Sunday, May 12, 2013

Review: The Great Gatsby (2013)

Luhrmann takes on Fitzgerald in the fifth film version.

Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Produced by Baz Luhrmann, Catherine Martin, Douglas Wick, Lucy Fisher, and Catherine Knapman
Written by Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce (script); F. Scott Fitzgerald (novel)
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Isla Fisher, and Jason Clarke

***1/2

Luhrmann returns from Australia with a dazzling interpretation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's great American novel. Narrating this tragic tale is Nick Carraway (Maguire), a young, well-to-do man trying to make his own way by selling bonds in New York City. He takes up residence next to the mysterious millionaire Jay Gatsby (DiCaprio), who throws lavish parties on the weekends for all of the city's finest to attend (uninvited, of course). As the two men begin to socialize, Gatsby takes Nick into his confidence, and he arranges a meeting with Daisy (Mulligan), Nick's cousin. Unfortunately, this threesome brings the attentions of others, notably her husband Tom (Edgerton). The clash of these old and new relationships leads to a catastrophic conclusion to this classic story of miserable, wealthy people.

While the film doesn't quite reach the elevated heights of its source material, Luhrmann does provide interesting visuals and musical choices. Moreover, the energy and sheer opulence of the production fluctuates, with the driving force being the performances of these iconic characters. Everything comes together as best as it can, but the film can't turn the rich passages of Fitzgerald's prose into a similar success. It's still a solid effort, though. DiCaprio sustains Gatsby's enigmatic persona, while layering him with subtle flourishes of his character's torment. Maguire gives Nick the perceptiveness and openness that form his character. Of course, Mulligan has a difficult task in bringing Daisy's sing-song voice and playful mannerisms to life, which she does effectively. Edgerton is also worth mentioning, giving Tom strength and dim-wittedness in an impressive accent. The sets and costumes are grand, the music is bold, and the performances are admirable all round. Essentially, the film is a worthy version of the novel, even if it's not in the same league as the revered classic.

Oscar Potential: Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Original Song ("Young and Beautiful"), Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Sound Mixing

16 comments:

  1. I literally just finished my review a couple of minutes ago. We agree on the rating on this one Josh, you're right, not exactly a classic like the novel. I agree about the Oscar potential, esp. Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, and Best Original Song. I'm so addicted Young and Beautiful!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad we agree on this one Ruth. I'd love to see it nominated in those categories! :)

      Delete
  2. I saw the film earlier today w/ Iron Man 3. It's flawed but I enjoyed it. It's got everything I want in a Luhrmann film and I had a hell of a time as I'm pulling for an Oscar nod for Leo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same here man. I'd love for Leo to get nominated, but I think he has a better shot with The Wolf of Wall Street.

      Delete
  3. I'll be seeing it soon, I'm glad you liked certain things about it.
    Looking at your ratings on letterboxd, seems you liked Luhrmann's new film a lot more than the 1974 adaptation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely. I watched the '74 version soon after I finished the novel, and I forced myself to get through it. I think it was miscast, and I found it very dull. Needless to say, it lived up to its negative hype.

      I actually want to see Luhrmann's version again, so it was a huge improvement for me. Can't wait to hear your thoughts on it!

      Delete
  4. I'm seeing this Wednesday. SO EXCITED!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Saving this review for after I see the movie. I know it's traditional to read reviews before seeing a film, but I like to keep an open mind. ;-) I can't wait to read your thoughts.

    Now that you and Ruth -- two of my top go-to reviewers -- have posted about it, I'm even more anxious to see this movie. I don't mind if it doesn't live up to the novel or even to the original film. I'm just hoping to have a good time at the theater.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much for the kind words! I had a lot of fun at this film. Hope you do too.

      If you mean the '74 version with Redford and Farrow, I'd say this version is much better than the old one. For instance, I give the 2013 version 4/5 and the 1974 one .5/5 (half a star out of 5). I thought the new one captured the spirit of the novel better.

      Delete
  6. It's a fun-looking and sounding movie, but the story leaves a bunch left to be desired. Good review Josh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Dan. It's definitely fun, but it doesn't handle the story as well the novel.

      Delete
  7. Hooray! A positive nod to this film...finally! It undeniably doesn't live up to the classic novel, but many think it's a novel that will never be successfully adapted to screen. So, people kind of have preconceived notions on this one, especially when Luhrmann's name was attached to it. For a modern recreation and interpretation, it held my attention. Great review, Josh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I really enjoyed this version, and I can't wait to see it again.

      Yeah, I agree with that, especially having seen the awful version with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow.

      Delete
  8. I think I'll wait for DVD, this doesn't look like Luhrman's strongest work and to top it all it has McGuire in it :/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha. I haven't seen Strictly Ballroom yet, but I'd rank Gatsby at #3 behind Moulin Rouge! and Romeo + Juliet.

      Delete