The Great Gatsby

Saw it yesterday as well, to me even at 2hours and 15mins it felt like it dragged on. All and all not a bad movie, the visual and colors of the movie were spot on. The updated retro music was a cool touch, I thought the beginning of the movie was just a Jay-Z/Beyonce music video.

Muligan_sl said:

Yeah... he's pretty much Howard Hughes in every film. I really think he did his best work in Catch Me If You Can.

Click to expand...

No love for The Departed?

I liked him in Blood Diamond too. Looking forward to seeing this at some point.

He was totally Howard Hughes in Blood Diamond.

the trailer looks great with the sound off. im worried the music will be complete shit. i swear the trailer has like Muse in it or something? if there is modern, shitty music in this. count me out

It's ALL modern music, no period pieces. There was even dubstep. Let the rustles flow.

Lvl_32_Bard_LFG_sl said:

the trailer looks great with the sound off. im worried the music will be complete shit. i swear the trailer has like Muse in it or something? if there is modern, shitty music in this. count me out

Click to expand...

The anachronistic music makes the first quarter of the movie pretty unbearable. It isn't done in an interesting way (Bioshock Infiniteanyone?) and is just shoved into every party scene. But that shit goes away entirely in the second half and the movie becomes decent towards the end.

Muligan_sl said:

Yeah... he's pretty much Howard Hughes in every film. I really think he did his best work in Catch Me If You Can.

Click to expand...

He wasn't Howard Hughes in Titanic, Gilbert Grape, Shutter Island, inception, or Django Unchained...

Although you could argue that the character he played in Titanic was the same character he played in the Quick and the Dead and Romeo...

But he still has a fuckton more range than say Denzel Washington or Tom Cruise, who play themselves, respectively, in pretty much every movie.

Antarius_sl said:

He wasn't Howard Hughes in Titanic, Gilbert Grape, Shutter Island, inception, or Django Unchained...

Although you could argue that the character he played in Titanic was the same character he played in the Quick and the Dead and Romeo...

But he still has a fuckton more range than say Denzel Washington or Tom Cruise, who play themselves, respectively, in pretty much every movie.

Click to expand...

You missed the quintessential "I can only act one way but people still think I'm amazing" actor. Robert DeNiro. Most overrated actor of all time.

Antarius_sl said:

He wasn't Howard Hughes in Titanic, Gilbert Grape, Shutter Island, inception, or Django Unchained...

Although you could argue that the character he played in Titanic was the same character he played in the Quick and the Dead and Romeo...

But he still has a fuckton more range than say Denzel Washington or Tom Cruise, who play themselves, respectively, in pretty much every movie.

Click to expand...

I disagree, I think he essentially has two acting styles. What you've seen in The Aviator, Shutter Island, Inception, etc. Then you have Titanic, Quick and the Dead, Romeo, etc. as you mentioned. Don't get me wrong, again I went to the movie because of the story and I trust in Leo choosing to be involved with the best movies. Catch Me If You Can and Gangs of New York are two of my all time favorites. I am just stating that "Gatsby" is too iconic of a role for him. It's like casting anyone to play Doc Holliday. You can't, you have to be a strong character actor to pull him off, especially now that Val Kilmer owned the role. I think Leo should have been the narrator and someone a little stronger of a character actor should have been cast as Gatsby. It's not a deal breaker for me but annoyed me a little... I think it was more Tobey fault than Leo's.

Absolutely loved it. A modernised version of the book. I read the book about 10 years ago but I always remembered it fondly. The movie was just as good, Dicaprio was great as usual. For me it was the best movie this year, easily.

In my opinion it never stood a chance with critics all of them were always going to go the hipster route because something that belongs to them was modernised for EVERYONE not just the 'old school crowd.' Fucken great movie.

And if anyone is inferring that Dicaprio isn't an amazing actor they are seriously kidding themselves. From Romeo and Juliet to Blood diamond to Shutter Island to Man in the Iron mask he is easily one of the best actors in Hollywood.

DMK_sl said:

to Man in the Iron mask

Click to expand...

You lost me right there.

Ooo did I have u there for a second big boy?

