I want Mark Kermode to narrate my life

Spot on, probably the best review I've ever heard Mark do. I think reading Gatsby is always an intensely personal experience, it offers something different to each reader and that means that many, many people may not appreciate what Luhrmann has done. But for me, this version exemplified everything I felt when I read the book. It was always the partying, the wildness, the inevitable crash, and the slightly unhinged nature of Gatsby himself that stood out; and Luhrmann has captured that perfectly

"Eleventy-stupid" is my favourite word of the week.

Personally I loved the loud, over-the-top nature of the film because I think it did a good job establishing the energy and ridiculous wealth of the setting (I mean the time period is literally referred to as the Roaring Twenties). But then as the story goes, you see that behind all the spectacle is shallow people, meaningless relationships, and you see how corrupt the upperclass were. In my opinion, Luhrman's style does a great job capturing the atmosphere

it was andy kaufman who read the great gatsby on stage. Which was funny because his audience only wanted to see him do his famous mighty mouse piece and his famous character latka gravis from the sitcom taxi. Kaufman was a performance artist and an actor. A very funny man

I quite liked the movie. The main reason why it's getting kicked by some critics is because they think that since the novel was one of the greatest books ever somehow the movie must hit a similar sort of level.

It's endlessly fascinating to me how Luhrmann's films can so thoroughly shatter the fourth wall in every scene, whether it's Ewan McGregor singing "Roxanne" or other weird distortions in time and space, and yet still provide a reasonably coherent narrative we can engage with. Perhaps in this film, the eleventy-stupid amplification is part of that narrative. The sensory bombardment is part of the bricolage that allows us to inhabit the decadence we see on the screen.

'...fifth guests shrill metallic urgency' RING!!! spot on! You can tell he was taken by the book. 'The Valley of ashes' he plucked from text plugged into a mac and the digitised exterior landscaps were surprisingly great. Close up was too much '..a factual imitation of Hotel de Ville in Normandy, with a TOWER' He turned Gatsby into Repunzel staring out that towers window. There were moments in the movie i half expected them to break out into song. Joel Edgerton was great.

I always thought the point of Gatsby was that for all of it's power to shape the landscape, influence, reverence, freedom and fear in others wealth ultimately will never grant us the power to have what we want the most. Our story to be heroic.

Hi Degs Babe, Simon Mayo is the host of the radio programme and Mark Kermode is the contributor.

Great review. Explains it how it is and lets the listener/viewer decide whether that is what they're into.

I think it is extremely true to the book and brilliant!!! I LOOOOOOVE Baz’s version! I just watched the 1974 version last week and then Baz’s version the next night with my teenage son after we read the book for school and I was in awe of Baz’s Gatsby sooooo much! It is brilliant and full of heart! He seems like he put in his complete best and all he had to give and more:)! I think it is brilliant!

Loved your thoughts. Saw it last night and I could not make up my mind about it. You echo so much of what it is in my mind. Thanks

Baz Luhrmann is Mr. Eleventy Stupid. His motto is anything worth doing is worth over doing and then some.

Interesting review from Mark, would like to have heard his thoughts on the central performances but he eloquently informs us of the tone and approach Luhrmann brings to it. Just a query - I have read a couple of reviews now and one stated that the entire last chapter is missing in this version but Mark here says everything that is in the book is here?

Great Review, Definitely going to see this

I saw the Robert redford version and this one. And this is my favorite one. I think he made Gatsby the greatest he could be. I felt Leo had become Gatsby. and he became not only the great Gatsby, he was the GREATEST GATSBY!

this is by far the best review of this movie.

Forgive me for being a purist, guys. There's only one Jay Gatsby and that's Bob Redford.

Can't wait to watch this film in the theaters. I live in Rio and it's not opening here for another month or so. I guess The Hangover will have to do. Not getting my hopes up though, after the second one.

"If a film is just the same as" [the thing it's adapting] "then why make a film?" So that people can enjoy a film. Obviously. I don't know why so many people sniff at the idea. Mediums by themselves are different ways to enjoy things, and faithful adaptations are great.

