Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

The Great Gatsby Review Thread

Playlist gives it a C+

[quote]But for all its passionate feeling and melodrama, ‘Gatsby’ is rarely moving, and that's a major flaw for a movie that drags on for two-and-a-half hours. “The Great Gatsby” is ultimately an epic tragedy, a parable about America, the American dream ethos and its consequences, but the movie’s overblown style chokes the life out of any substance the story may have. And while faithful to Fitzgerald’s novel, some of its themes just don’t track within the movie. Carraway is supposed to be practically besotted with his friend Gatsby. As in the novel, the wide-eyed character is in awe of Gatsby’s “heightened sensitivity to the promises of life…an extraordinary gift for hope…such as I have never found in any other person and which it is not likely I shall ever find again.” The problem with such convenient, lofty proverbs ripped from the book is that the movie never actually demonstrates them, so they are not only unbelievable and hard to buy emotionally, but hollow sentiments.

[quote]A kind of visual and sonic overkill, “The Great Gatsby” never knows when to say when. Music-wise the movie is often at its most egregious, the use of the anachronistic modern songs in the movie frequently border on ridiculous. Sure, sprinkles of modern juxtaposition can work (see the films of Quentin Tarantino that seem to pull it off), but near wall-to-wall songs, modern or otherwise, are quickly grating and overbearing. Luhrmann’s stylistic approach to ‘Gatsby’ seems to scream “reeeeemix!” at all times. Jay-Z, the modern hustler, is perhaps the perfect person to pull together the soundtrack to Jay Gatsby, the jazz-age con artist. And while it’s a cute recontextualization of themes, it comes across as a stylistic flourish that lends no substance to the film. Lana del Ray’s obnoxious heartbreak song is played ad nauseum, and the parties! It’s as if Luhrmann is convinced that this age of decadence and debauchery was one big techno pop rave, so why not just pump up the volume and zoom the camera around with shebang, pow, pop and whiz.

[quote]DiCaprio is good, no doubt, even in a role that’s largely unsympathetic (another problem with ‘Gatsby’ is its lack of protagonist as the POV keeps shifting from Carraway back to Gatsby and so forth), but Mulligan is almost a lovelorn stand-in with nothing to do but look troubled in her immaculately tailored costumes. As the arrogant and brute-ish Tom, Edgerton probably has the meatiest role, but he too mostly has to sneer as the haughty villain of the picture. Maguire is such a non-entity, one wonders what his career would do without the "Spider-Man" films.

by Anonymousreply 13110/13/2013

I sometimes kind of like Luhrmanns over the top , tacky esthetic. Sort of like Pierre & Gilles photography. But at almost 3 hours long and in 3D, I think not.

by Anonymousreply 105/06/2013

"A kind of visual and sonic overkill..."

That sums up Luhrmann's films in general. So it's hardly a surprise this film is just more of the same.

by Anonymousreply 205/06/2013

Another bad review.

by Anonymousreply 405/06/2013

The trailers look dreadful- like an overblown fantasy world- overlit- artificial etc.

So many movies today have such an artificial look- in a way they rival the glossy black and white style of the 30s and 40s. Hollywood movies, in general, we at their best from the mid 60s to about 1980 when they became stylized and formulaic again. Big generalization. The best film aside from the occasional big Hollywood film (Lincoln) are independents.

I hope Gatsby is better than this review, but as I said, the trailer is bad and DeCaprio is just not the type of actor to carry the Gatsby character. He's in over his head again.

But maybe not!

by Anonymousreply 505/06/2013

[quote]DiCaprio is a total misfire as Gatsby, thick and expressionless and unable to evoke any real sense of longing, and Tobey Maguire plays Carraway more as feeble-minded than anything else

[quote]The soundtrack is probably the weakest for any of the Luhrmann films, and that includes "Australia." In almost every other movie he's made, I can name key moments or scenes that are defined by their music, but here, it's just a non-stop wallpaper of guest appearances by people who are famous RIGHT THIS MOMENT, and none of it sticks.

by Anonymousreply 605/06/2013

The Hollywood Reporter review is pretty good.

by Anonymousreply 705/06/2013

I wanted to see this but I just checked Amazon for the soundtrack and they don't have the samples up yet, but I don't think I want to watch a two and half hour movie about the thirties scored with Jay Z AND Beyond songs with explicit lyric warnings.

by Anonymousreply 805/06/2013

But it sure does look good.

by Anonymousreply 905/06/2013

This will be LD's first flop in a long time.

by Anonymousreply 1205/06/2013

So Leo won't get an Oscar this time either.

by Anonymousreply 1305/06/2013

J. Edgar was his last flop, R12.

He still has the Wolf of Wall Street, this fall R13.

by Anonymousreply 1405/06/2013

Hated Moulin Rouge. One of the worst movies ever.

by Anonymousreply 1505/06/2013

I saw Moulin Rouge at a Valentine's day screening and what can I say.

