The Great Gatsby

The make-up and lighting make Gatsby look like a leaked Madame Tussaud model. Luhrmann's lust for the most effective imagery neuters the sketches of everyone else, making The Great Gatsby the most poorly narrated (and subjectively longest) blockbuster of the season; a good party ends without a hangover, but here you're dragged to the sidelines with a queasy stomach before its climax. (13/01/2014)

This theatrical love triangle has lively visuals, but a dull soul. Baz Luhrmann uses all the tricks that worked in Moulin Rouge! but does not come even close to depth of the portrayal of of tragic love achieved in the musical. We get to the character of Gatsby slowly, with great anticipation, and Leonardo DiCaprio looks good in his pastel suits (like everyone else), but his character paradoxically turns out to be the most impersonal and contradictory element of the film. We don’t really care about him, even though the film tells the story of his journey towards his dream, embodied by the beautiful Daisy. Carey Mulligan is merely an ornament, Joel Edgerton as her gruff husband is more noticeable than DiCaprio’s Gatsby. The only natural character is the “representative of the people” played by Tobey Maguire. Moulin Rouge! was energized and brought to life by its original energetic and emotionally engaging songs. The Great Gatsby pulls out Jay-Z’s overused hits (identifying with New York) and futilely tries to add a romantic dimension to a book of opulent pictures by using a captivating song by Lana Del Rey. Such a powerful theme, so many big thoughts ... And the viewer’s eyes will remain dry. ___ Second viewing: The scene of the confrontation of characters in the hotel room – if the whole film was done so intimately, in a psychologically concentrated fashion and dramaturgically sensitively, i.e. without unnecessary formal excesses and, in terms of music, satisfied itself with Lana Del Rey in key scenes, it could have been extraordinary. (15/05/2013)

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. (15/09/2014)

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. (26/05/2013)

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". (15/05/2013)