New trailer for Gatsby — Page 4
#77
Posted: 5/10/13 at 5:35pm
I hear Negros go to the movies, Racist Jim. Does that bother you? Being so close to the coloreds, you white trash inbred hillbilly racist son of a whore and her brother?
#78
Posted: 5/10/13 at 5:45pm
Now that I see it's a Luhrman film, I probably won't see it.
I miss the Redford/Mia Farrow version. that's how it should look!
I miss the Redford/Mia Farrow version. that's how it should look!
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
Updated On: 5/10/13 at 05:45 PM
#79
Posted: 5/10/13 at 6:42pm
"I hear Negros go to the movies, Racist Jim. Does that bother you? Being so close to the coloreds, you white trash inbred hillbilly racist son of a whore and her brother?'
There might be some JEWS there too, WS.
There might be some JEWS there too, WS.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#80
Posted: 5/10/13 at 7:16pm
They only go before noon when it's cheap. Cheap like Jim's whore of a Mother.
#82
Posted: 5/11/13 at 12:24am
Before I give my thoughts on the movie which i finally saw tonight, I know I maybe in a SMALL minority for this but...
This is the best edited Baz Luhrmann film thus far (it actually takes you in that atmosphere of the era in that time period unlike Moulin Rouge!), the production quality is excellent, and I think this is BY FAR a better adaptation of the book we have ever had.
The cast was actually well directed and even though I did have qualms with Toby and some of his movies, I think he embodies this character that Fitzgerald discribed in the book and do I need to say more about DiCaprio's excellent performance?
SPOILERS!!!!
Mrytle's death is shown on screen unlike the book which only implies what happend.
END OF SPOLIERS.
I came in with low expectations and somehow Baz really put his all into it and Fitzgerald's work in this story is the TRUE reason to see it. If any of you are worried about the abuse of modern music in it like Moulin Rouge!, don't be, it's only used in some scenes and that's it. Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue is used very well in one scene in the film.
I really liked it and I hope to see it a second time.
This is the best edited Baz Luhrmann film thus far (it actually takes you in that atmosphere of the era in that time period unlike Moulin Rouge!), the production quality is excellent, and I think this is BY FAR a better adaptation of the book we have ever had.
The cast was actually well directed and even though I did have qualms with Toby and some of his movies, I think he embodies this character that Fitzgerald discribed in the book and do I need to say more about DiCaprio's excellent performance?
SPOILERS!!!!
Mrytle's death is shown on screen unlike the book which only implies what happend.
END OF SPOLIERS.
I came in with low expectations and somehow Baz really put his all into it and Fitzgerald's work in this story is the TRUE reason to see it. If any of you are worried about the abuse of modern music in it like Moulin Rouge!, don't be, it's only used in some scenes and that's it. Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue is used very well in one scene in the film.
I really liked it and I hope to see it a second time.
Updated On: 5/11/13 at 12:24 AM
#83
Posted: 5/11/13 at 8:47am
I had low expectations (based on the trailer) and the film mostly lived up to them.
On the plus side, I liked the costumes (Daisy's gowns were gorgeous) and the hair. The production design and music weren't as good as I thought they would be--Gatsby's lavish parties didn't dazzle me as I expected (esp. knowing Baz's previous work in Strictly Ballroom, Romeo+Juliet and Moulin Rouge). Note: I saw it in 2D. Music was under done, I felt.
The framing device (Nick recounting the story to a doctor while in a sanatorium) was completely unnecessary; narrating in voiceover was enough.
Liked Carey Mulligan as Daisy (although wonder if Michelle Williams might have been a better choice). Leo and Tobey were OK as Gatsby and Nick. Joel Edgerton was fine as Tom.
The movie was overly long, too, and the pacing was plodding. It's not a story where there's a lot of plot moving the action forward, and I would have thought Luhrman would have kept the tempo up.
Not a disaster, and if it turns high school students on to the book, all the better. But I'd just as soon read the book again. I'm sure I've read it 3 times already.
On the plus side, I liked the costumes (Daisy's gowns were gorgeous) and the hair. The production design and music weren't as good as I thought they would be--Gatsby's lavish parties didn't dazzle me as I expected (esp. knowing Baz's previous work in Strictly Ballroom, Romeo+Juliet and Moulin Rouge). Note: I saw it in 2D. Music was under done, I felt.