I know why I avoided it all these years, I knew I would hate it but it surpassed my expectations as to how bad it actually was.

by Anonymousreply 1605/06/2013

Variety didn't like it.

by Anonymousreply 1805/06/2013

Here r8 sample some of the soundtrack at the link.

by Anonymousreply 1905/06/2013

I love all Baz's movies even Australia. Little worried about Gatsby after seeing the reviews posted here. Might be too much this time but I'll see.

by Anonymousreply 2005/06/2013

I think Bieber would make a better Gatsby. He would give depth and diminsion to the character that Leo has yet to discover. Buble does the music. Imagine the magic.

by Anonymousreply 2105/06/2013

Leo is doing too many movies back to back to back. People are starting to get tired of him. He should try only releasing one movie within a 12 month period instead of three.

by Anonymousreply 2205/06/2013

Both Variety and Hollywood Reporter singled out the actress playing Jordan Baker. Her brief moment in the trailer was the only thing that interested me.

by Anonymousreply 2305/06/2013

We knew it would be a cartoon, but didn't know it was a boring one.

Now we know.

by Anonymousreply 2405/06/2013

R21, Bieber would be smart casting.

by Anonymousreply 2505/06/2013

[quote]What Luhrmann grasps even less than previous adapters of the tale is that Fitzgerald was, via his surrogate Carraway, offering an eyewitness account of the decline of the American empire, not an invitation to the ball.

That's the problem in a nutshell, and one that I think most Americans still have with the novel. We're still a culture where everyone believes they're one big payday away from living large, and that everyone's really a star. No one wants to be told otherwise, so adaptations of Gatsby will always either misconstrue the material or purposefully distort it to pander to the audience's American Idol delusions.

by Anonymousreply 2605/06/2013

I think the biggest problem is Gatsby is one of those books that just doesn't translate well to the screen.

by Anonymousreply 2705/06/2013

I couldn't sit through more than a half hour of Moulin Rouge. Nicole Kidman never looked hotter but the music never grabbed me. And I like Ewan MacGregor but in small doses. His teeth are always a distraction.

by Anonymousreply 2805/06/2013

[quote]That's the problem in a nutshell, and one that I think most Americans still have with the novel. We're still a culture where everyone believes they're one big payday away from living large, and that everyone's really a star. No one wants to be told otherwise, so adaptations of Gatsby will always either misconstrue the material or purposefully distort it to pander to the audience's American Idol delusions.

I agree with you but fell that because American's do think that way that maybe only the most realistic or sober within that culture will get the message not matter how you present it. The message is present within the story it's the viewer that either gets it or doesn't.

by Anonymousreply 2905/06/2013

Maybe it's me but I think Leo is a pretty believable actor - in the scene from J. Edgar where Armie Hammer first walks into his office he looks like he's going to have an orgasm right then and there!

by Anonymousreply 3005/06/2013

43% on RT.

by Anonymousreply 3105/06/2013

I don't think they should have made it because all the people that read it back in the olden days are, like, dead 'n shit.

by Anonymousreply 3205/06/2013

He wasn't acting, r30.

by Anonymousreply 3305/06/2013

I think Luhrmann wanted to contrast the glitz of the era with the childlike actors moving around in shoes too big for them....but in that case, he produced the wrong cast for it.

by Anonymousreply 3405/06/2013

Bertolucci,Lynch,Luhrmann,it's a joy to be taken on a trip to wherever they would like to take me. Moulin Rouge is one of the most visually beautiful films ever made.

by Anonymousreply 3505/06/2013

R31, I've participated in those free preview test screenings. People that attend are very biased in favor of the flick, or they stay home.

by Anonymousreply 3605/06/2013

R8, it's the Twenties.

by Anonymousreply 3705/06/2013

The greatness of the novel is in the prose, not the plot. It's a novel where nothing much happens until the car accident. It will never translate well into film.

by Anonymousreply 3805/06/2013

Reading the novel for the second time. I first read Gatsby when I was in college. The prose is beautiful. I am a big fan of the Farrow/Redford movie (go ahead, flame away) but I am curious to see this special effects laden filmed in New Zealand 3D remake. Don't expect to like it very much but I want to give it a try.

by Anonymousreply 3905/06/2013

Why do studios keep spending insane amounts of money trying to make film adaptations of a book that's affectionately referred to as "unfilmable?"

Casting Tobey McGuire proves some greedy producer was just looking for a tax write off!

by Anonymousreply 4005/06/2013

What R38 said. My favorite part of Gatsby is the last line of the book, "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

by Anonymousreply 4105/06/2013

r41, I disagree somewhat.