Khane_sl said:

You missed the quintessential "I can only act one way but people still think I'm amazing" actor. Robert DeNiro. Most overrated actor of all time.

Click to expand...

Taxi Driver? Raging Bull? God Father 2? All the characters are very different, and he conveys emotions and subtleties extremely well in all of them. He's a great actor, the problem was he got old and stopped thinking he needed direction--and that's when his acting became terrible.

I think the problem is a lot of people judge an actor by the different roles he can play--but you also have to judge them on how well they can play the roles that suit them (There is such a thing as putting even great actors in the wrong roles). Does Dicaprio usually play one type of character? Sure. But he plays that kind of character extremely well. He conveys emotion and invites sympathy from the audience, those two things arereallythe measure of an actor. Any actor that can do that, in a single role, is a great actor. Hell, look at Morgan Freeman, he has not played anything but Morgan Freeman--but he makes the movies he is in really good, because he can connect the character with the audience. Was there anything different between Morgan Freeman in Driving Miss Daisy and Million Dollar Baby? Nope. But he brought an emotional core to both movies.

In short, a lot of people confuse depth, with breadth. I'd much prefer an actor who can do one type of role *exceptionally* well, then an actor who can swap characters and do everything mediocre. Now, there are a few actors that can do that--Gary Oldman, for example, is one. But that's not what makes him great, what makes him great is that he can bind the audience to the character. (And yes, it's pretty freaking difficult to do that--watch a bunch of B movies, it's not a skill a lot of people posses.)

DMK_sl said:

A modernised version of the book.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't a modernized version of the book take place in modern times? This was my problem with it. The settings, the dialog, the costumes... It's all 1920's. Then you have the music, which is all modern. Every time I heard Jay-Z or Beyonce open their mouths I was instantly transported back to 2013. Then they'd shuddup and in a minute or two I'd be transported back to the 1920's.

Had they used period music, this movie would have been much better IMO. It was still pretty good, though.

Finally got around to seeing this. It diverges from the book quite a bit in terms of particulars but the core story elements are there. Nick becomes much more of a cypher since you don't really get into his head as much as you do when reading the book. Baz tried to correct this by having the narration elements, but they just weren't enough and really only served to move the central plot rather than fleshing Nick out.

I really liked the addition of the "modern" soundtrack because it conveys 'wild party' to audiences much better than period jazz could have. The Fergie song is by far the most successful at this because it uses tropes from the 20s but in a very club-friendly modern way. I think with some better musical direction they could have created a real club/hip hop musical out of this but whatever.

I saw the old Redford version 20 years ago when I read it in high school and that was far too somber and didn't do a good job of conveying the themes of the book: What it is to be "American" in terms of pulling yourself up by any means, class struggles versus endless opportunism, etc.

This version also does a great job of showing that Daisy Buchanan is one of the biggest cunts in all of American fiction. She is a deplorable spoiled brat without any real care for anyone and this really comes out in the film nicely while still tricking the audience into seeing in her what Gatsby sees in her. Remember that she actively rejects him when he is poor, marries a horrible man just for money and prestige, has a kid who she completely ignores (note that she is mentioned in the first scene after Nick is done drooling over Tom and then you never see the kid until the very end when the Buchanan's are escaping from the "trauma"), and shows exactly zero remorse for her role in the hit-n-run or the subsequent actions. Baz chose elements carefully to trick the audience into thinking she was this poor lost soul who needs Gatsby to rescue her, but then afterwards you can look back and see how terrible she was.

I'm in the "Great American Novel" camp for this book as I feel it really showcases what it is to be American, especially a 20th century American. However I would also put The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay and American Gods into that category.

I didn't read the book but I think this movie was slightly below amazing. It has a unique character to the acting and the movie. And Leonardo DiCaprio couldn't have played it any better. "Spiderman" to be honest didn't quite fit into this movie I think, but the way he acts does. Maybe because I see him together with DiCaprio and they are both totally different kind of actors with different strengths in different genres. I've heard that the book was much better than the movie, maybe one day I'll grab that opportunity to read the book.

How did you go through high school and not read the Great Ga...oooooh. Florida. Got it.