Homer Simpson wrote the best review of Gatsby:
Posted on 05/07/2013 12:00:59 PM PDT by nickcarraway
I think the author of this review only wanted to show off all the big words he found when he opened a dictionary.
NOBODY speaks like that in real life.
...and the book is the most overrated book in history bordering on booring.
The author of this review is exactly the type of pretensious person Gatsby is critiquing. No wonder they don’t “get it” or like it.
I didn’t like the book, didn’t like it when Redford did it, wouldn’t like it for Leo, either. Especially, Leo....a more little wimped out wuss could never be. I don’t care if he’s got a trainer and pumped up his little girly muscles, I’d still bust the twit in the chops, old man that I am.
The 1926 film version is supposed to be the best, but there are no known copies of it in existence.
Blah, blah, blah. I liked the book. It is considered witty to bash famous books. The movies generally were not so hot, but I liked the scene in the Redford/Gatsby version where he got plugged in the pool.
Homer Simpson wrote the best review of Gatsby:
I thought the book was pretty good; had some great images.
But it’s The Great American Novel? I hope not.
All horsepoop. “Sometimes a Great Notion”. Ken Kesey. THE Great American Novel. Period.
The best one is the Alan Ladd version made in the 1940s. I was part of a Fitzgerald symposium back in 1997 in Montgomery, Alabama and the FSF Society rented a beautiful art deco theatre in town and screened it for us. I don’t know if it’s available.
Was this book the inspiration for “White Trash with Money”?
Wouldn’t be in my top 100.
I’m glad to see that at least someone else thinks “The Great Gatsby” is one of the most over-rated books in history. I hated it, hated all of the characters. If there’s no one to sympathize with, what’s the point?
-— He is all but inventing a new narrative mode: the third-person sanctimonious. -—
Ouch!
The Brothers Karamazov spoiled me. Gatsby pales in comparison.
I'm sorry, that distinction goes to The Catcher in the Rye
I did not read the book but saw the Reford movie. I walked away feeling that I had wasted my time watching it. It was empty, no real plot and went nowhere.
I had the same feeling when I saw, “Out Of Africa”. A story about a promiscuous female who died of syphillis? Can someone tell me the ‘point’ of that movie?
Thanks for clarifying that, I thought I was stupid because I couldn't understand a word he said..........
As a side note, I think I was supposed to read The Great Gatsby in high school but I don't think I did......maybe it was the Cliff Notes.
IMHO, books like that and Shakespear and A Tale of Two Cities should not be required reading for high schoolers since the majority of them, like me, don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the author. And I still don't......
I don’t agree. I read the book several times, and always found it an appalling bore. And that last paragraph always grated on me.
I see Fitzgerald as a Tarkington manqué -
“Let us show our friendship for a man when he is alive, not after he is dead” Meyer Feldman
“The 1926 film version is supposed to be the best, but there are no known copies of it in existence.”
I have to say I was forced to read the book in school and then taken to the movie, Redford/Farrow, by a lefty boyfriend (back when I hadn’t a clue) and thought it was a total boor.
I did find this trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asajgm-ciWA
Gee, that would be when F. Scott Fitzgerald would still be alive, boy, I’d like to see that one.
Did Fitzgerald have any input on it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.