I think it's possible to distill it and put it into visual language. Hollywood probably isn't the best place to do it.

The casting here is tragic. I thought the Redford version was bad. JFC

by Anonymousreply 4205/06/2013

R42, Can you please explain why you thought that the Redford version was so bad?

by Anonymousreply 4305/06/2013

Maybe it's a result of having read/seen them around the same time (early teens), but in my head I have always seen The Great Gatsby as Side A with They Shoot Horses, Don't They? as Side B.

Both works make me feel oddly suffocated, meandering about in a way that feels like an aimless road trip you just know won't end well. Gatsby is just prettier on the surface. And that's what I feel was missing from the Redford/Farrow adaptation. It is that deadly chase after the "American Dream" everybody lies and tells you can live, if you just work really hard. The money, the estates, the beautiful people, HAPPINESS!--all this can be yours, if you just jump through these arbitrary hoops. Easy money, right, Gig Young?

Doesn't sound as though the Luhrman vehicle does any better; god knows the cast aren't close in ability (or looks) to Redford, Waterston, Dern, Black, Chiles, and Farrow.

by Anonymousreply 4405/06/2013

I'm not R42 but I remember there was a lot of hype when the movie came out. Lots of ads, and tie- ins much like it is today for all big movies. The reviews were mixed to negative. However, in an article in yesterday's NY Times about the remake, it was stated that the Redford/Farrow version did make money.

Great musical score by Nelson Riddle too that incorporated many standards from the 20's And the blu ray that came out last month is georgous.

by Anonymousreply 4505/06/2013

I am the plainest Daisy in film history.

You can put me in sequined Prada til the cows come home, but I am still a pale English girl with a face like a potato mm

by Anonymousreply 4605/06/2013

R46, As I suggested in the other Gatsby thread, it's not what Mulligan's face looks like that's the issue. In pics she's not portraying the correct attitude of the "to the manor born." There are plenty of very, very plain girls that "smell" of established wealth even from a distance away. It's a combination of posture, carriage, body language, etc that a very talented actress should be able to portray despite her real upbringing. Personally I think Mulligan should have looked to Diane Sawyer for inspiration on elegance, and then watched a Victoria's Secret Fashion Show for classy sexuality.

by Anonymousreply 4705/07/2013

R47 is right. Take for instance Jacqueline Kennedy. She wasn't really that pretty, but she carried herself as if she shit diamonds and gave world class blowjobs. That's no small feat.

by Anonymousreply 4805/07/2013

Aww... poor Leo. No Oscar next year either.

by Anonymousreply 4905/07/2013

R48, Thank you for your support, although we have a very different "style" of writing.

I've met Laura Bush. Although surprisingly petite, she also carried herself like a true Southern belle. Maybe she acquired it having to deal with constant (and not necessarily undeserved) comments about her husband.

by Anonymousreply 5005/07/2013

R49, Leo should have been nominated for best supporting actor in Django. I actually thought he was better than Waltz (who was great too).

by Anonymousreply 5105/07/2013

I'm another one who doesn't think the Redford/Farrow version is bad, though Redford is a dull blank in the lead.

R44 has a point about the film not quite capturing the emptiness of what Daisy represents and what Gatsby desires. But it did get some other things right. Farrow was much better as Daisy that the reviews, but I also think the critics at the time chafed at the commercial tie-ins for the film which weren't the norm that they are now.

I once saw the 1949 film version at the Museum of Modern Art back in the late 80's, and other than Alan Ladd as Gatsby (he's much more what the part needs than Redford could manage), the film is not good.

by Anonymousreply 5205/07/2013

DiCaprio doesn't have a lot of range, which is why people are getting tired of him--too many projects in to short a time where achieves basically the same effect.

He also always seems a little light to me--lacking a kind of gravitas that would help him be more successful in really adult roles. He's got a little, but just not enough to come across as something other than a ticked-off aging fratboy.

by Anonymousreply 5305/07/2013

Lol. When else has a movie been trashed based on its soundtrack?

by Anonymousreply 5405/07/2013

Well, maybe not solely because of its soundtrack, but there have definitely been instances of where soundtracks were identified as being a major problem contributing to a bomb.

by Anonymousreply 5505/07/2013

R52, Thanks for your post. I clearly remember the book, required reading in high school "millions" of years ago, and never understood the angst behind the story before. Of course learning the the real author had a similar lust for the lifestyle if not the actual girl similar to Daisy also makes a big difference.

by Anonymousreply 5605/07/2013

The 1949 version is on Youtube. It's awful. No attempt to capture the period and Myrtle's car crash is hilarious. Are there any movies that Shelley Winters survives?

by Anonymousreply 5705/07/2013

[quote]DiCaprio doesn't have a lot of range, which is why people are getting tired of him--too many projects in to short a time where achieves basically the same effect.

