Continuing with the Hamlet theme... As most of you know, a new film version of F Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is in the theaters. The older version with Robert Redford was boring; the good looks of Redford were not enough to carry the movie, and I don't know if I'm up for another disappointment because I've read and enjoyed the book more than once.
Movie critics are about evenly divided between positive and negative reviews, but audiences give the film higher approval ratings. My first impulse is to give the movie a pass, but my granddaughter liked the book and wants very much to see the film. None of her friends will agree to go, so I expect we will go together.
From what I've read, the latest film version of Gatsby consists of lots of movement and a good many spectacular scenes in 3-D. Now it's quite true that Jay Gatsby's extravagant way of life, especially the wild parties at his expensive estate, is over the top and an invitation to a director to use this sort of treatment. Still, spectacles are not my favorite type of movie, nor am I especially captivated by 3-D. The film runs for a relentless 2 hours and 30 minutes, whether I'm enjoying myself or not. Sigh.... Give me a well-made movie with a good story and fine acting, and I'm happy. Is Gatsby that movie? I doubt it, but I will let you know, if I go.
We went to see Life of Pi in a theatre because it was touted as the best use yet of 3D technology. We found that 3D added nothing to the experience, and sometimes detracted. (My husband left halfway through -- I thought to go to the bathroom, but he actually was checking out the other films in the multiplex for something more appealing. He came back -- they all seemed lousy -- and watched the rest without glasses.)
ReplyDeleteCritics say that Gatsby is strong on visual design (like Pi) but fumbles the narrative. If you go, find a 2D screening.
In the backwater here, there is no alternative to the 3-D version. I will probably take my granddaughter, as she really wants to see the movie.
Delete