I've just discovered this reviewer' s clip on KZfaq. I like him. Question. Odes the radio host hate him? He seems to barely tolerate him.

This is my second-favorite book ever, but the movie was still good. Not amazing, but still solid. It's terrifically shot and acted and it's incredibly faithful to the source material to the most minute detail from dialogue, setting, environments, and even arbitrary details. The modern-day soundtrack wasn't as bad as I expected. Problems revolve around the use of CG-I to enhance buildings and landscapes which looked weird and they skimmed over some characters a lot, namely Myrtle and George. 8/10

Great review. And Im really gladd he liked it.

DiCaprio is my favorite actor and I understand where your coming from. but in other reviews he actually praises DiCaprio quite well. Blood Diamond for example. He didn't like Titanic, but grew to like DiCaprio as an actor. I was also surprised he didn't mention him in his review for Django Unchained.

One of Kermode's most open-minded review. I was very excited for this film, but was afraid the Good Doctor would pan it just due to the aspect of 3D as well as modern music standing in for the obviously-should-have-been jazz soundtrack. Happy to see Mark take a step back and side with people my age (in their early 20s), who were encouraged to read and be amazed by the pure genius of the book due to the pop culture phenomena that comes with the launch of a big budget film.

watched it in 2D. I was prepared to dislike it but was pleasantly surprised, finally Luhmann made a movie that has more substance than glitz. The actors' interpretations of their characters are pretty faithful to the book, Dicaprio and Edgerton are especially good. Nick is a bit disappointing, Tobey Maguire's voice sounds pubescent, he looks dreary, unaffected rather than innocent

Lurhmann's Gatsby is about the emptiness and ultimate futility of the great American dream.

"13 year olds will go to see this version and they'll read the book." They didn't and they didn't.

Did anyone expect an understated Luhrmann film?

Everybody should know what to expect from a Luhrmann film. He's a 'style over substance' director, and his films are always quirky and tend to move at the speed of light. They are also amped up to epic proportions (much like a Tim Burton film), that's Luhrmann's style, as such it ALWAYS divides audiences. For Luhrmann it is ALL about the spectacle, and he doesn't even pretend that his films are anything more than that, and nobody should EXPECT anything more when they pay to see his films. Personally, I think it's the spectacle that makes it worth the ticket price though.

Michael Portillo's spot on

Will you still love me when I'm no longer young and beautiful? It ain't the book, but it ain't bad either.

If your reading this Mark what about a top ten list of Leonardo DiCaprio movies. nearly everyone on youtube has a list of top ten DiCaprio movies. I'd love to hear your opinion.

I wonder if the good doctor has ever seen the 2000 Toby Stephens' version. He never mentions it and I feel that, of all of the versions out there, it is definitely the most faithful to the novel.

In Gatsby all the central characters, save Nick, are cheats and it is set in the era of prohibition. Why doesn't Kermode mention this?

This is not just one of the worst Kermode reviews I've ever hear. It's one of the worst film reviews I've ever heard, and I love Mark Kermode's reviews. He says the same thing over and over. He spends too much time talking about Redford, and the 70s Gatsby. He doesn't really say much about the film, other than that it is loud, and how Baz Luhrman decided to shoot it. He takes almost fourteen and a half minutes to say, "it's stupid, but that's fine, and it's loud, but that's fine, and it's fast, but that's fine, and it's a product of its age, but that's fine."

Derivative? Or inspired? Either really, it's hardly a criticism considering the film is criticized for rocking the boat too much. It does something different but not in the way some people wanted it. To me, it is a masterpiece of subtlety and lacks a narrative structure. Which means it rewards multiple viewings. And why pretentious? Why not a word like confident? It's more fitting considering P.T.'s previous works. Yes, it's all subjective. However, why oversimplify a film that is so intricate?

some might

So i'm guessing you liked it?

