The Great Gatsby

Baz Luhrmann returns to form with a reimagining of the F. Scott Fitzgerald classic. Let me begin by saying I'm not particularly a fan of the novel. It is grounded in a beautiful and melancholic setting, but being devoid of an Ivy League education, and being a West Coaster, I find the book to be above average at best (blasphemy, I know). That's not to say I can't appreciate a fresh perspective on a literary classic. Baz Luhrmann is an odd director. His fusion of classic with modern is confusing, but wonderfully entertaining at the same time. Moulin Rouge! is one of my favorite period-bending films of the past 15 years, and Ewan McGregor was robbed of an Oscar nomination. Romeo & Juliet (1996) was also a very inventive look at the Shakespearean classic (the story is a bit overdone, but a valiant attempt at originality). Luhrmann then let his ego take over and he tried the epic failure that was Australia. It's been a few years since he has directed a feature film, and we've come full circle back to Leonardo DiCaprio as the absurdly handsome Jay Gatsby.

The film's protagonist isn't Gatsby at all, it's simple and naive Yale graduate Nick Carraway, played by Tobey Maguire. Tobey has dropped out of the spotlight since the Spider-Man trilogy, and except for a great role in 2009's Brothers, he has been all but forgotten. He plays Carraway with a sense of curiosity and awe, but laments as if his encounters with Gatsby were too good to be true. There is a mysterious sense of fantasy that Luhrmann lends to his interpretation that simply doesn't exist in the novel. Carraway is caught up in this newfound lifestyle of extravagance and excess, and Gatsby does hold mysteriousness, but DiCaprio and this version is a bit too much of a recluse and enigma.

Set in 1922, in New York, the stock market is hot, and bootlegged alcohol is flowing. People are pushing social boundaries,and Gatsby is at the center of every party. His intrigue is of course all an elaborate plot to win back his lost love, but life has a way of being a bit more complicated than that. Carey Mulligan is beautiful, but a bit vapid, making her Daisy Buchanan a bit hollow. Joel Edgerton brings some much needed machismo to the role of Tom Buchanan, and is probably the best cast actor in the film. Except for Leo. Is there any other actor that could play this momentous of a character with such presence? I really can't think of one. There is a rising tension until we get to see him on screen, and I actually laughed out loud when he finally appeared. Luhrmann revels in his muse and his impact. This is the type of role that was made for DiCaprio.

The stylized 1920's party scene is nothing new to Baz. He incorporates his modern blend of music, this time around compliments of Jay-Z. Definitely fitting to draw today's crowd closer to the setting. The story unfolds as it should, in line with the book, and with the exception of a few very small and harmless changes, it does it justice.

What I couldn't quite get behind was Tobey Maguire. I'm not sure what it is about him, but I'm just not a fan. He was a cute kid in The Ice Storm, Pleasantville, Cider House Rules, and even as a goofy Peter Parker, but I just don't see him as an adult, no matter how old he gets. There will always be roles for guys like him, and I'm sure he has a following, but it isn't me. He didn't do anything wrong with the role, and I'm sure being Leo DiCaprio's best friend has its perks, but he's not who I would have chosen. He can be seen as chess ingenue Bobby Fischer in the upcoming Ed Zwick drama titled Pawn Sacrifice. No joke.

Gatsby is a fun movie, but a slight disappointment at the same time. I am not sure what I was expecting, knowing exactly how the story goes when I walked in the theatre. I also realize that Baz Luhrmann is a visionary, and he probably did a better job than just about any other director out there. What I find myself wondering even now is if The Great Gatsby needed to be done again. There are dozens of fresh stories, and I know the craze is literature adaptations or superhero-mania, but remakes, however imaginative, are still remakes.

I had higher hopes for the quirky filmmaker. Hell, I was even expecting Australia to be a cool movie. It was not. This makes two in a row, and it will be interesting to see where he goes from here. The film gained moderate success at the box office, but it was destined to be handicapped from the start. The story is stale. The director's flair has fizzled, and it was released in the wrong season. This is a Christmas movie all the way. Not good enough for Oscars, and not a blockbuster.

It's something different, but you might not like it. 6/10.