The Great Gatsby Reviews

We are a little behind on our review of Baz Luhrman's The Great Gatsby but nonetheless wanted to provide our review. Unlike other movie reviews we thought it would be interested for Steve and I to both write a review, independent of each others opinion, to an overall review. Two sets of eyes are always better than one.

Ryan Cazalet's Review: 

Borne Ceaselessly Into The Past

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." The famous last words of F. Scott Fitzgerald's masterpiece. It's a perfect metaphor for the current state of Hollywood in that we are seeing familiar characters and franchises returning to theaters. The past comes, once more, roaringly to life in the latest adaptation of The Great Gatsby, a film that left me feeling refreshed and greatly entertained.

How do you adapt a timeless piece of literature? Especially considering there have been 4 feature films already made (most notably 1974's Gatsby starring Robert Redford). The answer, according to Baz Luhrmann, was to add some flair to it. The director of Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge has a signature style of film-making that some people love and some people hate. I have to imagine this is the reason for the mixed reviews of 2013's The Great Gatsby.


Because if the reviews of this film were based solely on the acting and the loyalty to the book, then I think they would have been overwhelmingly positive. I left the movie feeling like I had just seen an original replica, if that makes any sense. It felt like an original film, something that I had not see or known before. But obviously its a replica of Fitzgerald's classic novel.

 I personally thought the movie was exceptional, most notably the acting. Every actor put everything into their role, from Nick Carraway to Jordan Baker to Daisy Buchannon to Gatsby himself.  Leo and Carey Mulligan in particular stand out as the star-crossed former lovers.

If you recall my summer movie preview, I said that Leo has become the best actor of his generation, a statement that is absolutely true. I originally wrote that he is the best actor alive, but the co-editor in chief convinced me to just leave it as "best actor of his generation". Regardless, Leo dominates as Jay Gatsby. He is able to bring Gatsby to life with more than just his words. His facial gestures and his non-verbal cues are able to show the audience the house of cards that exists within Gatsby. 

The cinematography was without a doubt a little over the top but I believe it added to the film. I emphasize the word film because that's how we must view this latest interpretation. You cannot judge this film as a straight comparison to the book, rather you must see it as its own entity. The story of The Great Gatsby is timeless, it cannot be improved. But the film Gatsby can be and this was achieved not only with the stunning visuals but the amazing soundtrack and music. 

Its no wonder that Jay-Z is responsible for the soundtrack because its yet another example of how anything Hov touches turns to gold. The soundtrack is beautifully haunting and chilling and perfectly sets the tone of the film. The standouts are Lana Del Rey's "Young and Beautiful" Beyonce and Andre 3000's cover of Amy Winehouse's "Back to Black" and Emeli Sandé's cover of "Crazy in Love". Not to mention a few tracks from Jay-Z himself. 

A film, in my opinion, is comprised of the 3 S's; story, sight and sound. The Great Gatsby delivers all three and creates a unique vision for one of America's greatest pieces of fiction. There's no denying the cultural impact of the book so therefore comparing the two is a waste of time. The movie is very true to the story so if you enjoyed the book I think you will enjoy the movie. The story is virtually the exact same, its the delivery that is different. 

I have a saying that I really enjoy regarding the art of story telling. Everyone has a story to tell, what separates great stories from boring ones is how you tell it. Baz Luhrman has given us a fascinating film and has provided movie goers an opportunity to experience a great story through a fun and captivating delivery. 

I don't know whether this film will hold up as a classic the way the book did. Certainly the movie will not stand as one of the greatest of all time the way the book has. But I wonder if this will be the definitive version of the film and whether or not there will be another made down the road. I'm sure there will be but I don't think there should be. This version has taken the story to such a high point that I don't think it can go anywhere but down. 

At times it was great, at times it was too stylish but overall I thoroughly enjoyed it. Time will tell whether we can move on or if we will once again be borne ceaselessly into the past. 

Grade: A-

Steve Coulter's Review:

The Man Behind The Curtain

Like any masterful puppeteer, Jay Gatsby — born James Gatz — doesn’t allow his audience to see him pulling the strings behind stage. His craft is perfect, decadent and deceptive all in one quixotic breath.

