Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Jun 2, 2013 - 11:28 AM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)

We saw the film last night in a new cinema in Leeds, The Everyman - http://www.trinityleeds.com/shops/everyman-cinema

The main feature of this cinema as opposed to every other one I've been in is that you can sit on couches (or sofas/settees according to vernacular), drink wine and eat olives through the film.

This opulence seemed wholly appropriate for both a re-telling of The Great Gatsby and a Baz Luhrmann - let alone a mixture of the two. I was (in hindsight stupidly) sceptical about having paid the extra for 3D, but within seconds of the start I knew it was the right decision. The film is visually AWESOME and I don't throw that word about lightly. Even simple shots (the view across the bay, Gatsby's car barrelling along though New York) are vested with beauty and power - by far the vest use of 3D that I've ever seen in the cinema. The more complex shots (the party scenes, the battlefield recreations) are stunning.

Out of the context of the film much of the music would bore me silly, but within it I enjoyed both the original score (lovely stuff somewhat over-shadowed by the flashier parts) and the typical Luhrmann anachronisms. It probably helped that the new cinema has a great sound system. Mrs TG felt that some of the modern music didn't work so well, but then she's more familiar with the original tracks than I am, and I didn't have to get over that particular hurdle. Lana del Rey was a welcome addition for me and for once I may seek out a song score - not for the hip hop, but it seems from a cursory glance at this thread that some of the Armstrong may appear on the CD.

They also showed the Man of Steel trailer - flippin' heck, I'm looking forward to seeing that film. Not necessarily from the comfort of a couch, of course...perhaps a more traditional setting.

TG

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 9:20 AM   
 By:   DavidCoscina   (Member)

I think it's a huge difference hiring Jay Z to say Shaft that was wonderfully score by Isaaz Hayes. Those films of the '70s that drew upon pop culture at the time had a better fit of that material for film score purposes.

Heck, if they wanted something with some rock/pop elements, they should have sought out Brian Tyler who I think is very successful in marrying orchestra with pop elements. Witness Fast Five or Now You See Me. (I actually would have been curious to hear his take on MOS too now)

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 3:15 PM   
 By:   jonathan_little   (Member)

I think it's a huge difference hiring Jay Z to say Shaft that was wonderfully score by Isaaz Hayes. Those films of the '70s that drew upon pop culture at the time had a better fit of that material for film score purposes.

Heck, if they wanted something with some rock/pop elements, they should have sought out Brian Tyler who I think is very successful in marrying orchestra with pop elements. Witness Fast Five or Now You See Me. (I actually would have been curious to hear his take on MOS too now)


For the most part, the songs generally pop up in party sequences and are essentially source music. In a few places the melody from Del Rey's song is beautifully woven into the score and it serves as a love theme for Daisy and Gatsby. Armstrong's underscore is really well done and it's too bad we don't get to hear any of it on the album. A sequence underscored by Rhapsody in Blue is used for the reveal of Gatsby, which I thought worked perfectly.

Since the movie has apparently done better than expected, I wonder if we'll get another album. Of course some of the score would be great to have and I'm also yearning for that Dixieland version of "Young and Beautiful" that presents itself in the last party.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 3:55 PM   
 By:   franz_conrad   (Member)

I don't go to the movies often now -- the choices faces me on DVD at home are usually far better than what I find at the local multiplex. I must say though -- if I saw more $200m literary adaptations playing at the movies, I'd be there in a shot, because on the evidence of this, all that money means a lot more when it's anchored by a story that has stood the test of time. (Although I guess Wrath of Khan has stood the test of time, but they're not exactly advertising that connection.)

I had a headache at the end -- like an intense sugar headache... the over-stimulating 3D gangs up on you by the end. But it was a good headache. DiCaprio is as good as he was in Shutter Island -- Gatsby is another of his 'deluded hopers' that he plays so well. The film is a universe of its own in look and energy -- designed to the hilt, but never in that modern Tim Burton way which just leaves the story off playing in the corner on its own while the production designer hogs the camera. Baz Luhrman's soundtracks are beautifully welded together in the mixing room -- the stretch that covers Gatsby's big party must utilise up to 50 different musical tracks along the way, but so nicely brought into a collage. (Sadly, the soundtracks as heard in the film are impossible to recreate later, strong though the album is.)

I did have quibbles. But when I think of the crap that this $200million could have been spent on instead, I'm just happy something interesting got a look in at the top end. I loved this, and I'd be surprised if I see another film as worthwhile in this budget range for a while.

I'm a bit surprised that the critics that rolled over so easily for fairly average material like LINCOLN, ARGO and SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK have been so catty about this. Maybe people see what they tell themselves they're going to see.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 5, 2013 - 8:22 AM   
 By:   Mikal   (Member)

I'm a bit surprised that the critics that rolled over so easily for fairly average material like LINCOLN, ARGO and SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK have been so catty about this. Maybe people see what they tell themselves they're going to see.

For some reason, I get the sense that you weren't being intentionally ironic...

