Rating: 
Summary: Because the Twenties WERE Shallow
Review: I get the impression that the people giving this movie poor reviews are a mix of 1) intellectual snobs (or would-be) who think it compulsory to pan any screen attempt to tackle great literature or 2) hooligans who can't appreciate a movie unless it's got blood, guts, and vulgarity (in short, like most movies made today). I loved Fitzgerald's book, and I loved this film, and here's why: It is not only an effective, emotionally gripping rendition of the book (made plain by the very dislike so many people express for its intentionally dislikable characters), but it is a visually stunning one, capturing all the hollow gold of the glitzy era the book so devastatingly indicts, and the performances by nearly all the players are superb (with special kudos to Sam Waterston for the very personification of Nick the narrator). For all those who say the movie is lacking depth or who criticize Mia Farrow's rendering of Daisy as flighty, your very criticism reveals the film's great achievement of realizing the main point of the book. Fitzgerald's point was that the Roaring Twenties WERE shallow, represented by the "rotten crowd" of "careless people" (quoted from the book, and in Nick's commentary at the end of the movie) that very much included Daisy, as well as Tom. I don't know how any honest reading of the book could interpret Daisy as "sensible," as one critic put it, and even "vulnerable" is a stretch. Quoted from book and paraphrased in movie: "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made..." Farrow's fey performance portrays her character very accurately, best summed up by the exchange between Nick and Robert Redford's Gatsby: Nick: "She has an indiscreet voice." Gatsby: "Her voice is full of--money." Moreover, Bruce Dern as Tom, though less physically imposing than implied in the book, is nevertheless the consummate, racist bully he is supposed to be, and caused me to cower instinctively whenever he spoke. The movie faithfully conveys the story of a deeply flawed, not atypical, hero, Gatsby, living in a world he built on dreams of his own fabrication, including his lovely Daisy. He is a man of such endless hope, romance, and a kind of chivalry (much is made of his war heroism in the book, and this is emphasized in several scenes in the movie) that is not without egotism, pomp, and an "eagerness to be liked" that Redford brings so well to the role. Almost noble in his earnestness and belief in romantic love, he rises from poverty in an age (not unlike our own?) when money is confused with class and nobility. Being unable to compete in that crass, careless, selfish, shallow world (for how long can anyone, when there's always someone richer?), he and his dreams are doomed. One of many great acting moments in the film takes place when Nick advises Gatsby he "can't repeat the past." Redford looks back at him, incredulous, almost as if he'd been struck, "Can't repeat the past? Of COURSE you can!" The words ring out, ominous in a hopelessness obvious to everyone but Gatsby. I agree with others below who praised the performances of some of the lesser characters as well, including a genuinely heartbreaking portrayal of Gatz, Gatsby's father. Dump the critics, read the book, and buy the film.
Rating: 
Summary: The Dialog is so bad, I'd rather hear nails on a chalkboard!
