Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Great Gatsby (2013)

This is topic The Great Gatsby (2013) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001947

Posted by John Roddy (Member # 7348) on 05-10-2013, 04:19 PM:

I've been looking forward to this movie ever since I heard Leo was cast as Gatsby. Does it live up to the hype I've created for myself? The answer is yes, but no.

Luhrmann's Gatsby adaptation does a lot of right. First off, as I expected, DiCaprio is a fantastic Gatsby. I thought He played the role very well. Tobey felt like a pretty convincing Carraway too. Same goes for the rest of the characters. I don't remember too much about the book (it's been a while since I read it), but I'm fairly certain the roles of each character were brought out pretty well.

The visuals were just incredible all throughout. I also really liked the 3D here. It was used stylishly, primarily to show depth. And it worked. This movie was shot with 3D in mind, and it really shows.

Everything else? Well, that's where it goes downhill. First off, the music…oh god. What were they thinking? In ridiculous parties during the roaring 20's, I expect to hear music from…the roaring 20's. Not RAP and ELECTRONIC music. Seriously, whose bright idea was that? Adding a trumpet doesn't instantly make it fit in. The party at Gatsby's and the craziness with the Buchanan's mistress were visually incredible, but that just didn't matter. The music driving those scenes didn't fit at all, and that killed it. Ambient music during almost every other part of the movie was fine, but when it really needed to count? No, it did not deliver.

The pacing seemed to be a little inconsistent too. Near the beginning, the story moved along at a very brisk pace. It was pretty fast, but it didn't feel rushed. Had it kept a pace like that throughout the entire movie, it would be fine. But eventually, it started to get boring. Several parts in the latter half felt dragged out, and I found it harder and harder to pay attention. The visual delight was the only thing keeping me attached at that point.

The bottom line: Baz Luhrmann's Great Gatsby is very very pretty, and Leo is indeed a very "great" Gatsby. Everything else? Meh. I say it's worth watching at least once. Just try your best to ignore the music during the party scenes, and go for the 3D version if at all possible. If nothing else, it didn't feel like a waste of two hours.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-19-2013, 07:02 PM:

Regarding the music in this movie. Really, what were they smoking? Yes, we've got Jay-Z and Beyonce during the party scenes, taking place in the roaring 20s... It was not just totally out of place, it was extremely distracting and annoying. It isn't supposed to be a comedy, or did I miss something?

The only thing that somewhat worked was the Florence Welch part and the Jazz adaption of the Lana Del Rey song they were constantly repeating in one form or another in the background...

If you so want to use contemporary music, why not create a modern-time adaption of The Great Gatsby? That could even have made the story a bit more compelling.

Full disclosure: I've even watched it twice, not in its full length although... And I've seen this in both 2D and 3D. The necessity of 3D in this kind of movies gets a bit lost on me. Interestingly, lots of the special effect shots looked much more fake in 2D than in 3D, or maybe it was just that the darker 3D picture did a better job at hiding the flaws.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 05-30-2013, 06:00 PM:

I really wanted to like this movie, and I've been looking forward to watching it.

Now I've seen it.

... meh.

I read the book a few weeks ago; it's a book that I've sort of been planning to read for quite a while but never really got around to. The forthcoming movie gave me the motivation that I needed to actually read the book, which is supposedly "the great American novel". Can't say that I see that in the book. It's is fairly short, only 150 pages or so, but it's one of those books that takes forever (relatively) for the story to get going -- the first half of the book had me wondering if I really wanted to bother reading the rest of it, though I did persevere and the story ended up being ok.

The movie follows the storyline in the book, more-or-less, and just like the book, the movie is just sort of ok. I've read better books; I've seen better movies.

I would have liked it quite a bit better if the music in the party scenes was appropriate to the time period. That really detracted from the atmosphere and pulled me out of the "movie world".

