The Great Gatsby sucks

[Hammock Parties]

.

The trailers for this made it seem like the greatest thing EVER.

Now topping out at 42%

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_great_gatsby_2012/

Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby" is a tale told idiotically, full of noise and furor, signifying next to nothing.

The production is not insipid, let's give it that. An exercise in absurdist excess, this fourth screen adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel, with Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role, means to dramatize the excesses of the Jazz Age, with hints of Weimar decadence thrown in for bad measure.

But that's a banality by this late date, and it's as far as Mr. Luhrmann goes in making sense of the book. The film's only governing principle is maximalism—everything has been made as big as possible, apart from conversational interludes, when big feelings are displayed, like bullet points, by actors striking static poses.

What's intractably wrong with the film is that there's no reality to heighten; it's a spectacle in search of a soul. For all of its glittery fragmentation, "Moulin Rouge!" came around to moments of genuine passion. None of these new trappings means a thing because the people who populate them are stylish sticks, unsinged by the spark of life.

That's almost surely not the fault of the actors, for the director turns them into lifelike props. Mr. DiCaprio, who's no more comfortable with the phrase "old sport" than Robert Redford was in the previous version, is elaborately sincere when he isn't frowning like Jack Nicholson; being charming like, well, Leonardo DiCaprio, or being mysterious, except that people who are genuinely mysterious don't look mysterious. Carey Mulligan's Daisy is either languorous or amorous, not a lot in between. Mr. Maguire's Nick is cheerlessly impressionable. Joel Edgerton's Tom is charmlessly brutish. Elizabeth Debicki's Jordan Baker is a flouncing cipher. And Mr. Luhrmann uses Amitabh Bachchan, a legendary star in his native India, to make the Jewish gangster Meyer Wolfshiem a leering pillowbiterin.

Given the lifelessness of the enterprise, there's little point in belaboring its failure to convey the novel's themes, let alone the emotional and social resonance of what has come to be considered a masterpiece of world literature. Although the hero created himself out of the whole cloth of romantic yearning, we see almost nothing of that self-creation, only the conflicted result. Although the Nick of the novel arrives at a new and tragic understanding of the American Dream, the Nick on screen can't be more than an earnest observer, since any vestige of the story's tragic sense has been replaced by melodramatic sadness.

This dreadful film even derogates the artistry of Fitzgerald, who wrote "The Great Gatsby" while living on Long Island and in Europe. In a deviation from the book that amounts to a calumny against literary history, Nick, the author's surrogate, is discovered in a psychiatric hospital where, as an aging alcoholic, he struggles to comprehend the vanished figure at the center of the long-ago story, and finally completes his treatment by writing the novel. It's literature as therapy, and Gatsby as Rosebud.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud

It's a well done film, albeit, slow. Eastwood's an amazing director and composer and DiCaprio is totally convincing. In the end, I just don't think the subject matter is all that interesting to today's audience.

I feel the same way about J. Edgar as I do Good Night and Good Luck. The latter was a very good film as well (with six Oscar noms) but it's really hard for me to sit through period piece dramas.

Now, L.A. Confidential on the other hand, I could watch every week.

I loved Good Night and Good Luck. I grabbed a rental copy because the subject matter fascinates me and was blown away by how well crafted it was. A pleasant surprise. I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in journalism.

[bowener]

I watched this last night, and I still am not sure how I feel about it. It is obviously heavily stylized, and with that being said, calling out the movie for using modern hip hop is more or less pointless. This isn't marketed as an authentic representation of NYC in the 20s. If you went into this film without any knowledge of the director and his previous films (especially Romeo and Juliet), then I feel you have no room to argue about his style of filming. I liked how he represented his world for the most part, but there were a lot of things I really disliked. Several times throughout the film there was some terrible CGI work done. I am confused by it because there was some good work as well, and so I do not know if it was done for a purpose or not (poor resolution of certain characters such as the black trumpeter when it featured him playing - but only in some shots and not others). This may just be me missing something, but it bothered me. There were also the obviously awful green screen shots, but again that may just be my taste (like when they are in front of JG's house going up the monstrous stairs.

Overall I liked the performances, but I just don't know how I feel about the rest I suppose.

[Setsuna]

Originally Posted by frazod

Apparently she knows that rap sucks shit and has no place in a movie about the ****ING 1920S.

Ok demographics wise we know people your age have the most money BUT they also have children who in turn spend your money on simple things like going to the movies, so in actuality movie wise, those children have your buying power when it comes to movies and this is why that movie chose that to pull in your children. Also most children don't have any sense and adore rap.

Originally Posted by Bowser

She knows more about how to put together a movie than you do, apparently.

I don't know about that. I don't like rap personally but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the great acting of Dicaprio as he has been on fire lately.

[DaKCMan AP]

Going to see it tonight, non-3D.

[Setsuna]

My sister absolute loved it and said true to the book. The rap was a non factor and wasn't placed in the wrong setting in terms of putting it during an emotional scene.

[DaKCMan AP]

We both enjoyed the movie. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet, so I can't compare the movie to the literature.

[Micjones]

I went to see this yesterday and absolutely loved it.
Everything from the story, to the cinematography, to the score.

Best film I've seen in a while.

[Discuss Thrower]

Just saw it. Unsurprised how it was shot as its a Baz Lurhmann joint. I thought it was well acted and the plot is spot on about how Gatsby embodies the American Dream.. but only if you knew that going in.

The music I felt was Lurhmann's attempt to "shock" us an audience the same way people of the 1920s would be shocked with jazz music and attitudes.