I agree. He's getting tiresome. By the time that Wall Street movie comes out this fall, he will have released 3 films within a 12-month period. The Leo overload is too much.

by Anonymousreply 5805/07/2013

In a world where most teenage characters are played by 30 year-olds, Leo always looks to me like a 15 year old in his father's suit.

by Anonymousreply 5905/07/2013

Leo has another shot later this year with the Scorsese film.

by Anonymousreply 6005/07/2013

The final line in Gatsby is certainly one of the best final lines in any novel in American lit. The book is full of those wordsmith jewels. And that's why the film won't ever be as good as the book. You can't capture on film the beauty of language.

It's why a Henry Miller novel or even most Virginia Woolf novels or William Faulkner novels just don't make good movies, though they make near perfect novels.

by Anonymousreply 6105/07/2013

Actually I thought Redford was excellent for the part. Hustling midwesterner...not a gangster, but someone who would ally with them to get what he wanted. Also not so demonstrative as Leo. It was the others who were kind of lame in the 74 production, but Redford as Gatsby was probably closer to what Fitzgerald had in mind.

by Anonymousreply 6205/07/2013

How old was Redford when he played Gatsby? Actually I thought that Leo was best in Catch Me If You Can, when he played a teen trying to act like a man, and barely pulling it off. He does better in "lightweight" characters, rather than one where you really need to portray several layers of conflicting emotions, due to different and even contradictory influences, to pull it all off and have the role make sense.

I see Gatsby as a reflection of the author's own inner turmoil, driven to conform to an ideal that doesn't always fit what his heart and brain dictates, yet idealizing that goal in the form of a fantasy person that would never make him truly happy or satisfied for very long.

Leo should have looked very deep inside himself, to draw from his actions of choosing highly desirable models to showmance, when he'd obviously really rather hang out with his buds and party away from the paps. We should have seen that comeraderie (sp) of male comfort and ease in his friendship with Nick. His complicated feelings towards the various women in his life should have provided perfect emotional fodder for his attitude towards Daisy, the perfect "coat hanger and arm candy."

by Anonymousreply 6305/07/2013

What in heaven's name distinguishes a movie that gets a grade of 'C' from one that merits a C-plus? What is the "plus" for, clean teeth in close-ups?

by Anonymousreply 6405/07/2013

"In a world where most teenage characters are played by 30 year-olds, Leo always looks to me like a 15 year old in his father's suit."

Like most men who stayed boyish through their twenties, he changed from boyishly cute to troll in his thirties. The boyishness was last seen in the excellent "Catch Me If You Can", which I recommend.

And while I love R61 suggestion that Leo should have looked at his own shallow relationships before making this film, I doubt he'd learn anything from them. Gatsby mistakes his ambition and envy for love, I'm pretty sure that Leo has never convinced himself that he loves any of those models.

by Anonymousreply 6505/08/2013

R65, Did you mean R61 or me, R63? Actors need to use their own complex emotional experiences and attitudes to portray characters on film. I don't believe that Leo loves or even really likes any of the Victoria's Secret models which with he's papped. I do think that he adores the envy from the average straight male who wishes he could be in the same position.

Likewise is Gatsby deeply infatuated with Daisy or does she represent an ideal of which he wants to be a part, like a man acquiring the latest high-end sports car to feel that he's finally made "it."

How foolish men in the 1920's and still today look who "buy" a much younger "escort" or other possession, in the hopes of advancing their "image." At least the sports car is not capable of feelings towards its owner. Is the character of Daisy any different? One hopes that Leo's models, or George Clooney's, would at least appreciate the new lifestyle that comes with being "acquired."

by Anonymousreply 6605/08/2013

Rex Reed hated it.

by Anonymousreply 6705/08/2013

R31, now it's 40% at Rotten Tomatoes with an average rating of 5.5/10. Granted, there are only 25 so far.

I was big fan of Baz's Romeo and Juliet (I was a young teen then) and I enjoyed watching Australia even if it was a bit too long. I never saw Moulin Rouge, but I don't know, maybe I'll see this anyway. There aren't a lot of good options for movies this month. Not interested in another crappy Hangover, or Will Smith and his spawn, or Star Trek and JJ Abrams screen flares.

by Anonymousreply 6805/08/2013

Really, the ONLY movie you should see this weekend is "Aftershock"!!!

by Anonymousreply 6905/08/2013

R68, Rotten Tomatoes ratings are taken from viewers (like me) who have been treated to free critics' previews. Since they tend to be very biased audiences, meaning that they have to have a strong interest in the genre, actors, and type of flick to even attend, and people are reluctant to dis a free event, ratings are always inflated.

