I found the entire experience magical. Beneath the big-budget visual and musical spectacle, which is a pleasure in its own right, it is faithful to the novel's air of green-light melancholy and longing. DiCaprio and Edgerton are Oscar worthy.

I dig how much of the novel's language is directly incorporated, at times even on the screen. An enormous level of respect for Fitzgerald is evident throughout, perfectly in step with the modern flourishes.

It finds the right balance of (post)modern flourishes and a certain traditional Merchant Ivory elegance.

And being "new" is nowhere near as important as ringing true.

The Great Gatsby turns out to be a hollow bauble, gilt with the finest set design, cinematography, and editing but saddled with that terminally tiresome source material.

The 20's style was gorgeous, but went nowhere. The music was woefully unobtrusive - - I want to be walloped over the head with a Baz soundtrack. Any good acting was wasted on the flat characters.

Alas, if only Baz had applied his incredible gift of style to a worthy tale...


2 out of 5.

BJs Grade

B+/A-

Very good film, never read the book. DiCaprio was amazing throughout (Gatsby was definitely off slightly mentally but in a good way). Maguire shocked me, I thought he was great, Nick was my favorite character in the movie. Mulligan and Edgerton were totally aces bringing life to very unlikeable characters. Elizabeth Debicki was straight awesome, she played Jordan Baker to perfection, ridiculous screen presence. Jason Clarke and Isla fisher were very good as well. Overall I liked this movie quite a bit.

^^^
agreed

I really love Lana Del Ray. And that song is absolutely wonderful. And was used perfectly in the film.

And so it's cracked 50%!!! Instant classic!

What did John Carter get again? Oh yeah, that's it...51%.

It will probably turn into a cult hit amongst a certain niche, but is clearly not a movie for all.

Algren, would you please consider leaving the Rotten Tomatoes talk to a separate Cinemania thread?

The merits of RT are highly debatable at best, but cluttering up the review threads with it is inappropriate.. The Everyone's A Critic sub-forum is where us KJer's give our own opinions and then debate those opinions amongst ourselves. We don't need no stinkin' aggregate scores of corporate media shills in here, imho!

All this is especially so, given the fact that you haven't even seen The Great Gatsby yet, if I'm not mistaken.

I got around to watching the Baz interview on Colbert, and it really seems like he put a lot of heart into this. Which makes me appreciate it even more.

I hope he also put a little thought into it.

That too.

How did you handle you hate hard-on for the Hobbit again?

Beautifully-looking, great soundtrack, mostly good-to-great acting (though Maguire didn't work at all)....and completely soulless.

For those with no soul!

Boom.

Baz Luhrmann's take on The Great Gatsby is good, if unspectacular. Any adaptation was going to be extremely hard-pressed to come anywhere near the power of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel, but despite some questionable stylistic choices and small nuances and lines that are skipped over, Luhrmann succeeds in staying true to the spirit of the novel, and doesn't completely miss the point of it the way that the 1974 version did. As is the case with Luhrmann's other films, the most noteworthy aspects are the visual ones, as the sets and costumes are spectacular, and the cinematography is impressive and utilizes the 3D format well. All the basics of Fitzgerald's story are there, and the drama within these events is generally well-pitched. The place where the film occasionally falls off-track is when it deviates significantly from the text, as the framing device doesn't work, the words on the screen are an odd touch, and the anachronistic music choices don't work with the otherwise largely period-specific setting; the original story and the film's instances of approaching it straight work well enough that none of these embellishments were necessary. Leonardo DiCaprio makes for a good Gatsby. Unlike Robert Redford, he actually seems interested in being involved with the film, and he does a solid job of capturing Gatsby's idealism. His chemistry with Carey Mulligan is so-so, but that's still an improvement over the frigid connection between Redford and Mia Farrow in the earlier film. Tobey Maguire is a few years too old to play Nick, but he otherwise fares fine, as he is innocent and observant enough to portray the character's personality convincingly. Minor characters, however, are shortchanged, which means that neither Joel Edgerton as Tom nor Elizabeth Debicki as Jordan get the screen time needed to make their characters stand out as much as they do in the novel (Jordan's famous "It takes two to make an accident" scene in particular is missed). It's not a great adaptation, but it does enough well that I won't mind showing it to students at the end of what will surely be at least a dozen different instances in which I will have to teach the novel to students.

B

Aww, only half of Rotten Tomatoes critics recommend the movie? Well then no one should see it or like it! Why like something if everyone doesn't like it equally?

I don't think you see the point I'm making.

This is pretty much how I felt about it. I was really disappointed.

And I am so upset since I keep seeing AMAZING TV spots for this. They are just so good. Probably some of the best TV spots I've ever seen. The marketing team really did wonders with this.

I've never been a huge fan of the source material, but Baz Luhrmann certainly puts his distinctive spin on the adaptation here. The highlights are Leonardo DiCaprio, in yet another exquisite performance, and the stellar visuals on display. The rest of the cast is fine, including Carey Mulligan and Tobey Maguire, but we're not talking about incredibly interesting characters with Nick Carraway and Daisy Buchanan. In a weird way, the film loses much of the book's essence despite remaining inherently faithful to it. It's hard to explain. But it's worth it for a chance to see Leo take on a different kind of character than usual and the visual splendor. B-

I wasn't a big fan of this. I love DiCaprio and he was pretty great here (as were the visuals) but the rest was forgettable. The first half had a few good moments but after Gatsby met Daisy, the movie just went on and on and on.

A few scenes aside, the film is devoid of real, tangible emotion.

Isn't that the whole point of the source material?

I'd make a difference between subtle emotion and no emotion.