Review: This movie was painful to watch. The dialogue was so inept it made "Plan 9 from Outer Space" sound like Shakespeare. The way it was filmed it looked like a soap opera (which the story pretty much is). The book was decent and had some interesting moments. The movie was faithful...too faithful, in fact seeing the dialogue actually spoken it makes me like the book even less than now! --Joey
Rating: 
Summary: Some Misses, But Definitely Worth Seeing
Review: I just finished watching this movie in eleventh-grade English class. We also read the book (one of the best I've read; highly recommended). On one hand, the movie was exceptionally faithful to the book, could claim some good performances, was visually stunning, and had some great moments. On the other hand, it had some dismal performances and dragged at points. I was surprised to see Sam Waterston as Nick. I can only describe him as excellent. He was the perfect choice for Nick, and brought through every emotion right on the mark. Equally impressive was Robert Redford as Gatsby. Oddly enough, I've never seen a movie of his before, but I surely will now. He gave a marvelous, valiant performance that could evoke sympathy from even the most heartless person. I'd never seen a Mia Farrow movie either, but my friend is a big fan of "Rosemary's Baby" (I tell her it's because she, too, is hellspawn) but I disliked her portrayal of Daisy from the start. I found that I came to hate it more and more as the film went on. I'm guessing she saw the character as one-dimensional, because she gave the most shrill performance I've ever seen. (For another shrill mockery of a classic character, see Winona Ryder's annoying Abigail in 1998's "The Crucible.") She emphasizes the flighty bimbo that Daisy lets everyone see, but completely left out the sensible and vulnerable woman inside, leaving one to wonder if actress Katherine Helmond based her performance as Jessica Tate ("Soap") on Farrow's Daisy. I was one in a large crowd that thought Bruce Dern was insanely miscast as Tom. He doesn't fit the book's description at all(watch how it seems odd for Daisy to call him "brute" in the dinner scene), instead looking like a seedy used-car salesman who happened to hit it big. (If you've ever read the book "Matilda," he's the spitting image of the father!) Nonetheless, he is, at the very least, good in the role. Lois Chiles is enjoyable as the sizzling Jordan, although the movie's Jordan differs from the book's. (The book gave me the distinct mental image of the nasal, society-licking Gloria in 1974's "Mame.") Karen Black leaves something to be desired as Myrtle, but Scott Wilson is one of the cast's best as her husband George. He becomes almost terrifying toward the end as his character grows more and more desperate. (Check it out when he suddenly appears at the Buchanan breakfast table near the end. He just seems to materialize there, like Jason or something. Hilarious!) Roberts Blossom (Old Man Marley in "Home Alone" to people my age) is on par with Waterston, Wilson, and Redford in his short appearance as Mr. Gatz, Gatsby's father. Watch for his best moment, the heartbreaking funeral scene in which he recites his the schedule his son lived by as a child. The movie itself is good, but not great. It seems like something intangible is missing. It's hard to describe. (The one I can note is the important dinner scene near the beginning, which is far shorter than in the novel.) But there were two scenes in particular that really hit the spot. The pivotal hotel room scene (or, as it became famously known at school, "Chapter 7," where "everything blew up"), with tempers running high and alliances changing rapidly, was film making at its best. Also, this scene is probably Farrow and Dern's best in the movie. It pulls off the tense, explosive mood without a hitch. The other was the scene near the end where George shot Gatsby. If you know what's going to happen, you can take the time to note how the mood for this one scene is being set up as early as two or three scenes before it, slowly building. The long shots of Gatsby floating in the pool on the air mattress, the way he kept turning and calling Daisy's name, the "calm before the storm" air that the whole thing gave off...I watched thinking, "this is brilliant." And when this peaks, you'll find yourself several minutes later, still sitting there with your mouth open. I keep hearing about the beautiful, Oscar-winning score by the great Nelson Riddle that is for some reason replaced on the video. I don't know why it's not there, but I'm sure it was good. The costumes also won an Oscar. Everyone should read the book, especially if you see the movie, this way you can get what's missing. (I hear a TV-movie version, with Mira Sorvino as Daisy--hopefully she'll do it justice--is in post-production for broadcast this year.) And, misses aside, this is a movie that deserves to be seen.
Rating:
Summary: Paramount- PLEASE Restore This Movie!
Review: I saw this movie in its first run- 1974. It wasn't the greatest movie then, but it had an undeniable appeal in its stars, its sets and costumes, and above all, its music. Nelson Riddle assembled and orchestrated actual popular songs of the 1920's to provide the film with one of the lushest, most romantic scores ever. Imagine my disappointment when I saw this current video release and found that nearly the entire Riddle musical track from the movie has been replaced with music that I can only describe as 'TV-movie-of-the-week' quality. This beautiful, flawed movie had a haunting, elegiac quality with its original score. Now, it's just a flat, overproduced bore. Paramount has recently become an industry leader in its efforts to restore its classic films- they could do worse than to resolve whatever physical or legal problems are keeping Riddle's incredibly fine work off the soundtrack of this video. If you ever run across an old copy of the soundtrack album, pick it up and play it and you'll hear what I mean. The Riddle score is magnificent!
