Great Gatsby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was not a fan of putting hip-hop in the 20s or of putting Nick in the looney bin. 3.5 stars out of 5 from this end.

Thanks for the spoiler, douche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was not a fan of putting hip-hop in the 20s or of putting Nick in the looney bin. 3.5 stars out of 5 from this end.

You suck. I give you 0 stars.

[Anonymous]

Enjoyed parts of the movie a lot and was bored in other places. Unusual for me to have such an up and down experience.

[Anonymous]

I liked it. Quite a bit, really. But then, I haven't read the book since HS, and didn't remember a lot of details. So I didn't have that "they ruined my favorite book!" or "THAT's not what Tom looks like!!" outrage that some might experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was not a fan of putting hip-hop in the 20s or of putting Nick in the looney bin. 3.5 stars out of 5 from this end.

Thanks for the spoiler, douche.

It works because hip hop today is what jazz was then.

[Anonymous]

I loved the art/set direction. I didn't like the $14 I had to pay for 3D. Not every movie needs to be in 3D (like this one).

[Anonymous]

If you see this assheap of a movie you deserve all of the spoilers. F. Scott would be rolling in his grave. GARBAGE.

[Anonymous]

I really enjoyed it, 4/5 stars. A tad slow at times, but I kinda of expected that from such a heralded literary work that is so dependent on, and great because of, its character development.

Interesting 47% of critics liked it on Rotten Tomatoes vs. 86% of audience viewers. Doesn't surprise me--attempting a Fitzgerald masterpiece makes it an easy target for the purists and holier-than-thou crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really enjoyed it, 4/5 stars. A tad slow at times, but I kinda of expected that from such a heralded literary work that is so dependent on, and great because of, its character development.

Interesting 47% of critics liked it on Rotten Tomatoes vs. 86% of audience viewers. Doesn't surprise me--attempting a Fitzgerald masterpiece makes it an easy target for the purists and holier-than-thou crowd.

Critics take all the fun out of a movie. And half of them more or less spoil the parts of the plot in their reviews. I see what looks entertaining, moving or funny to me and have enough common sense not to waste time on Scary Movie 27 or Fast and the Furious 92. Don't care what some dinosaur has to say.

[Anonymous]

15:16 here. If you didn't want spoilers then why click on this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you see this assheap of a movie you deserve all of the spoilers. F. Scott would be rolling in his grave. GARBAGE.

Actually his granddaughter said it was good and true to the book. Read that in WashPost on Saturday. That's what made me see it. Before that, I wasn't planning to go.

[Anonymous]

I kind of liked it, but it was over the top. But I thought maybe that helped highlight the excesses of the Jazz Age and wealth.

Couldn't persuade my 16-year-old to go. She loved Leo in Titanic, but she says he's old and "puffy" now. Sigh. Of course, I tell her that Titanic was made the year she was born and look how much she's changed in 16 years.

[Anonymous]

This movie was fantastic. I have yet to meet a Leo movie I didn't love. I think the movie really highlighted the excessive wealth and flamboyance of the jazz age along with the old money/new money debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was hoping it was going to be great (hah! a pun) but the reviews have been awful. Too bad. So, 13:48, is this an appropriate movie for a 15 year-old? Husband says no. I've read the reviews (very negative) but haven't checked for rating.

The book is often assigned to freshman or sophomore HS English. Not sure why the movie would be "inappropriate."

Because Hollywood likes to "shoehorn in" sex to increase tickets sales, silly.

[Anonymous]

a 15yo has seen far worse than whatever is in Gatsby