Le Saboteur said:
$300-million in global box office and counting. Not bad.
I agree. The markets (are almost) always right. It's a solid flic and I'm glad it's a success.
Le Saboteur said:
It got twenty bucks from me the other day.
So presumably you saw it in 3-D? If so, any observations? I only saw it in 2 but will buy it in 3-D for home.
Le Saboteur said:
This Gatsby doesn't rise to the greatness of Moulin Rouge, but it's certainly leagues beyond Australia.
Agreed. After watching
Australia I was WTF -- that film was more made-for-TV-movie than Luhrmann. [Jokingly] I now suspect that Luhrmann made
Australia to use a basis for his successful lobbying effort to have the Australian tax credits rules changes so that having a film set in Australia was no longer a requirement for the incentive.
Le Saboteur said:
I liked it (a lot), but it felt constrained. It's almost as if Baz wanted to break into the heady atmosphere of his Belle Epoque Paris, but was reigned in by the source material.
I've always said that
Moulin Rouge went too far -- that it is Thespians gone awry. I'm a
Romeo and Juliet guy and I love DiCaprio now having another fantastic performance in a Luhrmann film.
As for feeling constrained, I think I can see what you're saying -- for all the talk of being true to the text there was still the desire to pull in elements from Trimalchio and the critical reaction to the sanitarium element, for example, has been largely negative.
Quick aside on the sanitarium. Narratively I don't have a problem with it except that the it's dead air on screen -- my problem is that it doesn't square with the Book. Yes, Nick drinks a lot throughout the course of the story but at the end he doesn't run from New York with his tail between his legs - he leaves strong, rejecting the Eastern scene. Putting Nick in a hospital weakens an already pretty weak Nick Carraway as played by Tobey Maguire. That said, I'm sitting here with a hard copy of the Love Letters of F. Scott and Zelda sitting on the shelf above me so I get what Luhrmann was trying to do with the sanitarium -- as way of telling the story -- it just didn't work in my opinion.
Le Saboteur said:
The costumes and visuals were A+ as always. Tom is still a fabulous bigot, and the underlying conflicts between old money vs. new money, race and power, and doomed romance are still there. They do get lost amidst the fabulous parties and visuals, but the final scenes at The Plaza stand out.
Agreed on Tom and the costumes. However, I had several nits with several scenes. First, the Plaza. I did not like the set. That suite should have been white and classically furnished. That room felt all wrong and I wish they could've of done a better job of pulling the wedding references from the novel more into the scene. Another nit, I think they botched the valley of ashes. Guys using pick axes on coal ash? Come on. All the random sufferers in the valley looked weak and staged. Next nit, towards the end, when Nick and Daisy are back home and Gatsby is outside, not that I think there's any happy resolution/reconciliation for the couple, but I recall that scene being set in the novel with Tom and Daisy in the kitchen -- and that's where I would have kept it. As for Gatsby outside, if I were the director I would have consumed 5+ seconds of screen time and had Gatsby do a long walk down the gravel drive away from the house with the receding mansion over his shoulder
Le Saboteur said:
Gotta say, I have to watch the film again to see where I end up on the Elizabeth Debicki casting choice. With those big eyes and her blonde hair, I feel that she didn't make the cut for playing Daisy and got Jordan Baker. The actress who played Baker in the Redford-Farrow adaptation gave my favorite performance because I loved her commanding voice and she looked like a golfer. Debicki really didn't deliver on either count -- but like I said, I need to watch it again.
