Unfair Reviews

Rating: 7/10 (16 May 2013)

I have seen and heard many mixed reviews for this film, many being deeply unfair, and also rife with people not understanding the aim of the film. As an avid fan of Baz Luhrmann and F. Scott's book, the movie had high expectations; which were very almost lived up to.
One negative comment I've heard is the film is it was 'too extravagant' and 'too glamorous'. but this is the thing, the movie is narrated by Nick Carraway (Maguire), who moves from Chigaco to New York in 1922. he mentioned he'd only been drunk once/twice and upon meeting his old college friend Tom Buchanan (Edgerton) was pushed full force into the glamorous lifestyle of New York in the 20's. we see the movie from his view -when to him the glamour would have been too much, over-whelming and hard to bare, therefore we feel exactly how he felt - like a tidal wave of fashion and alcohol and glitz had hit him.. It was a nice touch.
Another negative comment I have heard is how 'superficial' the film was how it focused on appearances too much. As much as I do feel the book was a little let down as those who have read it may feel like the story and feelings of the characters (especially Tom and Murtle) were lost a little but that is true of many books, it has to be true because film and novels are completely different ways of communicating and nothing is ever going to translate fully one way or the other. it's impossible to replicate every emotion and thought read about in a book, into a movie without an inner monologue of every character - and that would be too messy. I am writing off this 'fault' as irrelevant - as it exists in almost all novel adaptations.
the last is the contemporary music. first off, I feel like it was used extremely well (to an extent, I've had a few ideas as to when the songs used could have been put to better use) but it's an expected part of Luhrmann's work, and no one should be surprised. A lot of Jazz music was still involved, and even though there was some Beyoncé and Jay Z was squeezed in, the music suited the film well. music in a film does not always have to be historically correct, because then any films from roman times should not have any music except maybe the harp, or medieval films with only the..... mandolin. and remember that directors, cinematographers, writers, actors, musicians and everyone else will adapt with the environment and with the times. it's 2013, when 3D and CGI is used in most films being made, so why not put it to good use? the film was cinematically beautiful, and because graphic images like that is something we can achieve in the 21st century, why would we not just because the movie was set in 1922. Even 'the artist' had contemporary elements synthesised in, and it won an Oscar.
I'd also like to mention that every time I see Tobey Maguire I can't help but see 'Evil' Parker from spider-man 3, but somehow I did see past this when playing Nick. The acting was spectacular - from all starring roles and most of the supporting. Set design and Costumes were also beautiful.
My only real complaint was the editing, I can't help but cringe when giant heads are projected into the sky. cringe so bad, and also I disliked the type on screen at the end. but if that's my only fault then it did pretty well. I Think that's all I have to say.......