Know many that want to see this movie, even if it's only to laugh at the expense seen onscreen. So many have had to read the book. So ironic in light of a story about the ridiculousness of excess, in a time of over-excess vs lack of personal values and humanity, contrasting with massive poverty and a struggle among many just to survive at a bare minimum level,

by Anonymousreply 7005/08/2013

What are you talking about, R70? RT is an average of critic reviews.

by Anonymousreply 7105/08/2013

The 1974 trailer for THE GREAT GATSBY

Beautiful musical score by Nelson Riddle that combined 20's standards with his original compositions.

by Anonymousreply 7205/08/2013

If you look at the top rated critics, it's 27%. I am seeing this through a SAG screening, but I know I'll hate it, as I hated Moulin Rouge. But it's a little like watching an accident happen and besides, it's free. Sad that some independent filmmaker couldn't get their hands on it, as I do think there might be a way to film it properly, but based on it's track record, it does seem as if it's unfilmable. I saw the 1949 version years ago, and though Alan Ladd is perfect casting, he's not too good, and Betty Field, a great actress who I thought never gave a bad performance, is terrible in it.

by Anonymousreply 7305/08/2013

R71, I think R70 is referring to the rating I posted (5.5/10) which is separate from the critics percentage.

by Anonymousreply 7405/08/2013

R74, Thanks for clarifying. You are correct.

by Anonymousreply 7505/08/2013

Most Baz movie people either love it or hate it except his last film no one had strong feelings either way. The few reviews I have read don't care for GG but say good things about Leo...

by Anonymousreply 7605/08/2013

[quote]The 1949 version is on Youtube. It's awful. No attempt to capture the period and Myrtle's car crash is hilarious. Are there any movies that Shelley Winters survives?

Thanks R57 for linking this. I had never seen this version but had read about it. Agree, it's pretty awful.. but the car crash is a hoot. The clothes don't look very 20's do they? And they certainly took liberties with the story.

by Anonymousreply 7705/08/2013

Saw a screening of this tonight. Visually it's gorgeous but that's about the only good thing I can say - though I felt the 3D was distracting. I've never been a DiCaprio fan and he gives the same performance here that he always gives. If you're a fan of his furrowed brow method of acting you'll find plenty to enjoy here.

I'm not a fan of the novel either so I'm not surprised the movie didn't win me over. Ultimately, it's impossible to care about any of the characters and if the message is supposed to be about the futility of chasing after wealth and 'the good life' the story spends an awful lot of time and detail running down all the perks of living that way.

by Anonymousreply 7805/09/2013

I keep finding myself looking for Roger Ebert's review to know if I want to watch something. I may not have always agreed with him but you got a feeling for the heart of a movie from him.

God I miss him.

by Anonymousreply 7905/09/2013

[quote]The New Yorker: Luhrmann's vulgarity is designed to win over the young audience, and it suggests that he's less a filmmaker than a music-video director with endless resources and a stunning absence of taste.

It's pretty much a vulgar blinged up, hip hop/ r'n'b video.

by Anonymousreply 8005/09/2013

When I think of the character of Carraway, the image which pops into my head is certainly not of Tobey Maguire...

by Anonymousreply 8105/09/2013

If the movie is as shit and low-brow as the OST, then fuck me sideways.

by Anonymousreply 8205/09/2013

"and then watched a Victoria's Secret Fashion Show for classy sexuality."

VS is the last place where you'd go look for "classy sexuality".

by Anonymousreply 8305/09/2013

I think it's time for Leo to take that break he's been talking about.

by Anonymousreply 8405/09/2013

I'm not expecting much, but I will be seeing this tomorrow.

by Anonymousreply 8505/09/2013

Will the web review in the NY Times be up today?

by Anonymousreply 8605/09/2013

Me too R85. And sometime over the next few days, I'll watch the blu-ray Farrow/Redford version which has always been a favorite of mine.

by Anonymousreply 8705/09/2013

"Moulin Rouge" was absolutely witless. I felt embarrassed watching it.

by Anonymousreply 8805/09/2013

[quote]Music to THE GREAT GATSBY by Jay Z. That says it all.