Rating: 
Summary: Please! just read the book
Review: I admit that the film captured some subtleties that I missed from reading the book and thats about all the movie does for the classic novel. The casting of the film was terrible. Redford did a par job of protraying Gatsby but Farrow turend Daisy to a bimbo airhead that likes pretty colors {watch the flying shirt scene} and Nick was BORING. All in all watch the movie first if you want to pass your English class with a D-,as for anyone out of school, Please!just read the book. {from a 16 year old high school student passing his English class with a D-}
Rating:
Summary: YUCK!
Review: This was the worst movie that I have seen in a long time. The one star in my rating of this video goes to the beginning of the credits, which were very well done. I did not enjoy any of the actors, in particular those playing Tom Buchanan and Myrtle Wilson. He was too sedate, and she was far too melodramatic. The movie as a whole was far too melodramatic, due inpart to the horrendously intrusive music (Watch for Gastby silloetted againt a sunset, and listen to the music; you'll laugh out loud). This movie makes a mockery of possibly the best book I have ever read. Best line "I'd like to just get one of those pink clouds and put you in it and push you around." -Daisy
Rating: 
Summary: Some fine performances, but it doesn't come together
Review: Something is missing in this film. There is a lot of talent, and some really fine performances, especially by Robert Redford (Gatsby), who alone of all the actors transcends the film and therefore looks awfully out of place. But you just can't like anyone -- they are all rather shabby and meaningless, selfish and annoying. Mia Farrow(Daisy)is a poor match for Redford, and one cannot understand Jay Gatsby pining for her all those years, unless it was more of an assault on his ego rather than a broken heart that was driving him to make himself into the man she would want rather than spurn. Even so, Daisy is never more than shallow and fickle, with nothing to redeem her. This is a glamorous film, but it doesn't succeed in portraying the culture in a convincing way. Perhaps there is something too frantic in the party scenes, too anxious, too trivial. The book, though not one of Fitzgerald's best, at least limited its perspective so that we saw the story more clearly through the eyes of a detached witness. It might be that the medium of film requires us to have more intimate knowledge of the story and the characters, and thus what is appropriately absent or vague in the novel is too apparent in the film. The actors, at some point, appear to be struggling with the story. The ensemble just doesn't succeed.
Rating:
Summary: A great movie
Review: I may just be a high school student, but after reading the book and seeing this movie, I felt the movie gave an excellent visual view of the novel. It was well written and acted out. It was a requirement to read the novel, however, this was a book I could not put down. The movie gave me the same perspective. It filled in what my imagination left out. I would highly recommend this movie, and even the novel, to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: As per the saying, MUCH worse than the book
Review: The Great Gatsby is so rich in its lyricism and metaphor that trying to put it into a movie is a doomed attempt. This one is particularly pathetic. TGG has symbolic characters and ideas that WILL NOT be effectively conveyed in a film. It didn't have to be quite THIS miserable, though. I couldn't even appreciate this as a movie if I HADN'T read the book.
Rating:
Summary: THOUGHT YOU KNEW THIS MOVIE? YOU NEED TO WATCH IT AGAIN.
Review: this is truly a movie one can watch over and over again...yet still find something they missed...i have seen this movie i can even count, but i can tell you it is my favorit movie in the world. i have seen many movies in my time i am near that 40 mark. robert redford was not in my time, more like my sisters who are in the late 40's50, so i did not pick this movie for ant other reason than its pure quality..it is a true love story..or not? hmmm so many ways you can look at this movie. there is a lot of twist. as far as the cast...each a character was with out a dought made for the part. robert and mia just worked together so perfectly. the location in newport was the idear spot for filiming...this is a movie you can watch with your family....yes my friends this is the best movie ever made ...rent and check it out tell me how many ways you interperted it.....i bet you thought you understood it.....maybe the film maker did not even notice it...its the best.
|