It's ok if he doesn't rate DiCaprio, the thing is he comes off condescending, I remember in another review, he said "he's started taking on more adult roles". LOL

I don't understand the praise for the 70s version. I watched it before reading the book and the interaction between the characters is baffling without Nick's constant narration. In the film he seems in awe of Gatsby in an instant when he's being quite ridiculous; it's not until 2/3 of the way through the book that he comes round to his side, and even then it's somewhat tenuous. It's jarring to be in the audience and have the film's narrator be seemingly so out of sync with your own thoughts.

he just did...

The film’s well acted, well scored, stylish & well casted, however the film’s direction, length, writing & pacing is very poor. (54%) (2.5/5 stars) (mixed)

The only part of this grotesque adaptation is at the very end..A modicum of silence and reflection amid the racket and the speed addled carousel of Luhrmann's amyl nitrate misdirection..Carey Mulligan is badly miscast.Her vapid performance flops like a souffle sucking the life out of the pivotal part and mystery of the story..namely why would a man such as Gatsby go to such extraordinary, desperate and dangerous lengths to finally win the Love of Daisy..when this Daisy is so insipid and characterless that you wouldnt waste more than an afternoon on her before you would realise she is no more than a child wearing an older girls party dress.

ok mark... but was it good? ;)

break down of newest film @ 5 mins

he hasn't mentioned Leo so a don't get what your on about!!!

Thats funny, both you and What The Flick?! have the same preview image on your review videos...

he isn't interested in reviewing acting performance unless it involves actors he likes or actors he gets a kick out of trashing

Nothing about the performances?

truly a film without content. With a message that we evolved past in the 80s.

It's Jordan Baker, not Gatsby who comments that Daisy's voice is "full of money", a character who has rather disappointingly been almost completely edited out of this film.

If you haven't read the book beforehand, this film is not going to sway you, even though the best bit about the film is the story, it is an absolute pile of 'style over substance' dirge. This should be the first edit of the film, with about 40 mins of it being consigned to the annuls of history.

I hate Gatsby, the novel and all movie versions. It’s boring tripe. But I love Kermode I could listen to him review the yellow pages.

Had to turn it off. The anachronistic soundtrack just completely spoiled it for me - they could've recreated some authentic Swing Jazz and made it as raucous as it presumably was in the '20s, but instead they tried to use modern Dance music to draw a brash parallel.

"14/15 year old's will see the film version and then they will go and read the book" No they won't. Is Mark that out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong... ;)

Great film.

He never actually reviews the film though. He just keeps making the same point endlessly. Where is the discussion of the acting, which was at times, pretty awful(Mulligan and Maguire especially)?

The review kept going in circles and focusing on outside details too much. There wasn't much discussion of the actual film. Besides, if it really is one of Kermode's favourite books, it seems to me that he has a rather shallow understanding of it.

I walked out of the film a little confused about the plot. (This is one of the first times I have seen a film without reading the book first). I enjoyed the visuals and loved Toby Maguire, however I found Leonardo De Caprio a little unwatchable really which was dissapointing. Overall I would want to watch it again though after reading the book.

Nobody makes piles of money look cheaper than Baz Luhrmann I honestly think that, putting aside any literary hangups, this film look visually terrible.

Jesus god man, haha. Mark needs to learn to tone it down just a teeny bit when talking to people he respects. He’s great and I appreciate and adore his criticism but I’m glad he got called out a bit here for his typical overuse of flowery language and flaunting of knowledge. It’s like he’s a small boy with his arm excitedly raised hoping the teacher calls on him.

Quoting the tagline to Robert Redford, that was unclassy.

There was a time when people used money to make movies. Today, people use movies to make money. No wonder most modern movies are mindless crap.

I cannot even imagine a film less suited for 3D. What are these Hollyweird hucksters thinking? Are they even? What a load of bollocks. Then again, I'm not a big fan of 3D anyway. To me, it's even more stupid and gimmicky than Pet Rocks. Even Mood Rings hold up better.

It seems to me that Kermode has graduated to critiquing his peer's film reviews and incorporating that into his own. This review was exhausting.

I hate this movie

The Master is the work of a man who ceases to make his films seamless, it is as pretentious as it is heavily derivative of Stanley Kubrick and Robert Altman's work.