The Great Gatsby - Remake in the Works

[sheeplady]

Unfortunately JayZ was tapped to produce the soundtrack and has to stick his awfully mediocre wife in the mix.


The Wall Street Journal gave the film a bad review. Apparently the hip hop elements in the soundtrack are the least of the films failings.
The film is described as grating, dreadful, and lifeless. It attempts to showcase the style without substance and fails to present the themes that made the novel an American classic.
If a director cannot adequately present the failings of excess and social climbing in this economic environment there's no hope for his storytelling ability.

I think I’ll go see Iron Man 3 this weekend.

The thing is, I'd totally go to see a modern interpretation of this book. But it has to be ALL OUT modern. Throw in as much hip hop as you like, modern costumes, modern homes, etc. It's a book with *timeless* messages to American culture. It's this half mis-mash that is so offensive- it's either trying to recreate that time period or not. Make up your damned mind, director. I think there are some who could pull off a mis-mash, but it's hard and it takes skill. I'm not getting a sense this film was successful at all.

The sad thing is that the audience who watches this film (if it truly is so incredibly awful) is going to walk away not understanding that this is one of the most relevant pieces of classic literature to our society today. I think a portion of people would do really good to read this and examine their own behavior or at least be hit over the head by the novel until they pass out.

 

[Chasseur]

This "book review" of the film is nicely done:
http://jezebel.com/a-great-gatsby-book-report-by-a-kid-who-only-saw-the-mo-499342823

 

[dhermann1]

On my way down town right now.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Our old friend Marc Chevalier reviews the film at the FL's Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/19257204144/?hc_location=stream

This morning, I got comped to see "The Great Gatsby". For what it's worth, here are some quick impressions:

-- Toby Maguire's overall performance: bad.

-- Leonardo DiCaprio's nonvocal performance (facial expressiveness, body language): very good.

-- Leonardo DiCaprio's vocal performance and delivery: bad.

-- The other actors'/actresses' overall performances: good.

-- The overall script: awful. The lines of narration and dialogue which don't come directly from Fitzgerald's novel are clumsy and flat.

-- One big surprise (for me): a fair amount of the movie's "filler" music is from the 1920s. Jay-Z and company didn't hog the whole thing. There's also some hybrid "electronic Dixieland" music in places. And believe it or not, the final part of Gershwin's symphonic "Rhapsody in Blue" makes a spectacular, very well-placed appearance.

-- The era: though it's supposed to be 1922, the overall look says 1927-'29. Nonetheless, some 1930s cars, radios and phones pop up for bad measure.

-- Gatsby's suits, etc.: cheap-looking "Banana Republic" stuff ... but we knew that already.

-- Nick Carraway's suits: better than Gatsby's, but underrepresented in the film.

-- Suits, etc. worn by the male extras: usually better than Gatsby's and Nick's suits. Is this a Hollywood law or something?

Overall opinion: This "Gatsby" flick is actually quite good (as in enjoyable) for its first 20 minutes. I found myself thinking, "Holy smokes: it works. I'm going to like this movie!" The scene showing Gatsby's first big party at his mansion is honestly spectacular. And then ... right after the end of that scene ... the souffle collapses and stays heavily flat (with one bright but brief upswing when Daisy meets Gatsby at Nick's rented house) for the next two hours.

If you must see "The Great Gatsby", catch the first 20 minutes and then duck out right after the Gershwin fireworks end at Gatsby's first party. That way, you won't leave disappointed.

 

[MrBern]

A Jay-Z Sighting … in 1939 Harlem
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/a-jay-z-sighting-in-1939-harlem/

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I saw ti this afternoon. I went in expecting to leave half-way through. I enjoyed it. Yes, the outfits were a modern day take on the 1920's. Yes, many cars & other items were from the 1930's. Yes the CGI was vast. But still, I enjoyed it. They actually had some music from the era in there. Rhapsody in Blue made a short appearance twice! The only thing i found absolutley horrid was the modern-day rap/hip-hop. There were some teenagers who were in the theatre & when the title of the song "let's misbehave" came on I heard several giggles.

