As far as the story goes, I am underwhelmed. This was one of the books I was supposed to read in high school and didn't. In high school I learned how to not-read books and get C's. In college I learned how to not read books and get A's.
So, I thought I'd check out the movie. Many of the books I didn't read in high school, made for pretty good movies, like Of Mice and Men, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. However, despite Baz LuhrThe Great Gatsby. I liked his character, but I did not care for the incredible, mind-numbing weakness of Daisy Buchanan. People call Hemingway a sexist, but I'd take a million Brett Ashley's over one Daisy Buchanan, despite Lady Ashley's personal weaknesses.
mann's awesomeness, I just simply didn't care for the story of
But that's besides the point, and we'll just go ahead and leave Hemingway out of it. We'll also leave F. Scott Fitzgerald alone for now and focus on the film.
I remember in my English class a lot of talk about the green light at the end of Buchanan's dock, and the "eyes of God" and such. Perhaps the symbolism in the book is mind-blowing, or perhaps it's because I'm tired of books trying to impress me with obvious symbolism.
I loved DiCaprio as Gatsby. The acting was generally terrific, and I enjoyed the writing and the dialog. But I felt like I had seen the movie before. Nothing was new or exciting, despite how ground-breaking the book might have been during its time. I'm sure it wasn't cliche, back then, to have the narrator of the book end up in a sanatorium. Also, because it was told in the 1st person, a lot of situations were created in order for the narrator to know certain things. These situations were obvious and annoying.
I'd probably watch the movie again, or even say that I liked it, but it's not fantastic, and it doesn't inspire me to open a book. (Now you're all thinking I never read. I read! I'm just picky about it.)