This is a fine movie; but whether it will be regarded as the definitive Gatsby film remains to be seen.

Rating: 8/10 (17 April 2016)

I had been waiting with bated breath for many months for the cinematic release of the latest attempt to put the 'great American novel' on the silver screen. This time, strangely, it was an Aussie who was handed the poisoned chalice by the Hollywood moguls. There were several reasons for my eager anticipation. Firstly, I am a great admirer of F. Scott Fitzgerald, and while I personally prefer his inspirational 'Tender is the Night', (which amongst other things, relates the rise and inevitable fall of an alcoholic), I do nevertheless hold 'the Great Gatsby' in very high regard. Fitzgerald was so naturally talented and was such a beautiful writer of the English language that frankly everything that he has ever written is just fine by me.
I can see why Gatsby is considered as one of the finest American novels. Apart from it being beautifully written, it also tells the story of the 'American Dream' – in a country where you can totally reinvent yourself and become unbelievably rich and successful. Although there is much dark stuff in Gatsby, it is nowhere near as dark as 'Tender is the Night' and maybe Americans prefer to exalt 'Gatsby', which they have clearly taken to their hearts rather than the complex and troublesome 'autobiographical Tender is The Night.
Secondly, I saw the 1974 version of Gatsby, shortly after reading the novel, and while it was okay-ish, on the whole I found it somewhat disappointing. Considering the great cast, headed up by Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, I felt that they could have made a better fist of it.
Thirdly, I have long been a fan of Australian film director, Baz Luhrmann. In particular I loved 'Strictly Ballroom' and the magical 'Moulin Rouge' although I was quite disappointed with 'Australia', (especially Nicole Kidman's ridiculous upper class English accent – almost as bad as Dick Van Dyke's much derided cockney accent). So after the somewhat muted reception of 'Australia' I wondered whether he could rediscover his directorial touch with Gatsby.
Did He? To be honest I'm still not 100% sure. It certainly divided the critics; it seems they either loved it or hated it. I'm not in either camp. I enjoyed watching the film and never got bored despite its 2 hours 20 minutes length. Much of it was great stuff and it was certainly a huge improvement on the 1974 version, but somehow the movie stopped short of being really great. The actors, with the possible exception of Toby Maguire were brilliant – particularly Leonardo as Jay Gatsby and Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan– and there is no doubt that the movie told the story quite faithfully and used much of Fitzgerald's original dialogue.
The grossly over-the-top scenes of the parties at Gatsby's mansion and the scenes of drunken, drug-taking debauchery in downtown New York were fascinating and highly entertaining to watch. But I suppose I fall into the camp that feels that with such a great novel, the director owed some kind of duty to an American classic and should not have taken us into such surrealistic flights of fancy.
I believe the movie would have been truly great if these scenes of decadence had been portrayed in a more realistic manner; maybe with a gritty, 1930's feel to them. After all, surely they were wild enough as originally written without having to undergo the 'Luhrmann treatment'. It was almost as though 'Moulin Rouge' met 'Moulin Gatsby'. These scenes are great fun – a feast of voyeurism – but somewhat out of place, and frankly, unnecessary. I also feel that the scenes at the motor garage were rushed and could have been longer and better developed, as they are so integral to the story; but maybe I am being picky.
The device of Nick, (Toby Maguire), telling the whole story from a sanatorium was contrived by Lurhmann and in my opinion, was rather pointless. Maybe the Lurrhmann-invented scenes at the sanatorium should have been sacrificed and replaced with extended scenes in the 'valley of Ashes'. I am sure it is all there in the rushes. A Director's cut, maybe? While I still believe that 3D is largely a gimmick which will probably disappear from main-stream movies, the use of 3D in Gatsby probably enhanced my enjoyment, and I have no complaints on that front.
Don't get me wrong – this is a fine movie; but whether it will go down as the definitive Gatsby film remains to be seen. If you have a chance, I recommend that you it. There's not too much on at the cinemas these days that are worth the effort of getting up from your sofa, but Baz Lurhrmann's Great Gatsby is certainly one of them.