Deciding how many stars to give

Rating: 6/10 (22 December 2013)

I read the novel ages ago and agree it is a literary classic, though I also still believe it is *not* a "great American novel." Actually, it is F. Scott Fitzgerald who convinces me that there probably is no such thing. There are great works, great writing, great stories, &c., but no, no such thing as a great American novel. However, I *do* believe there is such a thing as a great (American optional) movie, er, film. Australians do qualify.
2 stars for production, set & scenery, costumes and makeup. Minus 1 star for CGI scenery & blue screen. Even in one scene when they are sitting indoors (I forgot which, maybe the waiting for 4 o'clock one) and there's a window in the back to the right showing the outdoors, I almost felt that what I was seeing out of the window was CGI. Even if I'm wrong, that's the impression I get, which is a bad impression to give to the viewer. The long lens overhead shots and so on of the city, Long Island,&c.--totally CGI and unnecessarily so polished that they actually look fake and ugly, ugly in a bad way not in an artsy fartsy way. Gatsby's palace belongs at Disney World. The smaller sets were better than the overall design. Nice pool.
1 star only for the screenplay. It lost a second star due to the awful dialogue and lack of narrative cohesiveness. The musical interludes, party, horn player on a balcony, &c., really interrupt the storytelling for flashy social commentary that don't really work for me. I think they were trying to make that part of the Fitzgerald story subtle but I think they failed. No, those elements did not entertain. The story flatlines for at least the first 30 minutes and doesn't get a heartbeat until we meet Leondardo Di'Gatsby.
1 star for music & sound. No second star due to the awful use of contemporary music. It's one thing to say that truly great music is timeless and one can almost lift this music here from this era and plop it into that spot there in that era. But to go backwards is not always a smart idea. Jazz can easily stand on its own TODAY, even in its early times like the Roarin' 20s, so why not just let the music of the era shine? Rapping on the soundtrack--sorry guys, the pieces selected are not going to stand the test of time, so I felt they were inappropriate. Dubstep: yeah, right. Have you seen them try to do the swing and Charleston to that stuff? Doesn't look as energetic or fitting as the original dance music, eh? no matter how hard they tried to get the music thumping. That type of dance is not about thumping, folks, it's about quick-stepping and swiveling on the balls of your feet, not a fist pumper.
Two stars for the acting, each owned by Tom (Joel Edgerton) and Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). No more stars due to bland Tobey Maguire. No stars for the rest of the cast; they were merely adequate. Edgerton is deliciously unlikable yet sympathetic to us in the portrayal, not over the top but shows why the story must end miserably due to the privilege (but not prestige) of the haves against the have-nots that inevitably ends in carelessness taken to its logical conclusion. The mustache does most of the acting for him. DiCaprio is brilliant. It's not his fault the awful dialogue has him saying "Old Spor'" every other line--ugh! His body posture is nearly perfect, body language in motion is nice. Look at that seething face and the deep lean-in towards the end when they have that argument out in town and the place is sweltering hot. His seething, like a hot iron, is even hotter than a flame, not so much in terms of temperature but for what it does to the psyche. No additional stars for lack of romantic chemistry b/w Gatsby and Daisy. She actually has more on screen chemistry w/ her husband, against the story's wishes--can you believe that?
Editing: zero stars. I don't even want to say.
1 star only for the directing. I give up to 5 stars for the directing alone (Oscar quality, possibly an all-time classic). 4 stars: I highly recommend as a "should watch" for the year. But no, B.L. is so bad at helping out the cinematographer, especially in tight spaces like dinner/tea/lunch dialogues, his "vision"--blech--overshadows the fluidity of the scene. Can you say too many chandeliers getting in the way at the table? Is this supposed to be some subtle hint? supporting material of the physical world mimicking/supporting the emotional and psychological world? If so, it is too heavy-handed. If not, that's just an awful distraction of glitz and glam on the screen. It is everywhere sparkly and lush, even when dust is supposed to be settling on the furniture. But no, B.L. doesn't know how to shoot a scene straight. I am neutral on the over-the-top set pieces: grand party scenes, car accident scene w/ victim slo-mo hurling through the air, &c. &c. He is directing like he's ordering around all those folks in maid & butler costumes and calls it vision, like the psychological motivator of Gatsby. One sees what Fitzgerald thinks about all that... 'nough said.
Production, the rest of it: zero to one stars. I took one star away from the costume and set design, &c. above. Here, I'm talking mostly the post- production and overall feel of the picture (not its look). The jewelry and hat designs outshone the sweeping gray downtown New York landscape and cut-ins and overlays over the stars and clouds and the green light. Ugh. I could go on. Point is those types of production tricks take away from Fitzgerald's nearly lyrical prose. It felt "tricky" not artistic.
OK, total something like 6 stars, which feels right to me.