Bottom line: Go in with an open mind. You might end up having fun.

Thanx!!!
Charlie

 

[flat-top]

A Jay-Z Sighting … in 1939 Harlem
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/a-jay-z-sighting-in-1939-harlem/

Wow! That's pretty great!

 

[dhermann1]

Saw it this evening in 3D, and I loved it. The whole thing is visually over saturated. The sets sometimes almost look like paintings. I expected to HATE the music, but I thought the music worked very well, exactly as JayZ meant it to. My only quibble, (you'll laugh), was the red Pitts stunt plane. I believe it's a 1950s design, and wildly anachronistic. Of all the many slight liberties they took with anachronistic things, that was the only one that bothered me.
The party scene is TOTALLY over the top, and just cinematic fun.
I thought Di Caprio was quite creditable as Gatsby, Maguire is very Maguireish as Nick Carraway, but this didn't bother me. And I thought Carey Mulligan was fine as Daisy, not sensational, but fine. That has to be one of the hardest roles in all literature to cast. She was very OK.
I started out not liking Joel Edgerton's Tom Buchanen, but wound up liking his performance best in the film.
I can definitely see why some people would not like this film. I don't hate ya if you hate it. Don't hate me for not hating it.

 

[dhermann1]

BTW, I found the 3D not particularly enjoyable. If you're not close to the center of the theater it may be a problem. The image doesn't look really look 3 dimensional. It looks more like a series of flat planes at different distances, just like 3D comic books do. The various random objects that come sailing at you for effect are just mildly annoying and slightly distracting. Just as soon see it in 2D.
And the CG snow flakes look like little pieces of paper torn up! Would it be that much harder to create a few standard hexagonal shapes and randomly blow them at us?

 

[justalex]

I went to see it this afternoon and I really liked it. I went in expecting two and a half hours of eye candy and thats what i got.
i think many reviewers wanted this movie to be something its not. It is not a direct adaption of the book. Its more the sets, the costumes, the props, the shots etc.

 

[The Wiser Hatter]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62370
Another review.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[ButteMT61]

The movie was a mess. To me, the first 2/3 were snooze-worthy. The last 40 mins or so was actually interesting. The music didn't work at all for me and I could have walked out at any point in the beginning. Just another 2¢.Just saw this. It's better than the movie. http://observer.com/2013/05/a-triumph-on-the-page-the-great-gatsby-founders-miserably-on-the-silver-screen/

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The movie was a mess. To me, the first 2/3 were snooze-worthy. The last 40 mins or so was actually interesting. The music didn't work at all for me and I could have walked out at any point in the beginning. Just another 2¢.Just saw this. It's better than the movie. http://observer.com/2013/05/a-trium...tsby-founders-miserably-on-the-silver-screen/

"Leonardo DiCaprio is hopeless, a little boy in his first After Six tuxedo. "

:rofl:

 

[ButteMT61]

"Leonardo DiCaprio is hopeless, a little boy in his first After Six tuxedo. ":rofl:

I thought of putting some quotes in, but there's a bunch in there. RR is on top with this one.

 

[MarkJohn]

I thought of putting some quotes in, but there's a bunch in there. RR is on top with this one.

This one made me chuckle... "there are so many close-ups that it sometimes looks like a movie about ears"

Funny review, that makes this film sound like a total train wreck... I'm still debating whether to see it for myself; though I may go and see something with more class and intelligence, like Star Trek - Into Darkness

 

[nulty]

http://observer.com/2013/05/a-trium...tsby-founders-miserably-on-the-silver-screen/

The critic makes a few good points,aside from his general dislike.Gatsby should never have been tried as a movie....not even 4 times. Hollywood has never really understood Poor Scott. Ironically very little he ever did explicitly for the screen ever made it on. But they have tried his books several times with little success. I've read most everything he did and he's not an easy read to begin with and very hard to translate to an actors lines. I understand why they did Gatsby, there are so many things going in the story. In true Hollywood fashion though, they couldn't care less about how the author told his story as long as they can steal something to commercialize....

