Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Patrick Sun, May 11, 2013.
I don't think Mulligan and Holmes look at all alike!
I saw it in 2D today, I didn't see the point of watching a movie that takes place in the 1920's in 3D.
The movie looked great, the performances were good and the movie followed the plot of the book very well. I just didn't like the rap music, it just doesn't fit for the 1920's. If they dropped the vocals and stuck with the instrmentals I would be fine with it, they were rather jazzy arrangements for rap music.
Again, I haven't seen the picture but just walking into it, I think Mulligan really looks like the actresses that you'd see in movies from this era. None of them are "beautiful" by today's magazine cover standards but I think she looks that jazz age look pretty well.
I won't argue she looks the part, but to me the entire character came across as vapid and shallow. That's the point, I think, but it doesn't mean I actually have to like it. Maybe it was wrong of me to initially lay the blame at Mulligan's feet. I just don't get why Gatsby is so infatuated with her...which leads to my "meh" about the character as a whole.
I must say I don't understand this comment, the world was 3D back in the 1920s, wasn't it ? While I am not big friend of 3D (so far) I must say the times it has worked the best was when it was non-intrusive and non-gimmicjky like Avatar or Titanic (even earlier than the 20s), which is why I think it would work better for this film than, say Prometheus, Transformers or something that just wants to show swords or guns close to your face.
But I may be wrong, of course.
I wonder if he didn't mean Michelle Williams, the other Dawson's Creek girl. I've always confused the two.
Curiously enough, the Great Gatsby novel doesn't have a concrete physical description of Daisy. But I think after Mia Farrow played her, that kind of cast the mold in many people's minds.I seem to recall a character from one of Fitzgerald's stories who was described as having hair so blonde it was almost white. I always assumed this was from "Winter Dreams" but scanning through the story I see nothing that describes Judy Jones this way. Quite possibly it's Rosemary from Tender is the Night. Anyway, I always pictured Fitzgerald casting and recasting his unattainable female characters in this mold.As far as the appeal, I see many similarities to Pip's attachment to Estella in Great Expectations. The reader doesn't really see why he can't get over this little brat who treats him like crap, but it's part of his pathology to yearn for things he can't have. Maybe the irony is too on the nose, but it makes for great melodrama.
Could be - that does make a lot more sense, as Williams looks much more like Mulligan than Holmes does.
I never knew Williams was on "DC"!
Geez, I think you might be right!
I remember when Michelle Williams showed up on DC. That was a big event.
I finally caught up with this one today and I must say it was the most bizarre movie in terms of my reaction to it. I must say that I thought the first hour was downright bad. I thought the style, fashion and over-the-top nature just really killed any sort of story and I think all three lead actors were just eaten up by it. The scene where Maguire gets drunk is just so incredibly bad because it seems the director just wanted him to make funny faces at the camera. I thought all of these party scenes looks rather silly and the 3D didn't bring anything out of them. For the first hour I was just sitting in the theater getting rather pissed that they had messed up the story but then......
We get to the sequence where Daisy is invited over for tea. I thought this entire sequence was masterfully done as it contained the romance, passion and drama that really packed a punch and picked the film up. Everything from this point on was excellent and this includes the performances. It's rather remarkable at how both sections of the film seem completely different and I really wonder what the hell the director was doing. The "style" of the first half really was bad but why didn't he just do it for the entire film? If he wasn't going to do it the entire time then why do it at all? I thought DiCaprio delivered another wonderful performance and I really thought he did so well showing the character's rage, anger and passion just with his eyes. Maguire actually got a lot better in the second half and Joel Edgerton stole the picture. As for Mulligan, I thought she really did do the role justice and her "non-mainstream" look was perfect. I'm sorry but I watch a lot films from this era and I think her "look" was the exact same type of look that countless leading men were falling for.
The soundtrack really wasn't all that distracting but it was annoying with everything else going on in the first hour.
Again, I've never had such a reaction to a film. If people would just walk in a hour late I think they'd call this an excellent movie and something that could be up for countless Oscars. With that said, you still can't forgive the opening hour or pretend it's not there and it really drags down the movie. It's really too bad because all of the elements were here for a classic.
*** (out of 4)
I haven't read the novel in twenty-years so I'm not sure if there was more "detail" there but I could name off countless women I thought were great at the time but looking back on them now..... I must have been on too much dope.
I think the point was that she's no good as Maguire gets a line towards the end where her and her husband just hurt someone and then went back to their money. I think the reason DiCaprio fell for her was simply because where he was in his life. When he fell for the character he was just a poor boy who had nothing and she gave him a spark to try and make something for himself, which he would then share with her. This is where the obsession comes from and I think this version did a much better job than the Redford one in showing how crazy he actually was.
Didn't like it, hated the music, Tom should have been played by Josh Brolin, and got tired of DiCaprio calling everybody, "Old SPORE"
I think I understand the director's artistic strategy, to create a kind of hallucinogenic fever dream of the Jazz Age out of these characters' emotional lives, but it was a little too dizzying and by 90 minutes I'd had enough--and there was still 52 minutes to go! I wish he'd pared down the hallucinatory high-speed sequences to maybe three in the whole movie: a party scene early on, a visit to Manhattan midway through and then maybe one more party scene toward the end. There were some good ideas here, e.g. the whole throwing the shirts scene, and some good acting, but I needed a quieter film. I wanted some dialogue scenes where the actors just sat and talked and the camera was nailed down. All that commotion just wore me out. I also found the 3-D incredibly distracting, esp. since the camera swoops and dives so much. I wish I'd seen it in 2-D instead. Besides, the projection at the theater I saw it in didn't have a strong enough bulb to withstand the darkening effect of the 3-D glasses which robs the image of roughly 50% of its illumination. (The operative word, of course, being "roughly.")
Old Sport, and part of the point is that it's a fraudulent statement that he took on to sound upper class but ultimately betrays his lower class roots.
Oh, I know it was supposed to be Old Sport. But you think that DiCaprio made the conscious decision to say "Old Spore" in order to point out his shortcomings in sophistication and enunciation? Redford definitely says "Old Sport" in the 1974 version.
It's a tribute to the Colbert Report.
I always heard the "t". ::shrugs::
I don't even think I will be able to watch this. I'm a big fan of Fitzgerald's work, but can't prepare myself to watch this book get destroyed. I didn't like Romeo and Juliette by the same director, so I doubt it worth while to spend money on seeing this book getting shattered.