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 5, 2013 - 4:12 PM   
 By:   franz_conrad   (Member)

I'm ironic so often that it'd be natural to assume I have that switched on all the time, but in this case, no... I think there is a pretty strong consensus wave in film criticism. Perhaps it has something to do with marketing for films shaping the conversation, also critics watching films together, but even that aside, there are ideas in the very first reviews that you'll see when it's released on the other side of the world 6 months later. People mostly go with the mood established from the very first reviews. (In this case, the tone of Gatsby reviews was pretty firmly set almost from the first trailer. Argo, SLP and Lincoln all kept their initial screening heat all the way to Oscar glory.)

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 9, 2013 - 11:10 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

I saw GATSBY last week, sadly in 2D as my theater didn't have the 3D version. Still, I thought is was very well done, and certainly better than the 1974 version, particularly in the acting. DiCaprio perfectly captures first Gatsby's braggadocio, then his insecurity. Redford was a cold fish compared to the passion that DiCaprio brings to the role. And Carey Mulligan's solidity is head and shoulders above Mia Farrow's wispiness as Daisy.

As for the music, I agree with the posters above that the few anachronistic hip hop moments were easily dismissed, and the rest of the score and songs were fine. In total, the current score was not markedly superior to the 1974 version, except in one important respect. This GATSBY did not make the mistake of running the end credits over a garishly upbeat tune as the 1974 version did with its jarringly out-of-place version of "Ain't We Got Fun." Both films end on a suitable somber note, with Nick Carraway's narration from the novel. Thankfully the current film carries this tone over into the music of the end credits, while the 1974 version, presumably in an attempt at irony, has that horribly peppy, completely mood-destroying song.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 10, 2013 - 2:23 PM   
 By:   jonathan_little   (Member)

I'm a bit surprised that the critics that rolled over so easily for fairly average material like LINCOLN, ARGO and SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK have been so catty about this. Maybe people see what they tell themselves they're going to see.

Earlier this year I gave in and finally saw Silver Linings Playbook after it had been playing for months on a few screens here. I was thinking to myself, "My goodness, I don't remember a movie hanging around this long since Inception, so maybe there's something worth seeing here after all." After I saw it, I figured the reviewers must have some sort of racket going on. As I expected, SLP felt like an average romantic comedy. I can watch a few hundred of them in a dozen different languages on Netflix and I'll probably be moderately amused by most of them. SLP also performed fine amongst its peers in providing the moderate amusement I usually find from the genre.

The Great Gatsby comes along six months later and is slammed by the same brigade that was enamored by SLP, often complaining that the movie boiled the book down into not much more than a love story... What's wrong with that? It's a movie, not a book. Beyond that, this film had Luhrmann's trademark pizazz bringing us a very unique type of movie that doesn't come into the cinema very often, yet this was heavily discounted by the critics. I will never understand why they were so harsh on this movie.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 10, 2013 - 9:30 PM   
 By:   franz_conrad   (Member)

The nice thing about the internet is that it increases the probability that given enough time, you'll end up finding someone who thinks the way you do. wink

 
 Posted:   Mar 28, 2014 - 1:15 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

I'm a bit surprised that the critics that rolled over so easily for fairly average material like LINCOLN, ARGO and SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK have been so catty about this. Maybe people see what they tell themselves they're going to see.

. I will never understand why they were so harsh on this movie.


Why?
Because 99 percent of them know nothing about the art and craft of filmmaking.
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT are functionally illiterate.

'buff said!
brm

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 29, 2014 - 8:52 PM   
 By:   franz_conrad   (Member)

Welcome to the party, Mr Marshall smile

 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 1:12 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

We saw the film last night in a new cinema in Leeds, The Everyman - http://www.trinityleeds.com/shops/everyman-cinema


They also showed the Man of Steel trailer - flippin' heck, I'm looking forward to seeing that film.

TG


Possibly the most ironic post in the history of FSM!
smile

 
 Posted:   Mar 30, 2014 - 1:15 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

Welcome to the party, Mr Marshall smile

where is the champagne?

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 31, 2014 - 6:52 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Luhrman is a great visual stylist, who often crams music into the film with the technique of a sledgehammer. There are some great visual stylist directors who routinely screw up the music. Ridley Scott, Stanley Kubrick - I think there must be some more.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 31, 2014 - 8:31 AM   
 By:   trstnvnk   (Member)

Luhrman is a great visual stylist, who often crams music into the film with the technique of a sledgehammer. There are some great visual stylist directors who routinely screw up the music. Ridley Scott, Stanley Kubrick - I think there must be some more.

Scott may be a pain in the ass to work with as a composer, but his use of music in films is always spot on. Same for Michael Mann and Terence Malick (also great visual stylists)

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 31, 2014 - 10:02 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Luhrman is a great visual stylist, who often crams music into the film with the technique of a sledgehammer. There are some great visual stylist directors who routinely screw up the music. Ridley Scott, Stanley Kubrick - I think there must be some more.

Scott may be a pain in the ass to work with as a composer, but his use of music in films is always spot on. Same for Michael Mann and Terence Malick (also great visual stylists)


I do not know, Scott has taken to cut and paste techniques a lot in the past. And he has streamlined his tastes from something more complex from his early career. Mann is a great director, I found his choices in Collateral with pop music not totally effective, he likes that whaling woman thing he started using in The Insider - a terrific picture anyway. Malick seems to be the guy people love to hate, I have avoided most of his work.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.