Film Review: The Great Gatsby

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, Romeo and Juliet), Carey Mulligan (An Education, Doctor Who), Tobey MacGuire (Spiderman), Joel Edgerton (Warrior), Isla Fisher (Confessions of a Shopaholic), Elizabeth Debicki (A Few Best Men)
Directed by Baz Luhrmann (Romeo and Juliet, Moulin Rogue)
Filmed in various locations in Australia
Based on the novel of the same name by F.Scott Fitzgerald


Synopsis: Set in Long Island, Nick Carraway recounts the events of the previous summer where he encountered the mysterious Jay Gatsby and became a part of his lavish, rich world. Nick soon discovered the secrets, obsession and lies beneath the cool, sophisticated life of Gatsby where tragedy is waiting.


Okay, so I may be a little bias in my love for this movie mostly because I had to read the book last year for my English Literature A-level and be able to analyse any part of it. Then, I did it for my coursework this year and re-read it in March.

So I know this book WELL. But normally studying a book to death means I dislike said book but The Great Gatsby was the first book where that didn't happen. I loved the symbols, the hatred you feel for the characters, the hope that Gatsby makes Nick and the reader feel, the dazzling imagery of Gatsby's parties of excess - everything. 

So I had HIGH hopes for the movie considering the 1974 adaptation is far from fantastic. 

In a word, my reaction to this film when I came out of the cinema was a simple 'Wow'. There were many things I was dubious about: the modern music, Tobey Macguire as Nick Carraway, the narrative staying retrospective. But all those worries were forgotten as soon as the opening credits started, Tobey Macguire appeared and started recounting the events of the previous summer and then when Leonardo appeared - well, I was sold. 

The thing that sticks out the most to me about this film is the characters that I think were cast amazingly well particularly Nick and Gatsby. These are far from easy roles and even in the book, it is hard to understand the motivations, the feelings and the truth to the main characters because they all feel they have to be something else to fit in with society.
 Leonardo Di Caprio isn't playing Gatsby, he BECOMES Gatsby - he shows his cool sophistication that masks his childhood, there is the glimmers of something darker in him particularly latterly in the film. He IS how I imagine Gatsby. 

I never liked Tobey Macguire as Spiderman- he was too awkward for a superhero but in this film that awkwardness works superbly for Nick who let's face it, is an awkward character stuck in the middle of a world he doesn't particularly understand unless it's to do with drinking. I absolutely loved him as Nick and although he wasn't as annoying and ambiguous as Nick is in the book, he really brought that something to Nick's character that I can't quite work out.

When I read the first reviews for the film, they all stated that they found that Carey Mulligan, playing the lead female role of Daisy, as lacking depth and in some cases annoying. This, rather than actually understand the story, showed that the writer had clearly not read the book. In my case, I liked Carey Mulligan as Daisy, a role so different to others I've seen her play. She showed me how I saw Daisy in the novel - someone shallow that is so within her own world, she doesn't even realise the damage she causes around her.

The film epitomises the idea of excess. Everything is big, everything is bold and loud and bright. In the first reviews also, I saw one comment which stated that 'It was so unrealistic. Everything was too much' which again had me wondering if the writer also hadn't read the book. I agree, Gatsby's parties, the speed of some of the shots, the colours, the filming - it is excessive. But so is the novel. I think Baz Luhrmann has done a superb job is showing the culture of the 1920's, the insane practices, the subtle warnings of what is to come in 1929 as well as the messages and illustrations F Scott Fitzgerald shows in the novel itself. As I came out of the cinema, my best friend turned to me and said 'It was like I was watching Moulin Rouge all over again'. While I haven't watched Moulin Rogue, also directed by Baz Luhrmann, I have seen Romeo and Juliet starring also Leonardo DiCaprio and directed by Luhrmann. And in all honesty, I can totally see what she means. The colours, the music, the filming - it is very typical of Luhrmann's way of making films and as these three films all have the same kind of tragic love story to the plot, it does make them seem incredibly similar.

Despite this, The Great Gatsby is one of the best films I've seen this year, as well as Les Miserables. Although I knew what happened in the story, I still was surprised by the revelations throughout, still saddened by Gatsby's story and I literally grabbed my friend's hand in the final climatic moments of the film - it still had the power to move someone who knows the story inside out. I can see the understanding behind some of the critique with this film, but in my view, if you read the book then watch the film (like in most adaptations), it makes it more enjoyable watching as well as showing and appreciating the power and imagery of Fitzgerald's beautiful book that is transformed well onto the screen. This is a brilliant adaptation of one of the books in my life that holds the most memories and resonance for me. 

Film Review: Pride and Prejudice (2005)

Starring: Keira Knightley (The Duchess), Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day), Donald Sutherland (Going to be in the new Hunger Games), Matthew McFadyen (Spooks), Rupert Friend (The Young Victoria), Brenda Blethyn (Atonement), Talulah Riley (St. Trinians), Carey Mulligan (An Education), Jena Malone (Sucker Punch), Simon Woods (Cranford), Kelly Reily (Sherlock Holmes), Tom Hollander (Pirates of the Caribbean)
Made in 2005 by Focus Features (US)
Filmed in various places in England
Directed by Joe Wright
Based on novel by Jane Austen published in 1813

L-R: Jena Malone (Lydia), Carey Mulligan (Kitty), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth),
Rosamund Pike (Jane), Talulah Riley (Mary)

It is universally acknowledged that Matthew McFadyen (who plays the one and only Mr Darcy) doesn't quite match the Darcy from the 1995 mini-series version of this book: Colin Firth. This maybe because of my particular likeness for Colin Firth since seeing him in The King's Speech but you know...he's well liked mostly because of the Mr Darcy role. Having seen some of the episodes of the 1995 version (and admittingly, I have the DVD of it - HEY. Don't judge. It was a joke birthday present), this version, ten years on, focuses much more on the cinematography of the film rather than the raw emotions like in the 1995 series.   

