The Great Gatsby

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". (2013-05-15)

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. (2013-05-25)

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. (2014-09-14)

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). (2013-05-16)

Two and a half stars for the soundtrack, which is not even properly used. The film itself didn’t do for me, but I will give it another chance after some time. The first time I watched it, it irritated me in a similar way as the beginning of Moulin Rouge! … But whereas Moulin Rouge got better as the story progressed, Gatsby irritated me throughout. Maybe next time. (2013-05-17)