The Great Gatsby

For a long time, I didn’t even want to see The Great Gatsby. I didn’t like the director who made it. I didn’t enjoy any of his films, and I didn’t expect this one to be any different. However, it was an exception. Mainly because, although no one would expect it, the creators decided to add a ton of absolutely breathtaking and beautiful digital effects to this richly decorated movie from the 1920s, which suddenly makes the film into a fairy tale. Not to mention the dance music, which in a rather strange way combines the 1920s with the present. However, this fairy tale had so much speed since the beginning that I waited for a moment when it would exhale for the last time and not breathe again. I haven’t seen such fast pace in a movie for a long time, it was almost brutal. Eventually, however, after about half an hour Leonardo Di Caprio entered the scene and fortunately everything slowed down slightly. As typical for Leo, he showed a proper performance. But that can’t salvage the film’s absurd narration, so I have no other choice than give it three stars. Still, I have to admit that this was the best Baz Luhrmann’s movie I’ve seen so far. (09/14/2014)

The time arc of 1922/1929 (or richer, as the flashbacks chart Gatsby's entire life) did not disappoint. That's what I call a film that I experience inwardly. A formal and dramatic orgasm. The overall production design alone is perfection (this isn't just any 1920s movie, this is the exact 1920s that I live for). ___ The flawless soundtrack has me undulating to "Young and Beautiful" (Lana del Rey), "Love is Blindness" (Jack White), and the searing "Bang Bang" (Will.i.am). (05/16/2013)

It starts as intoxicating kitsch, then it becomes a tiresome mess stumbling on both feet. As far as gimmicky camera tricks and image wizardry go, Luhrmann is confident, but he fails in simple meaningful storytelling and in trying to get under the skin of the characters. I've mentioned kitsch – all those lavish parties make you feel like you're looking at a big garden dwarf, festooned with colourful ribbons and flashing light bulbs. But when it comes to feelings, it's like a shallow story in a girlie magazine, kind of plucking the daisy "He likes you, he likes you not, he likes you, he likes you not, he'll leave with you, he won't leave with you.....". Thank goodness for at least two things: Edgerton's manly Buchanan, the only full-blooded character in the entire panopticon, and the reunion scene between Gatsby and Daisy – the only moment in the entire film where you can feel any emotion. Luhrmann is getting a little stale. (05/25/2013)

From the first pages of the book, I knew that The Great Gatsby was the perfect material for Baz Luhrmann. And for me, as a person who 12 years ago couldn't catch a breath during the audiovisual musical version of Paris, the first half is a dream that I thought would never come true. A naive narrator, a perfect modern soundtrack, and captivating camera tricks that made me want to melt into the screen and stay there forever. Luhrmann simply knows what he's good at, and when his characteristic (sometimes almost carbon copied) narrative tricks are supported by the noble Leonardo DiCaprio, there is no doubt that the words "The Great" in the title are fully deserved. I am disappointed with the last act of the story just like I was with the book; F. Scott Fitzgerald stumbled a bit with the ending. And while it became somewhat bitter in places in light of the greater emphasis on the societal aspect, Luhrmann does not deviate from the opulent form for a moment. His storytelling is not a general social warning, but rather cautiously interhuman on a much smaller scale. And this more restrained approach far more aptly fits the story of love that was worth all the effort and suffering. (06/27/2013)

What part of it makes us more crazy? That, according to Luhrmann, Fitzgerald is a superficial mannerist from the garrulous red library? That the 1920s look like a forgettable industrial dystopia mixed with the extravaganza of a lifestyle magazine? That the "glamor" aesthetic of the film is so ostentatious that it is annoying? That the characters are without exception flat and the most superficial is, coincidentally, the narrator? That the film has a totally nonsensical dramatic construction? That there is nothing left of the elegance and decadence of the "before the great fall" epoch but a flood of confetti and digital sterility? I don't even know and I really didn't care after a few minutes. A silly experience that is best described to me by Rex Reed's words: "This is one of the most maddening examples of wasted money ever dumped on the screen". (05/15/2013)