Saw it last night at an early screening. It's... well, it's from nobody other than Baz. That much is clear incredibly early in the movie. So long as you like his particular style - more in line with Moulin Rouge than Romeo + Juliet this go-round, minus the musical bits - than it really is a feast for the eyes. It's the opposite of minimalism: Luhrmann throws absolutely everything he can at the screen. The colours pop, the camera soars, and the soundtrack booms. It's certainly a long ways off from the reserved 1974 version - with exception to Mia Farrow's hilariously airy Daisy - and just like his previous two better-known films (I'll agree to forget about Australia if you do), it feels very much like a stage play put to film.
There are some snags, of course. Elizabeth Debicki is fantastic as Jordan, but is criminally under-utilized. Hopefully this is the start of a promising career for her. The transition effects worked well in 3D, but I feel like they'd come off cheap and ill-conceived without the help the depth provided. Luhrmann doesn't believe in subtlety, much less practice it, and the relentless spectacle means the defining moment of the final act comes with very little emotional pay-off. Then again, maybe that's the brilliance of it all, since in the book, that big moment is also met with a sort of shrugged indifference.
Mulligan was a pretty casting choice, though I originally worried how she'd pull off someone less quiet and awkward after parts in movies like Drive. Her sometimes-sarcastic take on Daisy worked. Good ole Spiderman works as Nick, since he's average and forgettable enough to let the characters around him shine in the story he's telling. It's a back-handed compliment, sure, but it's important Nick does not draw attention to himself. Speaking of, Joel Edgerton surprised me. When the main cast was first announced, he was the odd one out for me; nothing about him screams "all-American, brute athlete", and the trailers didn't help, often giving him small, quiet lines. Throughout the film, however, he's boisterous yet simultaneously calculating, the latter always increasing whenever DiCaprio's piling on the desperation. Tom commands the attention of every room he's in, no matter the situation, and Edgerton nails that time and time again.
Quick note: Luhrmann does character intros like few others. The mysterious first look at Daisy's face is all too perfect, as is the hilariously over-the-top introduction to Gatsby.
One thing I didn't like was the overt use of sex in the film. Perhaps I'm remembering the book differently, but I recall it being more subtle there, especially the early apartment party. Then again, Luhrmann, subtlety, blah blah blah, you know the story.
The high point? The "just a favour" scene and the ensuing rainy day at Nick's house. For those who've read the book, this is absolutely how I pictured it in my head all these years.
In the end; it was enjoyable, though no replacement for the book, and definitely didn't follow it word-for-word, as the '74 version did. Much like Romeo + Juliet, it should not be compared to the work on which it is based; it's not Luhrmann's take on Fitzgerald's vision of The Great Gatsby, it's Gatbsy as written by Baz himself. In a month filled with gigantic blockbusters, I don't foresee it doing too well; IM3 was genuinely good and will still be riding a lot of steam this weekend, and next week, Star Trek will take what air is left out of Gatsby's balloon. That said, provided you don't already have a chip on your shoulder about the man behind the film, I'd recommend going to see this. It's pretty, easy to digest without being (too) trite, and doesn't take itself too seriously. Importantly, it hasn't retro-actively ruined the book for me.