The framing device (Nick recounting the story to a doctor while in a sanatorium) was completely unnecessary; narrating in voiceover was enough.
Liked Carey Mulligan as Daisy (although wonder if Michelle Williams might have been a better choice). Leo and Tobey were OK as Gatsby and Nick. Joel Edgerton was fine as Tom.
The movie was overly long, too, and the pacing was plodding. It's not a story where there's a lot of plot moving the action forward, and I would have thought Luhrman would have kept the tempo up.
Not a disaster, and if it turns high school students on to the book, all the better. But I'd just as soon read the book again. I'm sure I've read it 3 times already.
Coach Bob knew it all along: you've got to get obsessed and stay obsessed. You have to keep passing the open windows. (John Irving, The Hotel New Hampshire)
#84
Posted: 5/11/13 at 2:50pm
The movie was just behind Iron Man 3 on Friday night's grosses, taking in $19.4 million (Iron Man 3 took in $19.8 million) on opening day.
A very impressive opening..
A very impressive opening..
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#85
Posted: 5/12/13 at 1:11pm
I saw Gatsby this morning and was mixed about it, but generally found more to like than dislike. I loved the 3D, visual effects, costumes, sets, make-up and wigs. A real fine job by all those technically involved with the film.
I liked Leo and Toby quite a bit, but the other characters were oddly underdeveloped given the length of the film. Mulligan is a good Daisy, but she isn't given much dialogue to work with.
Whoever described the pace as plodding I completely agree with. For as much as we all know this story it dragged on and on without ever feeling like it was building to a climax.
The first 30-40 minutes are dazzling, and then the movie settles down and starts to tell the story. Leo doesn't even appear until a good 30 minutes into the film.
I'm glad I saw it on the big screen and in 3D. Maybe the best thing this movie will do is inspire Julia when she's working on her stage adaptation for next season!
I liked Leo and Toby quite a bit, but the other characters were oddly underdeveloped given the length of the film. Mulligan is a good Daisy, but she isn't given much dialogue to work with.
Whoever described the pace as plodding I completely agree with. For as much as we all know this story it dragged on and on without ever feeling like it was building to a climax.
The first 30-40 minutes are dazzling, and then the movie settles down and starts to tell the story. Leo doesn't even appear until a good 30 minutes into the film.
I'm glad I saw it on the big screen and in 3D. Maybe the best thing this movie will do is inspire Julia when she's working on her stage adaptation for next season!
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#86
Posted: 5/12/13 at 1:15pm
Ha!
I will say I thought the use of 3D was perfect--and that was an element I had been mocking since the start.
I will say I thought the use of 3D was perfect--and that was an element I had been mocking since the start.
#87
Posted: 5/12/13 at 1:18pm
I think some of the scenes would have looked really cheesy without the 3D. In particular the scene where Toby's face was imposed over the building and all the people in their rooms popped out at the audience would look dumb in 2D.
I think that's why the 3D worked so well though. It wasn't just an afterthought to make more money- the scenes where conceived with the 3D from the start and made it effective.
I think that's why the 3D worked so well though. It wasn't just an afterthought to make more money- the scenes where conceived with the 3D from the start and made it effective.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#89
Posted: 5/12/13 at 1:31pm
Absolutely. For whatever flaws I think Bazz shows in execution, the use of 3D was not one of them--you could tell a lot of thought went into it, and it really worked for me. 3D usually is used as a lazy addition to action movies, but I think it actually holds a lot of potential for dramas (and other formats, like the brilliant way it shows depth for dance in movies such as Pina.)
#90
Posted: 5/12/13 at 4:44pm
I did not know this movie was out until my son called and invited me to see it with him and his fiancé. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jay Gatsby, the self-made millionaire obsessed with Daisy Buchanan. This is the fourth time F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel has been made into a movie. We visit New York in the 1920s. The Jazz Age! When Leo dies in the pool, we are reminded of Titanic. I recall Robert Redford's Gatsby from 1974, but somehow Leo seems more suited to the role, calling his acquaintances "Old Sport." Until this adaptation, I never grasped the fact that Gatsby was murdered at the end. I am now watching the 1949 film with Alan Ladd on youtube. I also learned that Fitzgerald was named after Francis Scott Key, who wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner."
