I saw the new movie tonight...I'll give it 4 stars out of 5. All in all, it blows the doors off the '74 Redford shipwreck.
My biggest problem? Some parts of the soundtrack kept a good film from being a great film. If you've watched the trailers, you'll know that there's a lot of contemporary music. In some places it's quite effective; in others, not so much. Early on in the film when Nick is giving the backdrop of the frenetic craziness, energy and chaos of NYC in the early 20's, there's some goofy rap. While it's obvious they're trying to communicate the fast pace and rythm of the city, the bustle of Wall Street, etc. it seems grotesquely out of place, and coming so early in the film, I was thinking, "God I hope it's not like this through the whole movie." Thankfully it wasn't.
There were a couple of scenes (Tom and Myrtle's secret hideaway, the speakeasy with Meyer Wolfshiem) where the soundtrack has a kind of fusion with 20's jazz and more contemporary music that works a little better, and some of the romantic scenes have a contemporary, haunting melancholy tune that is perfectly appropriate.
As I stated elsewhere on the thread, about the only redeeming factor of the '74 film was Waterston's performance as Nick Carraway, which is IMHO, one of the best casting choices in the history of Hollywood; that opinion remains unchanged. Going into the movie, I thought Toby McGuire would have the biggest shoes to fill, and he did. While I think Waterston's performance was still better, I'm guessing McGuire closely studied Waterston and managed to capture a lot of the essence of the character.
DiCaprio is one of those actors who runs hot or cold, and he knocked this one out of the park. To the casual observer his accent and speech will seem overly affected, but it's consistent with Gatsby's origins and conscious effort to integrate in high society. I was very impressed with his performance in the scene where Gatsby is reunited with Daisy at Nick's cottage over tea. He exhibits all the awestruck anxiety, shyness and blushing apprehension that compromise (and strongly humanize) the heretofore cool, debonair and mysterious Gatsby.
A tip of the hat also goes to Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan. He's perfectly brutish, coarse and arrogant. He's clearly a far more physical actor than Bruce Dern, and is very convincing as a Yale football star, polo player, etc.
Now, if you plan on going to see it, at least take into consideration the following thought: I've never been a fan of 3D movies, and indeed, saw the standard 2D version. I'm considering going back and seeing this one in 3D. Some of the cityscapes of 1920's NYC looked like they'd have been even more impressive in 3D, and I think some of the views across the channel between Gatsby's mansion and the Buchanan's home were purposely shot for 3D to enhance the psychological distance between Gatsby and Daisy's worlds.
I cannot watch any movie with Leo DiCaprio in it. I enjoyed both the book and the 74 version. I especially enjoyed Redford/Gatsby being revealed as a cheap crook and con artist and getting shot dead on a stupid swimming pool float for a crime he didn’t commit. I suppose most of that comes from my loathing of Redford, but i still rewound that part several times. Dern was indeed miscast in the movie, but Waterston was great as a colorless narration device.
As far as the “Great American Novel”, I don’t think there is one.
I saw it the movie in 3D earlier in the week.
I didn’t like the soundtrack and thought the rap music was out of place.
As far as casting, the only one that got it right was Tom. I had trouble with the others. Sam Waterson and Robert Redford did better jobs.
Visually the movie looked great. I think the 3D helped a bit in some scenes.
I’m a bit torn about seeing the film. The commercials tell me the director has done what modern day directors do with period pieces today—overlay them with [way too much] contemporary sensibility. I would find any suggestion of rap/hip-hop music to be too much of a violation of my expectations. I also noticed the risque dancing that goes well beyond (what I imagine) the flapper-age dancers’ moves to be. Too much “in your face” sexuality for that era.
I guess it’s me. I have my interpretation developed from my personal reading and when a movie comes along and defies that, I regret the film experience (Brannagh’s Frankenstein, is a good example, though probably EVERYBODY regretted that movie experience!)