Absolutely! Many reviewers have been making the same comment.

by Anonymousreply 8905/09/2013

I think all this guy's movies are crap. Long with aesthetics that don't either fit or serve to make it less boring.

by Anonymousreply 9005/09/2013

Yo yo Daisy, don't make me axe you again! You wanna see my closet full of Fubu or what?

by Anonymousreply 9105/09/2013

Mostly mixed to negative reviews. However, the NY Times review was favorable.

by Anonymousreply 9205/09/2013


by Anonymousreply 9305/10/2013

Sam Waterston was perfect in the Robert Redford movie. He was the best thing about this movie.

by Anonymousreply 9405/10/2013

I thought Lois Chiles was pretty close to what Jordan should have been too.

by Anonymousreply 9505/10/2013

Does Leo look fatter in 3D?

by Anonymousreply 9605/10/2013

Just came back from this debacle. One of the biggest disappointments I have ever had at a movie theater. Since it's one of my favorite books of all time and I loved the Redford version from the 70's, I was looking forward to this. Cartoonish, unnecessary 3D, rap music during the 20's and awful acting all wrapped up in 1 tidy shitbag. If I never see Toby McGuire's comatose face on a screen again, it will be too soon.

attention Fraus: For those who are insisting that Leo is straight, go see this movie. That's about the only story this movie really tells.

by Anonymousreply 9705/10/2013

When BET starts having white rockstars on I'll be okay with Jay-Z, Bewigged, Kanye & the rest till then.....

by Anonymousreply 9805/10/2013

It really was a bit of a mess, but I wasn't bored. Just really tired of Baz's recycled tricks. Seen it all before in Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge. R + J came out in 1996 and he hasn't grown one iota as a director or artist.

He throws the kitchen sink at the movie. Black and white shots, slow motion, skip motion, blasting modern music, dialog written across the screen. It tires out the viewer. He doesn't let the fucking thing breath and just tell the story. The music gave me a headache.

The performances were hit and miss. Tobey Maguire should never act again. I hate him and I hated him in this. Carey Mulligan was miscast. Absolutely not attractive enough for the role and I hated her line readings. Hated everything about her performance really And the constant close ups of her face did her no favors.

Leo was ok, sometimes awkward and adrift. The actress who played Jordan Baker really was great.

On the whole though, it was just too garish, too loud, too much style, not enough substance.

by Anonymousreply 9905/11/2013

Toure hated it.

by Anonymousreply 10005/11/2013

Party scenes and costumes were great. Music was okay. 3-D wears thin. Otherwise overworked and painfully slow. You'll be checking your email.

For ramped-up product, I like Ken Russell's "The Boyfriend" for a campier evocation of the 1920's.

by Anonymousreply 10105/11/2013

[quote]attention Fraus: For those who are insisting that Leo is straight, go see this movie. That's about the only story this movie really tells.

Wow, is his gayness that noticeable?

And please don't tell me they were really playing rap music for a film based in the 20's? Oh, dear...

by Anonymousreply 10205/11/2013

Does Hollywood have any original ideas anymore? Geeezz. The Great Gatsby AGAIN?? Sequels upon sequels of moves ie Iron Man, Avengers...

Not a huge Tarantino fan, but at least he comes up with original ideas and writing.

by Anonymousreply 10305/11/2013

Why the hell would white "rockers" show up on BET? I wouldn't expect to see JayZ and Kanye on the country music channels. I hated the 1974 version (Redford and Farrow was completely miscast) so I might like this better.

by Anonymousreply 10405/11/2013

Hollywood deadline update for Saturday 3PM

There’s more good news at the box office for Summer 2013. Domestic grosses for Warner Bros‘ The Great Gatsby (3,035 theaters) just kept climbing upward Friday though audiences gave it a ‘B’ CinemaScore. My sources’ latest estimates for the 3D tentpole are $19M for Thursday late shows, Friday midnights, and its opening day total and a $53M first weekend. The ‘X’ factor will be Mother’s Day, which could contribute to a huger-than-normal Sunday for the romantic drama co-financed by Village Roadshow and based on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1925 classic novel. The #1 film is still Disney/Marvel’s Iron Man 3.

by Anonymousreply 10505/11/2013

I really enjoyed it. Loved the acting and the music (which didn't overpower the film and which was much more diverse than I thought it would be--Rhapsody in Blue was featured at least twice). I think this may be a film that critics enjoy piling on when it first comes out but that they will begin to appreciate over time.

The movie that The Great Gatsby most reminded me of was not the Redford-Farrow adaptation of Gatsby, not Moulin Rouge, but actually Citizen Kane. There's something fascinating about zillionaires and their big houses.

by Anonymousreply 10605/11/2013

Agree R106 and I didn't expect to as I am a big fan of the Robert Redford/Mia Farrow version. Yes, this was over the top and frantic. But I was never bored.

by Anonymousreply 10705/11/2013

r101, interesting you mention Ken Russell as Baz has based his entire career on doing dumbass riffs on his work.

by Anonymousreply 10805/11/2013

Well, I'll be! I really enjoyed it. I knew what I was in for, that Lurmahn films give the feeling that you are sometimes trapped in an elevator with the whole circus. Still, I liked it. Thought it was a lot better than the critics said. A good adaptation of the novel..

