REVIEW: “Gatsby? What Gatsby?” It’s A Flashy Gatsby But Not A Great Gatsby

The beauty of committing to a Baz Luhrmann film is that you know exactly what you are getting yourself into; there may be a plot of sorts but you can be sure it is going to look damn pretty. The director essentially disappeared off the scene following the abomination that was Australia, and besides a selection of shorts, did not really commit to any feature films.

Then came Gatsby. Sure, there was already a pretty good adaptation of the classic F. Scott Fitzgerald book in 1974 with the legend that is Robert Redford, but there was still more than enough room for maneuver on a "reboot".

Luhrmann had been involved with the project from as far back as 2010, before beginning filming in 2011. The film had originally been intended for the Christmas market for 2012, but was pushed back in order to make the Cannes Film Festival for this year. The move was perhaps one of the smartest for the film which managed to create hysteric levels of publicity.

However, the payoff for any of the above does not really occur. Based on the 1925 classic by Fitzgerald, the film revolves around its enigmatic main character, the elusive and mysterious Gatsby. Told from the perspective of friend and neighbour, Nick Carraway, Gatsby's tale is one of flashy parties and extreme wealth. But there is more to the billionaire than meets the eye. Gatsby's secret is revealed to us through the course of his relationship with Nick and his cousin Daisy Buchanan, a woman who has more influence on him than it would first appear.

There is one thing that can never be taken away from Luhrmann, he certainly knows how to present a film. Gatsby is nothing less than stunning on visuals, the elaborate parties, the costumes, the views, his use of camera, the film can certainly be viewed with no sound and appreciated for how artistic it looks.

But that is where the positive points regarding the production ends; Luhrmann literally lets the film get away with him. With a running time of 142 minutes, the production is far, far too long. From a book of 180 pages, Gatsby drags us through every single line, every single shot, every single emotion to the point where we could not care less about anything that happens. The emotional investment is too much to expect over a two hour film.

The stand out performance is, of course, Leonardo DiCaprio. As Gatsby, he delivers a suave, but vulnerable aspect to the character which really allows us to sympathize with his plight. This is arguably one of DiCaprio's best performances and one that essentially holds the entire affair together. Joel Edgerton as the rough and ready Buchanan also packs a mean punch and Isla Fisher as the walked-over Myrtle does everything that is expected of her.

The same can not be said of the support cast. Tobey Maguire buckles under the weight of such a heavy production, he is unable to carry the brunt of Gatsby throughout its screen time. As for Mulligan, she is disappointing as the charismatic Daisy who is meant to draw us in; this never happens. Mulligan's Daisy alienates leaving the audience entirely confused why Gatsby is gone to such lengths for her. Frankly, Rachel McAdams would have suited the role a lot better.

In short, be prepared for that length; Gatsby is not all we had hoped it would be.