Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Or Reset Your Avatar
The Great Gatsby (2013)
Great on the outside but on the inside it's only the mediocre Gatsby
When the trailers for this started to come out it seemed like it felt like everything that I had heard about the 1974 version: great costumes and production design but not much else (I haven't seen the 1974 version). This version had things a bit better.
Most of you have probably read the original book but for those who haven't: the story starts with a young man named Nick Carraway who moves to West egg (a fictional place on Long island) in the 1920s. His neighbor is a mysterious man named Gatsby who has parties at his home all the time. But the thing is that no one actually knows Gatsby. Nick meets Gatsby and becomes friends with him. But what Nick doesn't know is that Gatsby once dated Nick's cousin Daisy and Gatsby is still in love with Daisy who is married. In the end Daisy's husband Tom finds out about the relationship between Gatsby and Daisy, daisy stays with Tom but accidentally hits his mistress with a car. The mistresses husband kills Gatsby because he thinks that Gatsby drove the car that hit his wife. No one except Nick and one of Gatsby's guests finally come to Gatsby's funeral.
The movie versions of the book seem to focuses on one part of the story: the love story between Daisy and Gatsby. It's leaving out a lot of themes including excess and how rich people feel superiority to others. I'm not even sure whether the film makers want to tell some of the themes that were left out. At least it felt like that in this version. Like when we meet Daisy and Jordan for the first time the scene is shot to introduce Daisy in a beautiful way. I remember that scene from the book (at least in the translated version) Daisy and Jordan just lie on the sofa and don't really want to get up. The party scenes are kind of annoying (I really liked the music video style in Moulin rouge but is it really necessary here?). But the second half lets the story come out a bit more. The actors are mostly good. DiCaprio and Mulligan are great as Gatsby and Daisy and the rest of the actors are pretty good. The costumes and production design are beautiful but the music perhaps should have had more 1920s feeling. The directing choices are good except for the music video scenes.
The great Gatsby works well as a love story and is filled with great visuals and a couple of good performances but at points it's feels like it misses some of the biggest themes of the book.
By the way some people say my 8 is their 6 or 7
Is 22 main characters too much for a 2 hour movie?
The short answer to the question above is yes but maybe not how you might think: you never wonder who is that character even though you have seen the character before. The actual problem is that the characters feel underdeveloped because you focus on a character for an average of less than 6 minutes. There is no sense in doing a 2 hour movie with so many main characters.
The idea of different kinds people meeting is used many times in different films with changing success. This time some of the people include a singer who is an alcoholic, her husband, a retired hotel doorman, the hotel manager, his wife and lover. The 22 characters are all at the Ambassador hotel for their own reasons during the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy. Some work there, some used to work there, some are guests and some are working on the Kennedy campaign.
Like I mentioned in the beginning there are too many main characters. They could have just had less characters because some of the story lines just felt pointless. There were some interesting characters but they were crushed by the short amount of time that they had. The ending was a bit weird: of course all the characters that clearly seemed like they were dying ended up surviving (especially the Elijah Wood character seemed already dead). I know that the director Emilio Estevez meant well with the story but he perhaps failed by taking more stories than he can tell (or most directors to be honest). Some of the dialog wasn't that excellent but it was never anything truly horrible. The actors are great and are perhaps the best thing about the movie. The directing wasn't spectacular but it didn't make it worse.
Bobby was a movie with a lot of potential and good acting but it didn't meet with my expectations.
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
"Once upon a time in Nazi occupied France." I watched Inglourious Basterds a couple of weeks ago and i thought: "that was the best Tarantino movie i have seen" (although i had seen only Jackie Brown before this. Now I have also seen kill bill vol 2 and four rooms but this is still my favorite) In Inglourious Basterds an American team is sent to France to kill Nazis that are occupying the area. A couple of years after the mission started they hear of operation Kino. The idea is to kill some people from the German high command (including Göring, Bormann and Goebbels) while they are watching the premiere of a new propaganda film. Even Hitler is attending the premiere. But the owner of the cinema where the preview is held has a similar idea than the allied. The movie was smart, original, funny and the ending was very funny. Every artist (even if the art is as special as Aldo Reine's is) must have his masterpiece. The actors were all great, but the best was Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa. A deserved Oscar for him. The Oscar for best picture should have gone to this one too. I've noticed that in order for a Tarantino movie to be nominated for best picture it must win at some category. Pulp fiction won the award for best original screenplay and Christoph Waltz won for this one. By this rule I would hope that Django would win at some category. Maybe even for best picture?