And, a question: Don't want to be a thin hat, but in the novel as well as in the movie, don't you have the impression that Nick Carraway is not only in awe but also in love with Gatsby. He is the only person sincerely loving someone else in the story.

In the movie, when the mysterious Gatsby is finally revealed to Nick, there is fireworks and triumphant Gershwin music, and it is clearly Nick's point of view.

Mind you, Tobey "pretending" to be in awe in front of DiCaprio doesn't ask that much acting chops...

by Anonymousreply 10905/11/2013

Agree R109 about Nick's attraction to Gatsby

by Anonymousreply 11005/12/2013

r109, for more on the surprisingly strong homoerotic subtext of American literature by male authors see Leslie Fiedler's regrettably heteronormative but otherwise perceptive essay "Come Back to the Raft Agin, Huck Honey."

by Anonymousreply 11105/12/2013


by Anonymousreply 11205/13/2013

I loved it even though Mulligan miscast.

by Anonymousreply 11305/16/2013

I agreea about the cartoon aspect.

Saw with my brother who is an expert on this novel..he even moved to St Paul b/c of Fitz. Knows every word by heart...the day after we saw new film we watched the 1974 version and liked that better except hr hates Redford as Gatsby.

I grew up on West Egg across from the water. One of my frinds family,who owned a steamship company. lived in a mansion that had rolling lawns down to the Long Island Sound. Her house was a 5 minute walk from my home. this house house was enormous..but was tatsefully designed it was so hard to look at the grotesque mess that shey ad for both mansions.

BTW the distance between East and West Egg was about a third of the distance shown in the film maybe less...I lived there in the '60's.

by Anonymousreply 11405/16/2013

That's interesting, R114 Thanks for sharing.

by Anonymousreply 11505/17/2013


by Anonymousreply 11605/21/2013

Finally saw Great Gatsby tonight - was bored fucking stiff. I'm not a datalounger who hates everything but thought this was glacier slow, overwrought and boring. Weird to me that someone above liked it despite Carey Mulligan - she was the only one who interested me onscreen (Edgerton was pretty good too but his character's such an a-hole you don't care to see more of him). Tobey Maguire is just a waste. His entire schtick is looking like a bewildered turtle. He's most of the movie but it's like looking at a black hole. DeCaprio has to be one of the most overrated actors out there; he acts like a 10th grade boy in his first high school play trying to play an important 50 year old character. Overall, I'd give it about a 3. Occasional interesting flashes but they never lasted long. Wanted to like it but just no.

by Anonymousreply 11706/01/2013

R117 I saw it today too. Went in with an open mind. I liked it. Nothing wow about it though. For that kind of budget should have been better than OK. The casting was the weakest part.

I'd have gone with:

Christian Bale - Gatsby

James McAvoy - Nick

Cillian Murphy - Tom

Keira Knightley - Daisy

by Anonymousreply 11806/02/2013

R118, wow, that cast list is awful. And I like all of those actors. I didn't really have any major objections to the cast, but if I had my fantasy cast it would be :

Henry Cavill - Gatsby

Aaron Taylor- Johnson - Nick

Chris Evans - Tom

Emily Browning - Daisy

by Anonymousreply 11906/02/2013

I saw it today and enjoyed it very much, which surprised me because I didn't have the highest expectations. I thought the music was actually nearly pitch perfect in every scene and not used overly gratuitously.

I definitely picked up on some of the gay subtext of the Nick character, but I can see how that would fly over the head of a clueless straight viewer. I wish it was less subtle and more true to the text in that regard. I would be curious to know if Tobey made any conscious acting choices to convey that aspect at all?

I was engaged in the story throughout and the sheer spectacle of it all was really visually appealing, but yet it was not as overblown and frenetic as 'Moulin Rouge'. As far as adaptations go, it could have been far worse and as a movie it was a lot fun.

by Anonymousreply 12006/03/2013

Thank God you're not in casting, r119. Aaron Taylor Johnson as Nick?

by Anonymousreply 12106/03/2013

A better cast.

Gatsby-Ben Affleck Daisy- Katherine Heigel Nick - Zac Efron Tom- Jeremy Renner

Music interludes featuring Darren Criss.

by Anonymousreply 12206/03/2013

[quote]"Moulin Rouge" was absolutely witless. I felt embarrassed watching it.

"Witless" compared to what - Waiting for Godot? I can understand some hating Baz L's films but MR was not witless. This is a typical comment from someone who doesn't understand irony. MR and "strictly ballroom" both great and very funny, but if you don't get irony you will just say they're stupid.

