Last week, we went to the theater, and, after we bought the tickets and were in line to buy high-priced concessions, GD told me, "My friends decided to see the movie, and I'm going back with them this weekend."
"You tell me now?" says I.
"I want to see it twice," says she.
Oh well. In we went to our seats and, after a series of trailers, the movie began. For the first half hour or so, I found myself noting the period details of the clothes, cars, and home decor of the 1920s, which usually means the film is going slowly. Still, I sometimes enjoy long, slow movies with lots of period details, so I was not unhappy. Then, the pace quickened, and I became completely absorbed in the film. I found that the more I forgot the movie was about Fitzgerald's novel, the more I enjoyed the film for itself.
We did not see the 3-D version, which I think was a good thing. Aside from the fact that I'm not a great fan of 3-D, I think all the popping out would have been a distraction for me. GD saw the 3-D version on the weekend, and she expressed a slight preference for the 2-D version.
Leonardo DiCaprio was splendid in the role of Jay Gatsby, and Carey Mulligan was very good as Daisy Buchanan, as (I read somewhere, now forgotten) the young woman whom two men want to possess, though she doesn't yet own herself. To me, Tobey Maguire was miscast as narrator Nick Carraway, as he seemed dazed throughout the film. Of course, in the film, he wrote the Gatsby story from a rehabilitation center for alcoholics, so perhaps his befuddled state was as intended. Although Fitzgerald himself was an alcoholic, Nick in rehab was not in the novel. Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan was appropriately repulsive.
When I completely suspend disbelief, and become part of a movie, though in the role of a spectator, I consider the the film a success, thus I fall on the side of movie audiences who give the film an 84% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, rather than on the side of the divided critics.