On the other hand, the sets and costumes are beautiful; Gatsby's house and grounds are a wonder to behold. And the dancing would have been great if they had some better music to dance to.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-30-2013, 06:41 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Regarding the music in this movie. Really, what were they smoking? Yes, we've got Jay-Z and Beyonce during the party scenes, taking place in the roaring 20s... It was not just totally out of place, it was extremely distracting and annoying.

Isn't this sort of a trademark of Baz Luhrmann? Didn't he do something similar with his Romeo + Juliet movie?

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 05-30-2013, 07:04 PM:

The Romeo & Juliet movie is actually one of my favourite films. It takes place in an alternate reality, where Shakespearean language, guns, cars and rock 'n roll all coexist with a cast of over-the-top characters. It's a larger-than-life, melodramatic movie where everything is really overblown and crazy.

It has some great images in it, a lot of really clever puns ("The messenger cometh", and a Fed Ex truck comes around the corner) and it's damn clever in a lot of ways. It's downright exciting.

I was actually hoping that The Great Gatsby would be similar to Romeo and Juliet -- the trailer makes it look like it could be. Unfortunately, it's not.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 06-01-2013, 07:23 PM:

First, a confession: I've had one abortive attempt at reading Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby as a teenager when the book featured on my high school reading list. Shocking, I know, but the simple truth is that the story didn't much appeal to me. This teenager had little interest in the debauchery, corruption, superficiality and jazz and flappers of the Roaring Twenties. Nor of the mystery man who would sacrifice everything to regain the affections of his lost love. After seeing Baz Luhrman's film, it's clear that the intervening years has done little to assuage my nonchalance for this story.

But I admit that Luhrman's is a very good film. It's a (relatively) restrained film for him. It possesses little of the flagrant exuberances of Moulin Rouge nor the ostentatious ockerisms of Australia. Of course, I say "little", not "none"; this is, after all, a Luhrman film and the hip Baz bashers will find plenty to lambast regardless. Luhrman has an undeniable style all his own, but it's not to everyone's taste.

The cast is impeccable and admirably filled with both established and up'n'coming Aussie stars. We can always count on Baz doing his bit for the Oz fraternity.

The film is beautifully shot with a depth which imbues even the 2D presentation of the film with a 3D-like quality. Rich in colour and movement; or not as the scene or mood requires. But colour or not, his scenes are never less than lush.

Such a shame I can't engage with the story.

8 out of 10

EDIT: The music worked for me, personally. I think the idea here is not to create an accurate portrait of a 20's party (which would be trite by today's standards) but to convey the feeling of one of those parties to a modern audience. This is hard to do with music that is nigh on 100 years out of date! Luhrman's trying to say that these were the decadent rave parties of yesteryear and I think he was very successful in portraying that.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-02-2013, 06:17 PM:

quote: Stu Jamieson
EDIT: The music worked for me, personally. I think the idea here is not to create an accurate portrait of a 20's party (which would be trite by today's standards) but to convey the feeling of one of those parties to a modern audience. This is hard to do with music that is nigh on 100 years out of date! Luhrman's trying to say that these were the decadent rave parties of yesteryear and I think he was very successful in portraying that.

For me, it was pretty obvious that this was the attempt. Unfortunately, it didn't work out for me and neither for the people that saw the movie with me. It pulled me out of that world, instead of creating the intended atmosphere. So I guess this attempt is a big hit-or-miss.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Isn't this sort of a trademark of Baz Luhrmann? Didn't he do something similar with his Romeo + Juliet movie?

I agree with Frank on this one, the reason it worked in Romeo & Juliet is because it is a contemporary adaptation of the original tragedy, set in some kind of wicked alternate, but contemporary reality. If Luhrmann had done the same thing with this movie, the choice of music would be entirely forgiven by me.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-26-2013, 10:10 PM:

after all the hoopla and the countless trailers I saw for the film, my overall impression of the film was of complete disdain and flat out being bored. Biggest disappointment of the year.