Out next friday in the U.S. is Baz Luhrmann's new big budget adaptation of the classic F. Scott Fitzgerald novel that countless American high school kids are forced to read ever year. Interestingly that book was the #1 selling book on Amazon.com in the last week, still #2 currently. I know some BB.Net locals who were intrigued about this release.

Originally set for a Christmas '12 release, delayed allegedly to get a 3-D post-production conversion. Which is fucking bonkers for a costume period drama, but nevermind. Anyway I found it strange initially that this Oscar bait would be positioned inbetween the other testosterone-overpacking blockbuster sequels in May. But who knows, it could work as brilliant counter-programming for those that aren't interested in superheroes or spaceships or Vin Diesel.

We already have some early reviews, here is one which basically says it looks great and Leonardo DiCaprio is awesome as Jay Gatsby but Spider-Man sucks apparently as Nick Callaway. Mixed review, but still makes this movie sound even more interesting.

http://tomshone.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/review-great-gatsby-d-luhrmann.html?spref=tw

Colbert urged all viewers to read the book before May 9th, so that by the time the movie is out, we could all say "the book was so much better."

I got a epub copy, tried to read the first chapter, but got bored by all the pretentious set up of the first encounters. Who cares about a class difference in an imaginary setting, in a town that I could not identify with for the life of me? So I went to the wiki as I do when I find the books boring and read the plot. Meh!

Trailer looks beautiful though, and I'm pretty sure with that plot, any movie is better than the book.

Fitzgerald is my favorite writer, and Daisy is based on his wacky wife Zelda. I'm shocked that Toby didn't get good reviews as well, as he's usually very, very good - just look at "Cider House Rules" and "Seabiscuit". Casting him as Nick seemed quite perfect to me, as did the rest of the cast. I'm looking forward to this.

I was assigned to read the book when I was a high schooler, but being a poor high-schooler, I never did. I DID finally get around to reading the book in my twenties and thought it was a great, if depressing, look at the emptiness of a material culture and the brutal betrayal of one’s identity and values.

The 3-D should be kickin’, though!

It's a favorite of mine. I read this novel every 4 or 5 years. The rich lyrical prose, treatment of themes and symbols are hard to replicate in a film, but I'll make an effort to see the movie. Daisy and Tom are two bastards worth seeing on film.

We haven't talked about it in a a while, old sport, but ditto .

I don't think the book is dated at all. That book was written pre-middle class America. Unfortunately, we're moving towards post-middle class America. The timing is actually pretty good.

Someone has called the novel "The American Hamlet." It is IMHO the best novel ever written by an American, and one of the best novels ever written. Period. Apparently when it was first published it got terrible reiews, and did not sell very well. F. Scott never fully recovered from the fact that few people "got it." Of course he had other problems as well.

The current New Yorker slams the latest movie version, but I'm going to see it anyway.

I don't understand what are you trying to say PB ??

I'm not trying to answer for pizzaboy, but I agree with him that the themes of the novel are universal and as relevant today as they were when it was written. Specifically the novel portrays the corrupting force of wealth leading to a morally bankrupt and selfish generation, and the futility of an idyllic dreamer seeking a dream in this mess.

The golden girl...Ah, what could be more romantic than Gatsby rattling around all alone in that enormous house, simply so he could keep watch over the green light at the end of Daisy's dock. Gatsby, who was from a "lower class", ultimately proved to be a far more noble man than Daisy or any of the others.

Hi Sicillian. I never really saw Gatsby as noble, but rather tragic. To accomplish so much and then ultimatly to waste it on shallow persuits and an obsession (as opposed to real 'love.') Perhaps he might have found happiness as himself, but as 'Gatsby,' he was lost.

But enough deep thought. Now back to afternoon baseball!

Yes, he was definitely tragic, however, the reason that Daisy didn't marry him to begin with was that he was of a lower class.

‘The Great Gatsby’ Overperforms For $3.25 Millions Late Shows Breaking Record For Female-Driven Films



We'll see how WOM will impact this movie throughout the weekend.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/the-grea...e-driven-films/

TGG nearly beat last weekend's champ IRON MAN 3 on friday, and box-office gurus say this could actually open this weekend at $50 million. We'll see if the legs are there for it.

Meanwhile, the soundtrack is doing just as well.



http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/great-gatsby-soundtrack-sales-zooming-up-billboard-200/#more-496464

TGG opened to $52 million. Despite mixed reviews and a not great Cinemascore grade ('B'), it did much better than I (and most folks) expected.

Of course maybe we overlooked Leo's power?



http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/the-grea...e-driven-films/

Somebody online yesterday made a compelling argument that Leo isn't merely a huge draw or global A-star but quite possibly an icon within his own time, and I think there might be merit to this.

Look at his filmography, for the most part he's involved in movies that either win awards or make money. Or both. Male lead in two Best Picture Oscar winners, one of them TITANIC the first movie to gross a billion dollars and still the #2 biggest hit in history. Really since TITANIC his only real perceived failure financially and critically was probably J. EDGAR.

Otherwise he knows how to get himself involved with event films, "It" movies of the moment. And mind you he's been pretty damn successful without doing a comic book movie or these franchises that Depp and Downey and others are doing.

I'm impressed.

You know I never read the novel and only saw the original when it first came out. I did like it but it's been so long that if I see the remake, it'll be like seeing the story for the first time. I do like Leo though and it does look good by the previews.

Btw, wasn't it Redford & Mia Farrow in the original?



TIS

Yes. Bruce Dern played Tom and Sam Waterston played Nick.

I saw this today. As I Tweeted:

GATSBY nimble, Gatsby shit: dizzyingly dull anti-ode to film's most cinematic city. Too busy being dizzy to allow its cast to act. 3/10

Also: Production Sound Mixer Guntis Sics - unfortunate victim of Gs and Cs being barely discernible in GATSBY's end credits font.

Brilliant, Capo.

Can you explain its box-office for me because I can't understand it unless its women and old people desperate for May entertainment that isn't a sequel?

Peeps gotta spend their money on something. Catchy trailer + DiCaprio = good to very good chance of wiling away 150 minutes with eye candy?

Who knows?

It's one of my favorite books, so I was sorry to read the mixed reviews it got.

As a capitalist, I must admire how WB took what really would've most likely failed as Oscar bait and rebranded it for the TMZ generation. (Which in some ways is pretty appropriate considering the source material.) Not to mention be the only game in town for women who had no interest in the action blockbuster sequels out there right now. It's now Baz's biggest hit in America, his first to make $100 million domestic.

In short, they (probably) polished a turd masterfully. I'll add that I still haven't seen it and will try to catch it when it comes by the dollar theater.

hehehehehe

Will stream this online one day I am bored, seems pretty bad though.

Ha. It'll be $1 more than I'll give AFTER EARTH, I'll tell you that.

Got dragged to this last night. DiCaprio's performance was good. Not exactly my cup of tea, though. But it was easier to get through than the book back in middle school.