acsc1312 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Moulin Rouge. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 And I used to think you had good taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsc1312 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 And I used to think you had good taste. I usually do. MR was just insufferable for me. McGregor was horribly miscast and it was just annoying. Kidman was great though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I think Ewan's pretty great in it, but y'know, whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsc1312 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 It's the only film that I don't like him in. Who knows, maybe I'll give it another shot in a couple years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 MR suffers from Baz not trusting his style enough, so he overdoes it in places. It's still entertaining, just too OTT occasionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmasterclay Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I agree with aDIM about McGuire, for me he's really the only thing that held this movie back from being truly excellent and made it settle for merely very, very good. Nick Carraway is too important and likable of a character to be played like that. I hate to bash the guy because he seems so, so nice, but he held back the original Spider-Man trilogy a bit too. If Garfield had hypothetically played Parker in Spider Man 1 and 2, they would be up there with some of the better blockbusters of all time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I thought Maguire was quite good in it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I onwy speak the twuth! I ONWY SPEAK THE TWUTH! Toulouze (sp?) was glorious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I usually do. MR was just insufferable for me. McGregor was horribly miscast and it was just annoying. Kidman was great though MR is glorious. Edititng is pitch perfect, costumes, songs, chemistry, acting. seriously, how can anyone NOT melt during the Medley, Come What May,etc? And how awesome editting in Roxanne was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Those parts are great. There are other areas where it feels a bit forced: the intro to Moulin Rouge with the step-printed slo-mo and the repeated shots, etc, the kazoo/"comedic" SFX, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Those parts are great. There are other areas where it feels a bit forced: the intro to Moulin Rouge with the step-printed slo-mo and the repeated shots, etc, the kazoo/"comedic" SFX, etc. Those parts don`t reach the absolute attrocity of Nuclear Boo Galadriel in FOTR and that awful scene doesn`t make FOTR a less of a masterpiece. MR is a masterpiece. ADF says so too. There. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Those parts don`t reach the absolute attrocity of Nuclear Boo Galadriel in FOTR and that awful scene doesn`t make FOTR a less of a masterpiece. MR is a masterpiece. ADF says so too. There. Fortunately I don't take ADF's opinion into account when I see something then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattmav45 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Yeah, to me Maguire was perfect as the observer/narrator standing off to the side.Taking everything in as an observer seemed to fit his personality well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBravo69 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Love love love this!! Daisy <3 A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted May 15, 2013 Author Share Posted May 15, 2013 I thought Maguire was quite good in it. I thought he got better as the movie went along. I liked him in this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gary Scott Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 I'm usually not on the side of the film snobs of this site but I really liked it. Dicaprio, Edgerton and especially Tobey were all great. 4/5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webslinger Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Baz Luhrmann's take on The Great Gatsby is good, if unspectacular. Any adaptation was going to be extremely hard-pressed to come anywhere near the power of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel, but despite some questionable stylistic choices and small nuances and lines that are skipped over, Luhrmann succeeds in staying true to the spirit of the novel, and doesn't completely miss the point of it the way that the 1974 version did. As is the case with Luhrmann's other films, the most noteworthy aspects are the visual ones, as the sets and costumes are spectacular, and the cinematography is impressive and utilizes the 3D format well. All the basics of Fitzgerald's story are there, and the drama within these events is generally well-pitched. The place where the film occasionally falls off-track is when it deviates significantly from the text, as the framing device doesn't work, the words on the screen are an odd touch, and the anachronistic music choices don't work with the otherwise largely period-specific setting; the original story and the film's instances of approaching it straight work well enough that none of these embellishments were necessary. Leonardo DiCaprio makes for a good Gatsby. Unlike Robert Redford, he actually seems interested in being involved with the film, and he does a solid job of capturing Gatsby's idealism. His chemistry with Carey Mulligan is so-so, but that's still an improvement over the frigid connection between Redford and Mia Farrow in the earlier film. Tobey Maguire is a few years too old to play Nick, but he otherwise fares fine, as he is innocent and observant enough to portray the character's personality convincingly. Minor characters, however, are shortchanged, which means that neither Joel Edgerton as Tom nor Elizabeth Debicki as Jordan get the screen time needed to make their characters stand out as much as they do in the novel (Jordan's famous "It takes two to make an accident" scene in particular is missed). It's not a great adaptation, but it does enough well that I won't mind showing it to students at the end of what will surely be at least a dozen different instances in which I will have to teach the novel to students. B 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) Better than expected. After insufferable first 45 minutes of hysteria, that disgracefully speed through many important plot points, the quality keeps going up considerably. There's some really good stuff in there. The scene in the hotel room where Tom confronts Gatsby is the highlight of the movie. Then the car crash happens and everything after that I found to be boring. The ending really just spoonfeeds the message so even the dumbest audience member gets it. This isn't one of Leonardo DiCaprio's best performances, but he is still alright and the rest of the cast is excellent, standouts being Joel Edgerton and surprisingly Tobey Maguire. I thought he was brilliant. The 3D in this is absolutely spectacular. Some of the best I've ever seen. Add that to the good acting and a good second act, and you've got a 3/5 Edited May 16, 2013 by Jack Nevada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) Can book readers tell me what was the book point that the movie didn`t get across? What I got from the movie is that eveyrone, including Gatsby, was shallow but he was shallow and pure, totlaly pathetic and yet endearing. Leo`s trully the king of onion peel characters in commercial movies. Haven't seen the movie so couldn't tell you, but every character in the novella is shallow in varying ways. If the film captured that it's certainly on the right track, though I find it hard to believe Luhrman isn't genuinely into the party scenes where Fitzgerald was clearly satirising them. You should read the book, it's short and the language is poetic. Edited May 16, 2013 by Hatebox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