I hated Australia. I'm going to see The Great Gatsby with an open mind. Have heard two really good reviews of the film over the few days. I know I will either love it or hate it. That's Baz for you.

by Anonymousreply 12306/03/2013

I saw it last week and enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. Weak links were the American actors. As R117 so beautifully said, Maguire is a 'bewildered turtle' and too long in the tooth for the role. I can't stand DiCaprio because I can always see him acting and this role was no different. The Gatsby parties didn't seem like parties as much as pageants. They lacked decadence and danger. The contemporary music didn't bother me that much.

I really liked Edgerton, Mulligan and especially the woman who played Jordan. I wish she had more to do. Mulligan isn't a natural beauty but I thought she captured the essence of Daisy quite well. My favorite scene was the hotel room confontation.

After seeing DiCaprio in the swimsuit I know why he never takes his clothes off in movies. It looks like he's built like a young Montgomery Burns.

by Anonymousreply 12406/03/2013

"MR and "strictly ballroom" both great and very funny, but if you don't get irony you will just say they're stupid"

Ironic? IMHO "Moulin Rogue" was anti-irony, about living your life fully and directly, without self-consciousness or irony. I mean, Ewan McGregor sings "THe Hills Are Alive" without a trace of irony, as if he was a big enough dork to think it's just a good song that fit the moment.

by Anonymousreply 12506/03/2013

[quote]Aaron Taylor Johnson as Nick?


by Anonymousreply 12606/04/2013

At first, I thought the movie was all sparkle and show and no substance. But I think by the end, the movie developed its characters and storyline in a pretty impressive manner. I think Leo was great in the movie, personifying the mysterious and opulent Gatsby in deed and spirit. I thought using modern music infused with a 20's sound was brilliant and worked well here. The movie is a visual delight.

by Anonymousreply 12706/04/2013

Luhrmann's virtuosity should have been tempered. I liked his inventive use of sets and music but his signature manic flourishes would have had far more impact if they had been more judiciously and reflectively exercised.

The framing device is an obvious ploy that doesn't pay off.

But when he allows himself to, on his own terms but with narrative focus, tell the story, he scores big. The casting, warts and all, is quite successful. Sure we can object to whether Mulligan is glamorous enough (then again her being less an obvious golden girl made Gatsby's quixotic love for her more, rather than less, romantically driven and obsessed, much more based on his actually falling for her and it changing his dreams, rather than reflecting on some generic social climbing; and in this regard it is much more true to Fitzgerald and to Gatsby than to the way most people think of both), whether DiCaprio is believable as a 32 year old, whether Edgerton is perhaps too much of a hunk god and too little of a hulking husband, etc., but the fact is the cast these are damned good actors who have given a great deal of thought and feeling to the story and were adept at both inhabiting the crux of their roles and fitting Luhrmann's style, no small feat.

There are scenes that indelibly capture the novel's spirit and themes and are extremely well directed and hard to pull off. The Plaza Hotel guestroom scene was damn good.

And then there are so many moments when he just didn't know when to say when, when his tricks are tricks that neither make us live/feel within the story nor pull off a Brechtian gambit in order to force us to think about it. In those tricked out moments, I found myself more often thinking about Luhrmann's directorial calculations and miscalculations rather than about the jazz age, the American dream, Gatsby's optimism or sensitivity, Nick's disillusionment or Daisy's provisional complacence.

And yet there are moments, many of them (although few in the first hour, the movie gets far better as it goes on, although the misfires don't stop, they merely give way to the triumphs) when all of that is beautifully there, far more successfully than any other film version of Gatsby, much more so than anything that Clayton, Redford, Farrow and Waterston gave us.

On balance, a missed opportunity because what Luhrmann could have accomplished with this cast, with his prodigious creativity but with a steadier and far more selective hand, a more script structure, and with the depth of his frequently evident understanding of the story he is trying to tell (of the novel itself), could have been a great movie.

What we are left with, is heartbreakingly not a great film but rather a mix of a very fine one and an overblown fiasco.

by Anonymousreply 12806/10/2013

Carey Mulligan is starting to annoy me. I'm getting tired of that same boring performance. It works in Brittish drama, but she just isn't flashy or gritty enough for these American roles. Shame was bad. Daisy was boring.

The confrontation scene was directed poorly I had no idea where to look or how to feel because the object of conversation (Daisy) was looking confused the entire time.

by Anonymousreply 12908/02/2013

No one is still thinking about this movie but you....and now me, because you bumped this thread.

by Anonymousreply 13008/02/2013

Just got done watching The Great Gatsby and it was a solid C. The woman who played Jordan Baker and the costumes were the best things about it. Everyone else phoned it in.

by Anonymousreply 13110/13/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!