Tweet
My wife is a big fan of Baz Luhrmann movies, and has been dying to see this one. Date night fell through to go see it in theaters, and then when it came out on Pay Per View we decided to wait just a big longer to rent on BD and get full high end HD audio and video in my theater. By the time we rented, there were well established reviews, many less than favorable, and the movie has an overall "rotten" rating of 49% on the Tomatometer. (I do note, however, that the previous well-known rendition of the movie with Robert Redford only has a 37% rating) So we went into the movie with lowered expectations. I'll also mention that I'm a big fan of architecture and styling of the 20's-40's.
Overall, the movie was better than we thought it would be. It definitely has many Baz Luhrmann signature elements in it, including big music and eye-popping sets. One of my biggest complaints about Baz, however, held true on this movie, as the first act had a particularly discombobulated feel to it. This is most evident in Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge!", where the first act has long moments that are frantic, anxious, manic, and schizophrenic. I get the sense that this is from the director and/or editor being influenced by cocaine during this part of the production, although of course I have no evidence to support that theory. It just has a similar feel to elements of "The West Wing" which was also cocaine-influenced through Aaron Sorkin. After the first act, though, both "Moulin Rouge!" and "Great Gatsby" even out into comprehensible stories.
To be fair, I actually have not read the classic novel upon which the story's based. But from what I know of it, and previous films I've seen, Baz does seem to do a decent job of telling it. His theatrics, while very prominent in the film, (thankfully) do not override the very good story, which is the true greatness of the film. I thought the acting was pretty well done, although I have reservations about the casting. The main "antagonist" of sorts, the rival husband from across the bay, is so-so, and I always have reservations about Leonardo DiCaprio in the role of established literature characters, both fiction and non. He has developed into a truly AMAZING actor, but his unchanging boyish looks and short, youthful stature I think gives him a limited stage presence that a larger or more grizzled character can pull off. Even Tom Cruise, who is rather short, does action very well, for example. And compare DiCaprio with Redford in the exact same role of Gatsby, just in the issue of stage presence.
The music is pretty good. As is Luhrmann's style, he tries to morph modern music to his work, which has some success in this work. I understand what it is he was trying to do. And there still is some of the classic jazz that really defined Fitzgerald's work and that era. It was bold to have Jay-Z produce the soundtrack to the film, and I think it did turn out pretty good.
It was worth watching this on BD. Some very deep and full sound effects in the film, in addition to the music, and as mentioned, many scenes are visually opulent.
So, I wasn't overwhelmed by the film, but it was worth a watch. Maybe a purchase for me when it is deeply discounted by vendors, which I suspect will happen rather rapidly, actually, based on the not-great reviews this film has received. I give it :35: out of :5:
Overall, the movie was better than we thought it would be. It definitely has many Baz Luhrmann signature elements in it, including big music and eye-popping sets. One of my biggest complaints about Baz, however, held true on this movie, as the first act had a particularly discombobulated feel to it. This is most evident in Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge!", where the first act has long moments that are frantic, anxious, manic, and schizophrenic. I get the sense that this is from the director and/or editor being influenced by cocaine during this part of the production, although of course I have no evidence to support that theory. It just has a similar feel to elements of "The West Wing" which was also cocaine-influenced through Aaron Sorkin. After the first act, though, both "Moulin Rouge!" and "Great Gatsby" even out into comprehensible stories.
To be fair, I actually have not read the classic novel upon which the story's based. But from what I know of it, and previous films I've seen, Baz does seem to do a decent job of telling it. His theatrics, while very prominent in the film, (thankfully) do not override the very good story, which is the true greatness of the film. I thought the acting was pretty well done, although I have reservations about the casting. The main "antagonist" of sorts, the rival husband from across the bay, is so-so, and I always have reservations about Leonardo DiCaprio in the role of established literature characters, both fiction and non. He has developed into a truly AMAZING actor, but his unchanging boyish looks and short, youthful stature I think gives him a limited stage presence that a larger or more grizzled character can pull off. Even Tom Cruise, who is rather short, does action very well, for example. And compare DiCaprio with Redford in the exact same role of Gatsby, just in the issue of stage presence.
The music is pretty good. As is Luhrmann's style, he tries to morph modern music to his work, which has some success in this work. I understand what it is he was trying to do. And there still is some of the classic jazz that really defined Fitzgerald's work and that era. It was bold to have Jay-Z produce the soundtrack to the film, and I think it did turn out pretty good.
It was worth watching this on BD. Some very deep and full sound effects in the film, in addition to the music, and as mentioned, many scenes are visually opulent.
So, I wasn't overwhelmed by the film, but it was worth a watch. Maybe a purchase for me when it is deeply discounted by vendors, which I suspect will happen rather rapidly, actually, based on the not-great reviews this film has received. I give it :35: out of :5:
Comment