Scott Foundas, Variety
Of course, to accuse Luhrmann (who also co-wrote the screenplay with frequent collaborator Craig Pearce) of overkill is a bit like faulting a leopard for his spots. Love it or hate it, take it or leave it, this is unmistakably his“Gatsby” through and through, and as with all such carte-blanche extravaganzas (increasingly rare in this cautious Hollywood age), it exudes an undeniable fascination — at least for a while. In the notes for his unfinished final novel, “The Last Tycoon,” Fitzgerald famously wrote, “action is character,” but for Luhrmann action is production design, hairstyling, Prada gowns and sweeping, swirling, CGI-enhanced camera movements that offer more bird’s-eye views of Long Island (actually the Fox Studios in Sydney) than “The Hobbit” did of Middle-earth. Arguably, the movie reaches its orgiastic peak 30 minutes in, with the first full reveal of Gatsby himself (Leonardo DiCaprio), accompanied by an explosion of fireworks and the eruption of Gershwin on the soundtrack. Where, really, can one go from there?
Todd McCarthy, THR
But no matter how frenzied and elaborate and sometimes distracting his technique may be, Luhrmann’s personal connection and commitment to the material remains palpable, which makes for a film that, most of the time, feels vibrantly alive while remaining quite faithful to the spirit, if not the letter or the tone, of its source…
Everybody from party girls to politicians comes to Gatsby’s extravagant parties, where the booze flows and the music plays and the carousing goes on all night. But no one ever sees the host, whose wealth is surpassed only by his mysteriousness. No one knows where he or his money came from but, during the nocturnal bacchanals, no one much cares.
Luhrmann and his ever-essential design collaborator (and co-producer and wife) Catherine Martin always seem extra-stimulated by such scenes, which involve hundreds of ornate costumes, constant movement and music which here imposes blends as unlikely as hip hop and Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue. Whether you can abide some of the specific musical choices or not, the way Luhrmann and his music editors mix and match wildly disparate source material is ballsy and impressive; the operating principle is mood and emotion, with a surprise element that can be jarring and/or inspired.
In time-honored dramatic fashion, Gatsby’s entrance is delayed for a half-hour and, when the moment comes, there’s something in the way it’s shot combined with the self-possessed I-own-the-world smile on DiCaprio’s face that reminds of the first time you see the young Charles Foster Kane in an earlier film about a fellow with more money than he knows what to do with. This moment and, even more so, in the superb compositions and cutting of Gatsby’s death, show how classically precise Luhrmann can be when he wants to be. Throughout, he photographs DiCaprio the way a movie star used to be shot — glamorously and admiringly, taking full advantage of the charismatic attributes with which only the anointed few are blessed.
Hey! I simply would like to give a huge thumbs up for the great information you have here on this post. I can be coming back to your blog for more soon.
I really desire to save this post, “First reviews for The
Great Gatsby emerge – Awards Daily” on my personal webpage.
Will you care in the event that I personallydo it? Thx ,Darnell
Remarkable! Its in fact amazing post, I have got much clear idea concerning from this piece of writing.
Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in fact was a amusement account
it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! However,
how could we communicate?
When I initially commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added”
checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get three e-mails with the same comment.
Is there any way you can remove people from that service?
Thanks!
I saw it last Sunday afternoon.
I loved it; beautifully directed by Luhrmann!
Joel Edgarton is a revelation as Tom – a great performance by him.
Carrie Mulligan delivers as Daisy bringing nuances to the role only hinted at in the novel.
DeCaprio, for me, is the weak link in this movie. Why does he keep repeating his lines? Bad acting choice, in my opinion.
But it’s Luhmann’s direction of this picture which is the real star. I thought it really became interesting after the party scenes – where all the drawing room “drama” occurs with the characters.
****Love it or hate it, take it or leave it, this is unmistakably his“Gatsby” through and through, and as with all such carte-blanche extravaganzas (increasingly rare in this cautious Hollywood age), it exudes an undeniable fascination — at least for a while.****
Have never been a fan of F Scott. Hated this book and hated having it forced down my throat in High School. As for the comment above that’s Lurhman’s first mistake. Gatsby will never belong to Lurhman. Gatsby belongs to Fitzgerald and thinking you can turn Gatsby into Moulin Rouge is not pushing the limits of art but more or less exploitation of them. Oh this will make money simply because it’s got all the right touches and embellishments to attract the audience Lurhman wanted. But in the long run it will be remembered for being nothing more than another version of Moulin Rouge.
Just got back from the theater, the movie was a spectacle for sure. Beautiful costumes, sets, sweeping scenes of NYC, the mansions. Dicaprio was great as Gatsby, I need more time to really digest the movie.
Marshall Fine, a generally trustworthy reviewer, liked it well enough and he even stated in his review that Baz doesn’t thrill him as a filmmaker. He liked DiCaprio especially and felt his performance and maybe Edgerton’s were the best in the film. DiCaprio seems to be getting interesting reviews with this, both good and indifferent. I’m dying to see it for myself.
Seeing it tonight, will post my reaction after 🙂
Haven’t been on here forever; my last comment on here was either about To the Wonder or Jennifer Lawrence, but I’ll let bygones be bygones.
As far as Baz Luhrmann and The Great Gatsby goes, I’ll take honest, finely executed, well meaning stylistic excess over the faux indie dribble that’s often shoved down our throats via any number of independent theaters.
I’d say I’m halfway there with you on this sentiment. But I don’t know about “honest” or “well meaning”. But I’d agree that it is generally “finely executed stylistic excess”. The problem with Luhrmann’s film lies in its favor of style over substance, and its frustrating misunderstanding of the source material from which it gets its name. Baz seems so excited to explore the period in detail, but it seems to him that delving into the book’s details is a chore, so he glosses over it. Its a whole bunch of empty spectacle without anything to hang it on. As a collection of images, there’s some things to admire, but as a movie (to say nothing of its virtues as an adaptation, which are basically non-existent) it is hollow.
I am just glad Keira was not cast as once was rumoured cause then I would have to sit through the mess.
Kris Tapley liked it and DiCaprio in it and said you should ignore these reviews. I tend to agree. I think there were knives ready for this one no matter what. I don’t give a damn about the reviews myself. I’d rather just go see it. It’s not as if the book didn’t have critics at the time it arrived on the scene (it did in spades). Luhrman is someone you either dig or not. If not, why bother criticizing anything he does — you should automatically disqualify yourself with that caveat. He’s going to always go big and he’s going to be exciting and exasperating often at the same time. I loved Moulin Rouge, Romeo and Juliet, and some of Australia so I’m willing to more than chance Gatsby.
Is this 2013’s Les Miserables??
not even close
i meant, in terms of how the fans love it but the critics dont..
Oh right I see what you mean. I just meant a Luhrmann film is not a big of an even/phenomenon as the screen adaptation of Les Miz, the musical. You have the Baz fans and the Gatsby fans which might be in it for different reasons and with different expectations. Not that they’re mutually exclusive groups, but still not the LES MIZ loonies.
p.s. I hope AD does away with the thumbs thingy before the thick of the season. I’m so unpopular 🙁
Try leaving better comments.
lol never did have good grammar
I don’t really think that’s fair. The romance in the story could certainly be considered tragic (although it’s certainly not the only tragic part of the story)
When I saw Iron Man 3 this weekend, there was a little “behind the scenes” featurette about The Great Gatsby. In it, Luhrmann said, and I paraphrase, “I always seem to be drawn to tragic romances.” So much so, it seems, that he sees them everywhere, even in books where they are not.
LOL. Love your new handle.
Damn, I keep typing the wrong one! I use Banjoman a couple of other places. I guess I could make the switch here too. Removing the “Gentle” would make it less surprising when I inevitably lose my shit.
What the hell are you talking about? It’s MORE THAN FAIR to see ‘The Great Gatsby’ – a TRAGEDY about a DOOMED ROMANTIC HERO and his IDEALISTIC PURSUIT OF A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN – as a tragic romance. If he adapted ‘The Cat in the Hat’ as one, then you might be onto something …
I know one of the hallmarks of a great book is breadth of possible interpretation, but I am amazed that anyone could see Gatsby as a doomed romantic hero. Especially the “hero” part! He’s a gilded eggshell. You’ve got Daisy pegged though. A beautiful woman, and that’s all. The one status symbol he couldn’t buy.
Alonso Duralde’s review was nasty. You know critics often get it wrong.
I’ve already seen this movie. If anything, his review was generous.
