criterionforum.org

At least Ferry was involved in it this time. A Bryan Ferry cameo in Sucker Punch would have been funnier, though.

Edit: just saw Roger Ryan's post.

colinr0380 wrote:Notice to domino: apparently the soundtrack to this film includes a new version of Love Is A Drug, which is currently inspiring all sorts of "Sucker Punch got there first!" feelings in me (at least in the extended version)! Has Baz been pre-Lurhmanned?

Considering how desperately Sucker Punch was striving to be an 'edgy' Baz Luhrmann film, I think he'd win on points.

I don't think Sucker Punch has any auspices of being "edgy," and it has nothing in common with a Baz Luhrmann film other than a flair for flashy melodramatics, a marker far too common to be an identifying trait

By the way since we are briefly on the subject of Sucker Punch again, Emily Browning turns up in a very neat uncredited role at the end of that Andrew Niccols adaptation of Stephenie Myers The Host, a role that resonates quite interestingly back to both Sucker Punch and Sleeping Beauty. Her run of roles through those three films has been very interesting.

colinr0380 wrote:By the way since we are briefly on the subject of Sucker Punch again, Emily Browning turns up in a very neat uncredited role at the end of that Andrew Niccols adaptation of Stephenie Myers The Host, a role that resonates quite interestingly back to both Sucker Punch and Sleeping Beauty. Her run of roles through those three films has been very interesting.

Damn it. Now I'll have to see that.

Yes, I wouldn't go so far as recommending The Host (if you thought the Twilight series imparted some wonky moral messages, this keeps up that Stephenie Myers tradition) and it is even worse if you approach it as an uncredited version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. However the Browning moment both fits squarely into the wonky morality of this particular film, as well as into her previous roles that focused on elements of passivity and being used by others for their own ends.

The Host is the most important movie since The Happening. We have to listen.

(Also it has cool lighting and a few mind-blowing tableaux. It's somewhat-reluctantly my favorite movie of the year so far.)

Back to Gatsby: I hated the framing story they forced on it. Reminded me of the last Leo-can't-be-cast-in-period movie Shutter Island.

Surprised at the lack of the discussion here. It's not a perfect movie, that's for sure- that framing story definitely felt forced, and the narration didn't add much at all except Fitzgerald's prose (though the sanitarium angle signaled Luhrmann's understanding of the book's thematic arc) - but there are several things that worked for me. The soundtrack, which has understandably turned a lot of people off, was a perfectly obvious fit to me. What is hip hop if the not the American Dream for the people who were excluded from it the first time? It is to black culture now as jazz was to black culture then, and is similarly adopted and embraced by different classes of people from different places for different reasons. The subtle commentary on race and class was one of the film's definite strengths for me, and more than made up for it's overbearingness with regard to certain motifs as well as the aesthetics and the love story. It wasn't the book and that's good. That exact story as it's told is already in its ideal form. Luhrmann's take is schmaltzier for sure, but his over the top, candy colored branding in my mind suits the novels themes of excessive ambition. The acting was decent all around. There was certainly some caricature, but only insofar as it fulfilled Luhrmann's vision and the film's tone. Mulligan was great as daisy, though Joel Edgerton surprised me most as Tom, managing to play him the way I'd always imagined while reading the book, mustache and all.

If you haven't seen the film you should- if only to disagree with me. It merits deeper analyses than it's been given.

I have never seen a Baz Luhrmann film by principle. From what I've read, he relies far to much upon artiface.

As someone who dislikes Luhrmann I have to ask; how is relying on artifice a bad thing?

I don't think artiface by itself is a bad thing. By its definition, the art of film is an artiface. The few seconds of Luhrmann's films I've seen put me off. I won't say he's a bad film maker, but I don't think his style is for me. I have a feeling I'll enjoy Sternberg's films much more, but only time will tell.

david hare wrote: To inneyp, yourpost is a good try, but can you please tell us what a "thematic arc" is? Do you mean "dramatic arc"?

No! You may not find it on an AP test or in a dictionary of literary terms (ie yes I made up the phrase), but what I meant was that the meaning of the action transforms throughout the story. Furthermore, I think semantics are a total distraction!

As far as this "artifice" thing goes I would suggest not being distracted by the glitz. Difficult I know, but at least as far as Gatsby is concerned there is more to Luhrmann's lure than his kaleidoscopic eye candy (which itself deserves some due credit). In this case especially, the "artifice" enforces the story it's illustrating.

Some people need to look into the dictionary more often. And they need to read some books about film. "Film Art: An Introduction" for example. Or "Movies and Meaning". Or at least "Teach Yourself Film Studies" by Warren Buckland.

Don't get hung up on what people say if you're smart enough to understand what they mean.

I did not mean you. En general.

Je suis d'accord!

I suppose this story was perfect for Baz Luhrmann: It's vapid and full of horrible people and nothing about it is at all likeable or enjoyable, which pretty much sums up the majority of his work (I at least liked some of the music in Moulin Rouge). Luhrmann stretches this paper-thin plot to damn near three hours and it's just insufferable, and were it not for some of the visually pleasing 3D effects it would have been totally unwatchable (not that I'm advocating for anyone to waste sixteen bucks to see this thing in 3D. Or at all). The CGI landscapes are an eyesore in the big sweeping shots and Luhrmann's bizarre fasciation with the eye-doctor billboard makes me think he's read far, far too much into it's significance (of which it has none, really), but the interiors of Gatsby's house are, honestly, quite breathtaking in 3D. The problem is you have to listen to these idiots talk endlessly while you're watching it. I can't remember the last time before this that I actually found myself muttering "Shut up" at the screen.

I get that it's supposed to be about how awful these people are, but that doesn't mean it's any good just because it makes them genuinely awful. It's just unpleasant and it wears on you until you want to scream. The only (feint) praise I can offer is that it's not as bad as Peeples, which I also foolishly saw the same weekend. Woopty-fricking-doo.

If nothing else, Baz Luhrmann's films do not leave a viewer with ambiguous feelings about them. For The Great Gatsby I was at times enthralled, and yet at other times frustrated. Fortunately the former reaction won out in the end, but for the first 45 minutes as the film revels in the establishment of the vapid opulence it's a real tug of war. After that it evens out a bit and aside from an overabundance of Tobey Maguire voice over becomes quite a fine picture. The 3D is well designed and enthusiastically used and echoes the sense of exorbitance. Joel Edgerton is outstanding, and DiCaprio brings his best acting element - vulnerability - to the role with great effect. Mulligan does well portraying the projected-on shell of a woman that is the character of Daisy, while Maguire is... tolerable. 7/10