User reviews

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.

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.

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.

Whoever 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.

Only 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.

OK, 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?

THE 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.

The sound director of this movie should never find work again.

Baz 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.

I'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.

The 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.

For 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).

The use of modern music (rap, EDM, etc.) that sounds nothing like the Roaring '20s is jarring. It rips you from the story, and it's hard to get back into it afterward. In some scenes, it's like watching a parody because the mismatch is flat-out laughable. Using era music for an era piece would've added a lot of character to the movie. And this movie, which I otherwise loved, deserved better.

Don't get me wrong; I do like those songs, and I get why the soundtrack was a hit. They just shouldn't have crashed a movie that's set in the 1920s. The distraction they caused did nothing but damage -- lots of it.

Watching 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.

This 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.

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.

The 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.