I have to turn to another critic to capture the essence of my view of "The Great Gatsby" --  "Much like an extravagant gala, it looks majestic and sounds awesome but I couldn't care less about these rich folks throwing the bash."

The production is first rate, the technical aspects are tremendous, no expense was spared on costumes and sets. 

This film runs beyond two hours and twenty minutes, many real life love stories don't last that long; think of flirtatious encounters at parties and chance meetings while shopping and such.  
I am in the odd position of seeing this film as well made, but unworthy of the time and cash spent to tell the audience that money might not buy happiness.  I am reminded of the standard joke: it is better to be sad and heart broken on a cruise to Hawaii,  than sitting on a  cold bench in Brooklyn's Prospect Park.

The characters are the worst elements of the decadent, nouveau riche, irresponsible social climbers of the "roaring twenties."
Jay Gatsby is a rich man of mystery carrying a torch for the love of his life, Daisy Buchanan.  Unfortunately, Tom Buchanan is the wealthy husband, blocking the two lovebirds from realizing their dreams. 
This may well have worked in the novel format, but on the silver screen, I found myself turned off by folks who drowned their unhappiness by spending obscene amounts of money on themselves. The words selfish and egocentric come quickly to mind.

Leonardo DiCaprio, Toby Maguire and Jack Thompson ( as the doctor ), do fine work.  I was not impressed with Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton, as the Buchanans. Director, Baz Luhrmann kept the carnival moving, so he did his job.
I can't shake the feeling that I paid to see a good movie, about nothing.

The bottom line might well be -- couldn't this tremendous amount of money have been used to tell a story worth 
This is the test - ask yourself if you feel your life was
improved by the 160 minutes you spent watching this

No comments: