The Great Gatsby (2013)

[riczhang]

I think you're being a bit literal there - while the book is (deliberately) hazy on the details of Gatsby's wealth, there wouldn't be much drama is he only threw 'quite lavish' parties.

 

I'm just saying that there's the same disparity in the book that's in the movie. Gatsby's parties are much more lavish than he can really afford in the book as well. 

[acsc1312]

Tbh, the party scenes are kind of the best parts of the film. The one with Toby towards the beginning is one of my favorite scenes of the year.

[Jack Nevada]

Daisy was just kind of a dumb broad in the book, to put it nicely. I kinda didn't get why Gatsby would dedicate so much passion and time for a woman to whom he's obviously too good. 

[Hatebox]

Daisy was just kind of a dumb broad in the book, to put it nicely. I kinda didn't get why Gatsby would dedicate so much passion and time for a woman to whom he's obviously too good. 

 

She's a metaphor. He's chasing someone/something ethereal and trivial, like many American were/are.

[Jack Nevada]

She's a metaphor. He's chasing someone/something ethereal and trivial, like many American were/are.

Ah. Oooooh, I think I get it now. Thanks. 

[riczhang]

She's a metaphor. He's chasing someone/something ethereal and trivial, like many American were/are.

This. Daisy's ephemeral and it's Fitzgerald's way of saying America is Dead.

[acsc1312]

This. Daisy's ephemeral and it's Fitzgerald's way of saying America is Dead.

This film really let that sink in. I was disgusted at the end.

[Jack Nevada]

I tried to watch the previous adaptation with Robert Redford. Its just stunningly inept and boring and lifeless. Turned it off after 70 minutes. 

[riczhang]

This film really let that sink in. I was disgusted at the end.

I agree. Baz drives home the point in a different from the book but still makes the point regardless.

[riczhang]

I tried to watch the previous adaptation with Robert Redford. Its just stunningly inept and boring and lifeless. Turned it off after 70 minutes.

Lol, the movie was total garbage. A literal play by play of the book.

[Jack Nevada]

Lol, the movie was total garbage. A literal play by play of the book.

Tell me about it. I have never seen someone be so not present as Robert Redford in that movie. He was sleepwalking and going through the motions

[Gopher]

I quite liked it. To what degree I'm not yet sure. I think a surprisingly good comparison to the film is Watchmen- this is a very literal adaptation of the book with some excellent music and performances, except Luhrman's job here was harder than Snyder's, since Fitzgerald's world here is endlessly interpretable and the whole film feels just as well realized as Snyder's. He and the production team get the otherworldly nature of the book down. The party sequences are just dazzling, and the soundtrack adds so much to making the film feel relevant. Dicaprio gets a chance to slowly peel back the emptiness of his character and does it splendidly. He gives a tremendous performance. My favorite scene in the film is him preparing Nick's house for Daisy's arrival. There's more than a few pacing issues (the first half as a whole works better than the second) and I could have done without Nick's text covering the screen, but the fact that the film works as well as it does is almost miraculous.It's a good adaptation that sometimes borders on greatness.

[The Movie Man]

At least on opening day, the RT score left up from low 40s to close to 50...so half is good I guess???

 

*****

 

And the Audience like it is 85% > Are RT voters tough or easy voters?????

Edited May 10, 2013 by Truman Burbank

[JackO]

Honestly, I didn't think it was that bad.  I went in expecting a train wreck and only got a few cringeworthy scenes, most notably that 100 dolla bills one. Leo was good. Isla Fisher was hot. But i felt it was also long and bloated. If they cut half the scenes where the actor stares off into the camera with their moth half pen they would have got it to 2 hours. So yeah, it was alright. I give it a B.

[Travod]

Was hoping it would be better than I knew it would be, but it wasn't. The only redeeming qualities were the actress that played Jordan Baker, though sadly she wasn't in the movie enough, and parts of Leo and Jack White's and Florence + The Machine's songs. Rap was absolutely horrible and out of place in every way possible, the visuals were not as stunning as I was hoping (stupid gimmicky CGI tracking from West to East Egg and stuff)...........................

 

Really not much else to say.

[Deep Wang]

I quite liked it. To what degree I'm not yet sure. I think a surprisingly good comparison to the film is Watchmen- this is a very literal adaptation of the book with some excellent music and performances, except Luhrman's job here was harder than Snyder's, since Fitzgerald's world here is endlessly interpretable and the whole film feels just as well realized as Snyder's. He and the production team get the otherworldly nature of the book down. The party sequences are just dazzling, and the soundtrack adds so much to making the film feel relevant. Dicaprio gets a chance to slowly peel back the emptiness of his character and does it splendidly. He gives a tremendous performance. My favorite scene in the film is him preparing Nick's house for Daisy's arrival. There's more than a few pacing issues (the first half as a whole works better than the second) and I could have done without Nick's text covering the screen, but the fact that the film works as well as it does is almost miraculous.It's a good adaptation that sometimes borders on greatness.

I'm glad you brought up Watchmen, because I think that is a very apt comparison. One thing I think gets lost in all the endless adaptations, are the directors. So many times they want to stay so beholden to the source material, they don't inject any if themselves. This movie is so Luhrmann it's crazy. Just as Watchmen was very Snyder. Why can't we get more like this?

[fishstick]

This was interesting and Leo`s the best actor in the world. Seriously amazing performence. I quite liked the movie overall but it really kinda is just there when Leo isn`t on the screen. But when he is, he`s just wow. Fuckin legend.

 

I really think that this was the right way to tell the story where nothing really happens. No wonder Twitards ate it up. Applause, gushing, tons of bathroom chatter that daisy was a bitch for not playing for Team Jay,etc.

 

Want to wear what Mulligan and Debicki wore.

 

Leo would have chemistry with a cactus. And what a charisma.

[PK Tech Girl]

Leo`s the best actor in the world

 

[fishstick]

 

DDl would agree with me.

[The Movie Man]

He definitely touches on it but really not as much as I would have liked.  And it really doesn't explain where he gets his wealth from.  To have what he has in the film, to do what he does in the film, he would need Donald Trump money, not just a wealthy bootlegger kind of money.  It's all very strange.

 

 

It says that he gets it from Prohibition stuff in the film.  But that's not realistic.  The parties he throws alone would be about a million bucks in todays money.

 

 

Yep, but they had to make 1920's NY, kind of tough to do when you are showing the bird's eye view of it every other shot.

 

Well doesn't the book talk about getting $ from Parents and then losing that and then getting more $ after his friend dies...where he might have been smarter with the money after losing it all once before....

 

also, haven't seen the movie yet but wondering if the mystery of the rags to riches tale plays where he does everything over the top...