#93
Posted: 5/12/13 at 5:41pm
"Until this adaptation, I never grasped the fact that Gatsby was murdered at the end."
What?!?!
What?!?!
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#94
Posted: 5/12/13 at 9:23pm
I saw this yesterday. Extremely unimpressed. It dragged on and on. I can't stand Carey Mulligan, so that didn't help. It was a beautiful film except for the fact that everything looked way too exaggerated. I did not feel like this worked as well as it did for Moulin Rouge!. I thought the soundtrack was terrible and completely out of place. I left the theater thinking, "so this is what people have been dying to see for over a year?".
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
#95
Posted: 5/13/13 at 12:16am
Red Reed's review in the NY Observer skewers the movie.
A Triumph on the Page, The Great Gatsby Founders Miserably on the Silver Screen
A Triumph on the Page, The Great Gatsby Founders Miserably on the Silver Screen
#96
Posted: 5/13/13 at 12:18am
The beloved star of "Glen or Glenda?" (that was it, right?) has really just about the worst taste in the world.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#97
Posted: 5/13/13 at 12:24am
Well, we were once led to believe he could transition into Raquel Welch in a movie.
And my reaction to he who shall not be named is the same as Kad's. WUT?
And my reaction to he who shall not be named is the same as Kad's. WUT?
#98
Posted: 5/13/13 at 12:25am
The beloved star of "Glen or Glenda?" (that was it, right?)
Spit take.
Spit take.
#100
Posted: 5/13/13 at 12:09pm
I did not know this movie was out until my son called and invited me to see it with him and his fiancé.
Really?!! Do you live under a rock?
Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jay Gatsby, the self-made millionaire obsessed with Daisy Buchanan.
Yes, Jim we all know this. You're not telling us anything we don't already know.
This is the fourth time F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel has been made into a movie.
No sh!t Sherlock! You're just a wealth of new information aren't you?
We visit New York in the 1920s. The Jazz Age! When Leo dies in the pool, we are reminded of Titanic.
It takes place in New York? In The Jazz Age? Again...you are truly a wealth of NEW information...and who the hell are you referring to when you use the word "we"...we is one too many and I ain't one of 'em.
I recall Robert Redford's Gatsby from 1974, but somehow Leo seems more suited to the role, calling his acquaintances "Old Sport."
LOL...SMDH...Yeah, because DiCaprio is the ONLY actor in the world who is capable of uttering the line "Old Sport" convincingly..
Until this adaptation, I never grasped the fact that Gatsby was murdered at the end.
This is truly WTF! You never read the book? Y'know that part is in there as well, right? No obviously you didn't. It took a fourth movie version for you to grasp that?!!!
I am now watching the 1949 film with Alan Ladd on youtube. I also learned that Fitzgerald was named after Francis Scott Key, who wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Oooooh, now I SEE...you get your wealth of information from youtube and wikipedia!! NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE!!!
Really?!! Do you live under a rock?
Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jay Gatsby, the self-made millionaire obsessed with Daisy Buchanan.
Yes, Jim we all know this. You're not telling us anything we don't already know.
This is the fourth time F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel has been made into a movie.
No sh!t Sherlock! You're just a wealth of new information aren't you?
We visit New York in the 1920s. The Jazz Age! When Leo dies in the pool, we are reminded of Titanic.
It takes place in New York? In The Jazz Age? Again...you are truly a wealth of NEW information...and who the hell are you referring to when you use the word "we"...we is one too many and I ain't one of 'em.
I recall Robert Redford's Gatsby from 1974, but somehow Leo seems more suited to the role, calling his acquaintances "Old Sport."
LOL...SMDH...Yeah, because DiCaprio is the ONLY actor in the world who is capable of uttering the line "Old Sport" convincingly..
Until this adaptation, I never grasped the fact that Gatsby was murdered at the end.
This is truly WTF! You never read the book? Y'know that part is in there as well, right? No obviously you didn't. It took a fourth movie version for you to grasp that?!!!
I am now watching the 1949 film with Alan Ladd on youtube. I also learned that Fitzgerald was named after Francis Scott Key, who wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Oooooh, now I SEE...you get your wealth of information from youtube and wikipedia!! NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE!!!
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $106
Tickets From $71