There are some beautiful images from the start that both represent feelings and events that happened in the book, but also to just make it a really nice movie to watch. It is slow, I admit, especially for non-Pride and Prejudice fans or non-Keira Knightley ones too as she is featured heavily in this lovely movie. 

I, however, like her, especially as she was born and bred around my area (as well as Bend It Like Beckham, which she featured in, being filmed around my town). So obviously, she is a personal favourite movie star of mine. 

This movie shows clearly the events in Pride and Prejudice as well as adding a slight modern look to the film although keeping with the traditional manners, dress and formalities of 18th Century England. There is some lovely scenes where the characters do not have to tell you how they're feeling, you just kind of know. In short, this movie's best strength is the way in which it has been filmed - it is utterly beautiful. 

The acting is also not too bad. Keira Knightley shows both the attractive and clever sides to Elizabeth Bennet although when she is angry, it isn't Knightley's best moments beauty wise. I also found her take on Elizabeth rather moody at points, a tad like Darcy is known to be. 

Matthew McFadyen was a great Darcy and clearly showed that change from maintaining pride to loving Elizabeth, it was like a truly completely different Darcy. The other actors also reflected their characters personalities in the novel well with the amusement we find between Mr and Mrs Bennet and Lydia's innocence and stupidity of being a giddy young teenager. Carey Mulligan as Kitty was a very different role from perhaps we see her doing now, being a big Hollywood actress. 

For me, the perfect choice for character was Rosamund Pike as Jane. Jane is supposed to be absolutely beautiful, in and out. Comforting. Everyone's favourite character and elegant. In the 1995 version, Jane is hardly any of these. Pike was a good choice for Jane. She became the Jane I see in my head when I read anything to do with Pride and Prejudice.

Overall, this film was full of amazing actors and actresses. It was shot beautifully and captured the essence of the 1700's and the world of Jane Austen. It was like stepping back in time...even though there are a few movie mistakes. 

Film Review: Girl With the Pearl Earring

Starring: Scarlett Johansson (The Other Boleyn Girl), Colin Firth (The King's Speech), Cillian Murphy (Inception), Tom Wilkinson (Shakespeare in Love),  Anna Popplewell (The Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe)
Made in 2003 by Lion Gate Films in the UK
Filmed in London, Luxembourg, Amsterdam (Netherlands), Belguim
Directed by Peter Webber
Based on a novel by Tracy Chevalier



Ever since reading the novel version, I have wanted to see this film, having known the film before the novel. Also, I knew of the film early on, especially after watching the first modern St. Trinians where they steal the actual painting the book/film are based on ('Oh my god! You want us to steal Scarlett Johansson?!'). So when I came across a MASSIVE DVD section in the library at the college and found this, I had to get it out for the weekend.

The film was overall well done. It was filmed beautifully and really fulfilled what I expected. This is a stunning adaptation of the novel, there plots that are included are done to the best they could and it felt like I was watching Girl with a Pearl Earring, not just a version of it. Although I love adaptations of books, sometimes they can ruin the whole feel of a novel for me because of the film. I think many would agree with me. This, however, didn't do that. I feel I can still read the book, healthy in the knowledge that my mind can either revert to this when I think of what is happening in my mind or create a complete new version.

Scarlett Johansson was the best choice as Griet, although so me she spoke little, she was just as I imagined Griet and looked so much like the girl we all see in the painting, hence Chelsea's comment from St Trinians. She came across a lot like her world was spiralling out of control because of her innocence that every character plays on in good and bad ways for her.
Colin Firth as Vermeer, not something that I would have necessarily have chosen, but I guess I can see Colin doing the moody painter look, like he kind of has in other roles. His relationship with Griet was well played too and showed simply that they wanted to, you know, get together but they knew deep down they couldn't. - it is such a complicated relationship and they live together knowing that and Griet knows she can ask him things that she would know dare to ask his wife.
And the plus of Vermeer? It's Colin Firth. Yes, he's 50 but you know, I like him...hmm...

Anyway, there were a few surprise castings that I did not know where in it. Number One: Anne Popplewell. She is the oldest daughter of Vermeer's family, and doesn't exactly have a speaking role. Just kind of walks around a bit and helps Griet once or twice. Number Two: Cillian Murphy from Inception. I was like 'Hey, it's you!' He played Pieter, Griet's kind of lover. He was annoying much like I find his character in the book, so persistent. So yeah basically he did a good job!

I loved how the colours of the headscarf are so vivid nearer the end for the painting, they are so beautiful and contrast dramatically with Griet's normally plain life and really shows what paint can do to make it so real and life-like.
The only things that annoyed me in a bad way against the book was that they took out a lot of characters and events that were so great and important to the plot like Griet's sister dying, her seeing her brother, the awkward dinners with her family and Pieter. These things were great in the book and I can see that maybe not needed but it would have been great if it was a true good adaptation rather than a half hearted one. And Cornelia. She was way too young and pretty.
Also, a lot of the events just you know, kind of just HAPPEN, without a build up or anything which is unusual in those type of films really.

This is a great and true adaptation of Tracy Chevalier's Girl with the Pearl Earring and should have won more awards. With its star-studded cast and beautiful filming, this is really one I would watch again and recommend others to do so too.

My Review of the novel, Girl with the Pearl Earring