The Great Gatsby (12A)

There is an inherent problem reviewing a film like The Great Gatsby - a film that, like others before it, carries with it an automatic weight of expectation based on its source material. Especially in this case when, along with the book, at least one iconic adaptation also exists.

So what do you do? Do you review the film as an adaptation of the book? Do you look at it in comparison to Redford's classic portrayal? Or do you do your level best to ignore all that has gone before?

Part of me can't help but look at it as a telling of the F Scott Fitzgerald classic. It may be more years than I care to count since I last read it, certainly more years than I'll ever admit since I studied and fell in love with it, but having maintained throughout the Harry Potter series that the films should stand alone - they're a whole new medium and audience after all - I have no choice but to disassociate all that's gone before and watch Baz Luhrmann's version with a clean mind.

So, old sport, here goes...

On the upside, and in a break from recent tradition, the first screening of the day was in 2D. Having seen the 3D trailer just before watching Star Trek Into Darkness, I was sure the extra dimension wasn't going to add anything to the story. Given you could still clearly see which bits were being done purely for the 3D effect, I was proven right.

Baz (Can I call you Baz? I can? How kind...), of course, comes with his own baggage. Having wowed us with Strictly Ballroom and re-invented Romeo And Juliet for a whole new generation, he followed the sumptuous Moulin Rouge with Australia (yes, all of it). We know he has an eye for the majestic, but he can also get lost in his own storytelling.

In Gatsby, he brings both sides to the party.

It starts at breakneck speed. Parties and people flash buy with barely time to blink, no shot is held too long (far from it), no camera is held still - the result is you're left with no clue who anyone really is, as no scene is allowed to settle for long enough for you to remotely get to grips with it.

Granted, this perfectly mirrors the lifestyle of the time, the parties where no one knows anyone else and yet knows everyone, the opulence spilling over into garishness in the twinkle of a champagne glass.

Unfortunately, it means we aren't given time to get to care about any of the characters. Tobey Maguire's Nick Carraway is as lost as the rest of us as he is swept along in Gatsby's jet stream. Carey Mulligan's Daisy is so lightweight it's a miracle she stays in the frame while Elizabeth Debicki's Jordan is so aloof she almost stands apart from the entire film.

That's not to say the performances are bad - they're not. Debicki's in particular is a great piece of acting, but you want more depth from everyone. You want to spend a bit more time with them, to feel you've got to know them at least a little. A little less hammy charicaturing wouldn't go amiss either.

There is a moment early on when Daisy's husband Tom (Joel Edgerton) hits his mistress Myrtle (a very good Isla Fisher). This should be a BIG moment. It should tell us a lot about one character in a split second, but it could tell us a lot more if we weren't already out of the window and on the balcony with Nick. No time to stop and dwell, must keep a-moving...

In fact, the entire first half of the film is just loud, bright, glitzy and going full tilt. Sure, it looks fantastic - Baz going back to his cross-genre stylings with modern music (overseen by Mr Jay Zed) - but at huge cost to the rest of the film. All style = no substance.

And all this glitz and glamour causes another problem. The great reveal of Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio seemingly merging several recent roles into one) should be mysterious and tense as people gossip about who he is - but when it arrives, it happens so quickly any hope of drama is lost.

The second half, meanwhile, is like a different film.

Having eschewed any sense of drama in the first half, Baz then attempts to make the entire conclusion about emotions and drama and tension. Which might work, had we been given the time to get to know everyone - and thus care about their lives colliding and unravelling. But we weren't, so we can't.

And this yanking on the handbrake causes the whole second half to drag. The film comes in at around the two-hour mark, but everything after the ill-fated trip into New York feels like it takes that long to unfold. We've gone from a hare on speed to a tortoise on tranquilisers.

Which is almost criminal, because done differently the final scenes could carry enormous emotional weight.

Things aren't helped with the aforementioned 3D bits. The 'unfortunate event' that occurs should hit you like, well, a speeding car, but such is the desire to make the gimmick work you're taken out of the moment to watch a body get flung about in 3D slow motion. I'm watching in 2D and it was so obvious why the scene was shot this way it almost seemed insulting to the rest of the film.

When we do actually get to the end of the film, you're left wondering why you've spent so much time in the cinema. Nick, who has been our narrator throughout, recaps the whole story with the help of a weird, cross-faded montage of everything you've already watched. Basically you could come in ten minutes from the end and know everything that's happened. Which would have been good to know at the start...

Despite my many, many criticisms of The Great Gatsby, however, I didn't hate it. Yes it annoyed me greatly, but in isolation certain bits are great. The party scenes capture the spirit of the time (or at least how we're told they were - I wasn't there...), the use of Nick as a narrator is strangely engaging and the quirky touch of having his letters appear on the screen as he writes down his tale is a nice touch. Doesn't feel like it belongs to this film, particularly, but I still enjoyed it. Especially when the letters form snow.

In essence, what you have here is two films (well, three if you count the summary). They just don't sit well side by side. It kind of reminds me of that scene in Friends where Rachel tries to make a trifle but confuses two recipes and makes it with mince.

The jelly's good, the mince is good. Just not together.