 

[ButteMT61]

I'm going to see Oblivion today to make up for it. That tells ya somethin'
lol

 

[Captain Lex]

I definitely don't regret having seen the film, and I recommend others to do so, but I will say that "mess" and "trainwreck" are also words I've used to describe it, and fairly so!

One way in which I feel the film succeeds is it plays like the film Gatsby would have made about himself had he got into film producing (à la Howard Hughes) - it shows him as larger-than-life but extremely humble, always in the right and being wronged, and with every bell and whistle modern filmmaking can afford. Sure, the result is fairly immature motion picture, but the metastatement is quite brilliant.

 

[ButteMT61]

The metastatememt(s) are due to the book, and the movie can barely get those on screen. Sometimes you even have to see a badly done movie.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I have just returned from seeing Gatsby in 2-D. I forgot that it was in 3-D so I don't know how that difference would have or would not have affected my opinion.

A bit of background on me; I am a writer, I am very familiar with Fitzgerald's work, I have adapted others work as homage, and I have several articles -Classic Style anyone?- and one failed novel under my belt. Search Amazon for Timothy Steiner and download it to your Kindle. I am a fan of films and I moderate here at the Lounge.

The critics are all wet.

I was surprised by the film's restraint. Considering Moulin Rouge and Romeo and Juliette, this film is very straightforward. With a few changes, a framing device, the lack of a few characters, it is nearly a literal re-telling, only Lurhman restores the emotional core lacking in other versions.

I will not give away too much in expressing my opinion, but this is not a love story; this is about obsession, about a self-made-man whose immense talents are misdirected in the pursuit of a veneer of respectability and the love of a girl from his past that has come to symbolize all of this. It's about the dirty things that happen in marriage; cheating, carelessness, and the search for safety. And what happens when it all comes crashing down.

If you're distracted by whether or not a tie is the correct pattern for the time or an automobile or The Empire State Building that appears to make an entrance eight years too soon, then this is not the film for you. I've heard of critics complaining about rap music. I didn't hear any rap music in the entire film. I heard some hip-hop inspired jazz rooted in the 20s but definitely anachronistic. This is hardly the first film to do so - I seem to recall Queen in a medieval jousting film- but it is brief and works on the level that this film appears to say, in 90 years have we learned nothing?

The film opens with a setting that the stock market has reached an all time high 15,000+ anyone? - and that the parties were like no other time - Wall Street, the Jay-Z crowd, or maybe you and your friends! And the difference between the rich and poor made startingly clear in the vast wasteland between the city and the mansions around it. The music makes it a film for all time. Once again though, this is not Moulin Rogue. The music is restrained. Gatsby does not do the Charlestown rapping "Bring the Noise!"

There is a relevance to this film and it seeks to address materialism, vapidness, the corrupting nature of money perhaps too well. Wall Street both succeeded and failed at this. Geckko was a bit too alluring, wasn't he?

Gatsby's accent is artifice and that is the point. It's addressed in the film, several times, including its origin in a very sly way. Daisy seemed small compared to the woman who played Jordan. Daisy is empty and rudderless as she should be. She is also something else, traumatized; a slightly new angle to the character.

You'll have your own opinions on the performances. I was most impressed with DiCaprio. There is so much bubbling up from beneath the surface. Maguire is understated and effective. I liked the emphasis on male friendship as well.

There is not much here that is not in book. Read the book. It will take you about as much time to read the book as see the film. See what you find there.

In summation, I thought it was wonderful and I would encourage you to see it and to report back your own opinion and not the critics.