I recommend Alonso Duralde’s review for a more accurate representation of the film you’re going to pay 12-15 dollars to see this weekend.
me $5 next Tuesday
Good call. There aren’t too many discount theaters where I live. Wish there was. I’d see everything that came out.
Wait, is this the same review where he declares that “DiCaprio’s utterances of Gatsby’s pet endearment “old sport” become more and more cringe-worthy with each repetition.”DiCaprio’s utterances of Gatsby’s pet endearment “old sport” become more and more cringe-worthy with each repetition.” Yeah, they are “cringe-worthy”: they are SUPPOSED TO BE. Gatsby is a charlatan, and – over the course of the novel – Nick (and subsequently we) are supposed to be uncomfortable about the character’s obvious affectations. Gatsby says “old sport” as if it’s something he read in a novel and – because the trait is so robotic – it fails to achieve the charm that Gatsby wants to cultivate, which is why Nick says that “the familiar expression held no more familiarity than the hand which reassuredly brushed my shoulder”. Now, DiCaprio could have failed to deliver the phrase in the way that Fitzgerald intended, but the fact that Duralde declares that the term becomes “more and more cringe-worthy” suggests otherwise. Is this what we want from our critics? Illiteracy.
“DiCaprio’s utterances of Gatsby’s pet endearment “old sport” become more and more cringe-worthy with each repetition.” “DiCaprio’s utterances of Gatsby’s pet endearment “old sport” become more and more cringe-worthy with each repetition.” “DiCaprio’s utterances of Gatsby’s pet endearment “old sport” become more and more cringe-worthy with each repetition.” Repetition, reptition, I’m an excellent driver, repetition, I’m an excellent driver.
Early reviews for Dicaprio have not been particularly good either. And I disagree regarding the music as being “ballsy and impressive.” This was strictly a move to appeal to a certain-aged audience. The most impressive thing to have done would have been to use less established artists rather than current top 40 artists (hip hop (!!!???), musicians who are already honoring the style of the music from that era. Luhrmann just doesn’t get it.
Agreed. Luhrmann’s use of other people’s money is impressive.
“Of course, to accuse Luhrmann (who also co-wrote the screenplay with frequent collaborator Craig Pearce) of overkill is a bit like faulting a leopard for his spots.”
I’ve heard this pioint several times now, in relation to the new Gatsby — oh, you can’t criticize the film , because that’s the kind of film he makes! This effectively renders the film critic-proof. It’s not a defence to say that a work of art is “the kind of thing this artist makes”. If Luhrmann has imposed his patented tasteless and pointless brand of overkill to Gatsby, then he should be judged on whether it works artistically in this movie, not forgiven for it.
“But no matter how frenzied and elaborate and sometimes distracting his technique may be, Luhrmann’s personal connection and commitment to the material remains palpable.”
No one is questioning Luhrmann’s commitment, but that is irrelevant. Some of the worst art ever made has been produced by artists entirely committed to their vision.
Luhrmann is the new Ken Russell — a filmmaker who thinks that the more he crams into every scene and the more he makes the camera careen around the room like a drunken teenager and the more he bombards us with irrelevant visual and auditory nonsense, the more “rich” and “personal” his vision is. It is the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink school of making art. Blech.
I know I shouldn’t be judging the film, not having seen it yet, but I can’t help agreeing with you. And it makes no sense that I do – I have a lot of respect for Ken Russell, and of Baz Luhrmann’s films, I haven’t seen Strictly Ballroom (my parents love it though, and I love ballroom dancing!), I liked Romeo + Juliet, I adore Moulin Rouge and I rather enjoyed Australia. But nothing I’ve seen from The Great Gatsby, not even Carey Mulligan’s Prada wardrobe, convinces me that I’ll be able to get on board this time around.
Luhrmann is the new Ken Russell
no!
The rest of the paragraph is hilarious tho.
I have to agree with Scott and Paddy 100%. The comparison between Ken Russell and Baz is a good one. Sometimes their excesses work and sometimes they don’t; regardless, I enjoy(ed) watching them push the limits.
Even if my hopes aren’t high for Gatsby, I intend to see it because, as it was with Russell’s work, you know that Baz will either soar or crash – both directors manage to do both many times, often within the same film. That makes them interesting to watch.