When we flip through the pages of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel, The Great Gatsby, we imagine a man who can never be broken or discovered, yet we find his vulnerability mimicking our own and that’s why we are drawn to him.

He’s not actually a gangster, but he is certainly illusive, self-protected and immune to the superfluous lifestyle that engrossed the 1920s. And like so many characters and people who are ultimately a product of their time and place, Gatsby, or Gatz or whatever you’d like to call him (I like thinking of him as an Oz type magician), can’t escape who he is and where is now, and that’s why he clings so desperately to the past.

He reaches for the past but it is gone and that’s the tragedy of the story.

In Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation, Gatsby (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) is equally as self-indulgent and mysterious to the casual observer but there is a facet that seems off-kilter, if even slightly — he’s staging this production; this grand carnival of excessive wealth, but doesn’t really care for any of it.

Luhrmann doesn’t stress this point enough and that’s where his Gatsby falls short compared to Fitzgerald’s character.

He seems distracted all the time and isn’t careful enough in his plots. Rather than being blind to what’s going on behind the stage, the audience can see some of, if not all, the strings being pulled, and it’s upsetting because this is the type of grand illusion that shouldn’t have any spoilers. The stage production should be as immaculate as the man’s face who is presenting the trick.

We’re supposed to be lost, but we’re not. In this film, the audience is shockingly grounded, while everything else flies around whimsically in the air, rebuffing the laws of gravity.

The knit-picking of Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby may seem over done at this point, but it has to be voiced when breaking down the movie: the Jay Z-produced score is distracting, the cinematography is imbalanced and intentionally exaggerated and the editing of scenes is misguided.

What ultimately saves Luhrmann from himself is the fact his adaptation of the plot isn’t all that adaptive — he doesn’t alter the characters or the story and remains loyal to Fitzgerald. While his visual graphic style can be felt pulsating throughout the film, he eases into the story at around the hour mark and lets Fitzgerald do the work from there. And this is what makes the film memorable — it gets better as it goes along, eschewing what could have been an absolute train wreck based on the first hour extravaganza.

F. Scott Fitzgerald’s story is what makes the film standout; nothing that Luhrmann does in particular as a director. 

Yes, Leo is excellent as Gatsby and Carey Mulligan is well cast as Daisy and the rotation of side characters were worth applauding, especially Jason Clarke as George Wilson, Amitabh Bachchan’s Meyer Wolfsheim and Elizabeth Debicki as Jordan Baker (although her storyline with Nick was significantly underplayed).

Tobey Maguire surprisingly played a convincing wallflower as narrator Nick Carraway, but his confessional reading of the script to a physiatrist in Minnesota wasn’t exactly a creative mode of storytelling. If there’s one aspect Luhrmann deserves to have some reprieve, it’s the fact it isn’t exactly easy to convey Nick’s presence in the story without him verbally expressing how he felt about what he saw during his stay in Long Island in 1922.

As for the rest of the cast, Joel Edgerton’s Tom Buchanan was an unsettling force of brutish glib, while Isla Fisher’s Mytyle Wilson was refreshingly electric as the clichéd damsel in distress.

Despite all of this praise, there is something countering the flair and illumination that overtakes this movie every step of the way, and its Luhrmann’s chokehold on what our eyes see.

One has to respect him for his style and not breaking it here — no criticism should make a filmmaker change what he or she has as a vision; however, it doesn’t change the fact his narrative (co-written with Craig Pearce) still has flaws.

It’s hard to write the perfect adaptation, similar to how it’s impossible to uphold a grand illusion such as Gatsby holds to so preciously in both the book and this film. However, it can be done (see: David Fincher with Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club and Stanley Kubrick with Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange).

Compared to those two films, and many other better adaptations, Luhrmann’s movie can’t reap the highest of praises. Yes, it’s better than the 1974 version, but is that its entire legacy is capable of achieving? Possibly.

Is it worth seeing? Absolutely.

Is it timeless? I wouldn’t say it comes anywhere close to this distinction.

Grade: B-