's saying a lot, because it defined his entire life.
Obviously I thought something was intensely defining, daring yet also silently questionable about Leonardo when he appeared in 'what's eating Gilbert Grape' as a perfect actor. But then he did more than amaze the world in Titanic. Then something happened as 2000 began, beginning of the new millennium in your lifetime or something, he began endless series of what seemed like chapters of shutter island all the way;Gangs of New York, Blood diamond, Revolutionary road, Inception, J.Edgar, Django unchained, Great Gatsby of course, and now post production is 'The wolf of wall street'.
I mean, what could be 'wrong' with the most celebrated actor of the century? Fame could be what happened but I maybe just blabbering.
So what is The great Gatsby like; it's like perfect illusion, perfect acting, directing and it does justice to the story. But I am the kind of person who just can't help imagining what would be behind the screen, it's just irresistible; how would Leonardo relate to Gatsby while acting, or how would Tobey Maguire to Nick, or Adelaide Clemens to Daisy. I loved the way Adelaide said it, as if she could be this girl in real life; 'That's the best a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool'. How honest that sounded, as if she understood the character. But I couldn't help notice that something about this movie didn't seem to make it look complete, it had a missing part, or I guess too much in it, or perhaps imperfect lines, or the music, something seem to be missing. But maybe again, maybe that was what it was supposed to be like, for every Leonardo's movie, there is something that leaves people wondering about the answers, or perhaps about the real questions. I love this guy though, I love his work. And yes, it is Amitabh Bachchan the Bollywood actor, HATE him, I do, but yeah, Leonardo seemed to get well along with him, who am I to blame, it tuned out to be a good movie. For those who are wondering why such low rating for a Leonardo's film, let me tell you people, it's something with the rating and the romance movies, they seem to reciprocate each other. -
djurrepower23 June 2021The movie is really slow in getting into pace. The first act was quite boring, and the soundtrack gave me a headache. That discothek/hiphop music felt so out of place it was cringeworthy.
After some painful waiting we get to the 3rd act where the potential of this movie begins to shine through. But even though the 3rd act felt like some fresh air, it only showed that the movie could have been so much better.
I would have loved a more character driven story. With more spirit and character. And more stylelized in the camp eastetic of the roaring 20's. But alas, we're left with this stinker of a movie, that draged its feet 75% of the time. Should have cut so many things, because this movie's runtime did not help.
4/10: just don't.