Rating: 
Summary: I hate this movie . . .
Review: The first thing you need to understand about what I think is this . . . I didn't even think that the book was all that great of a story, but it would overshadow tenfold the [stuff] seen in this adaptation. One thing that bothered me, story aside, is everyone sweats in this movie. Not normal sweat, but lean-your-head-to-the-left-and-be-blinded-sweat. I can understand they were trying to show Eastern humidity in the summer, but this was just gross. Now, about the movie itself, the script writers had to be rather horrible, for rather than illustrating the author's narrator's viewpoints of the other characters, the character who played Nick Carraway had to say extensive dialog right out of the book, it just got irritating. Tom Buchanan might do something, and rather than have the actor portray how he felt with gestures or SOMETHING, and there was was "When Tom did that I blablabalabblabblablablablabla . . . . blablablablab" So in the end it sets up as a direct out of the book adaption (<- which is a good thing) that used lengthy irritating excrepts from the book to illustrate how people felt and thought.
Rating: 
Summary: The Near Great Gatsby
Review: Whenever a classic novel is put to film, there is a tendency for the reader to place the words on the page to the action on the screen. In THE GREAT GATSBY, director Jack Clayton had the uneviable task of transferring a novel that relied heavily on cultural theme and overt symbolism to a medium that required cinematographic sleight of hand to simulate Fitzgerald's symbols that channeled a post war Depression age fascination with the Great American Dream that somehow went very wrong following the stock market crash in 1929. To this post war America that tasted the delights inherent in fulfilling the Dream, THE GREAT GATSBY slowly began to resonate with a reading public that saw that the vulgar displays of wealth in a typical Gatsby party were but the prescursors of the tragic loss of that wealth. As I watched the movie unfold, I could see that the filmed version did not try to catch the more subtle psychological nuances of the book. Rather, director Clayton focused the audience's attention on what could be seen and heard. THE GREAT GATSBY is a two hour plus ensemble of sight and sound that very nearly catches the quick of the jazz age of the twenties. Most of the first half is full of jitterbugging dancers and clangorous music that is so full of life that I barely noticed that the tunes belonged to a different age. Amidst this panorama of dance, song, flapper style clothes, and Model T cars, lies the essential business of the book. Robert Redford as Gatsby exactly details a man who could conquer the world of crime with an unerring eye for detail but must fail in judging the reality of a woman right in front of his eyes. Mia Farrow as Daisy has been unfairly pilloried for being too whiny and too bony to cause a man to remake a world in his own image merely to win her. But her seeming lack of beauty is exactly the point. Had Gatsby been perceptive enough to see Daisy as she really was, then he would not have tried to alter a present to bring a past into his concept of a future. For reasons of his own, Gatsby chooses to make Daisy the center of his universe, and in so doing unknowingly transforms the accepted American Dream of hard work leading to riches to one in which that very hard work can lead only to pain and loss. Had a more voluptuous actress played Daisy, then Gatsby's reaching for her would have him stand for nothing but himself. In reaching for Mia Farrow-Daisy, Gatsby reaches beyond her for the ideal of desire that rang so true in the novel. Further complicating director Clayton's task was Fitzgerald's use of a narrator-participant to filter the action to the reader. Sam Waterston as Nick is terrific as the starry-eyed bond trader who is the only character to learn from the character faults of everyone around him, including Gatsby, whom he labels as 'worth more than the whole damn bunch of them.' In both book and film, Nick is passive but alert. He sees as clearly as do the eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg, who presides god-like over the valley of ashes that Gatsby calls home. Bruce Dern as Tom, Daisy's brute husband does a convincing performance despite his lacking the bulkiness that bothers so many critics of the movie. Dern has made a career of playing psychos and creeps, so he is perfectly cast as the thuggish Tom. Karen Black as Myrtle steals the show as Tom's mistress, a woman who is ultimately seen as more unhappily flawed than any other character. THE GREAT GATSBY is a treat for the eye and ear, even if not for a mind that comes to the screen with many of Fitzgerald's memorable quotes lingering on the lips. What emerges at the end is a flashing green light that signifies to both Nick and the viewer that any vision that is worth having must not be degraded by sharing it with another who may have a competing and mutually exclusive dream of her own. Tragically, for every Gatsby there are dozens of Daisys.
Rating: 
Summary: Ok if you haven't read the book
Review: I have to start out by saying that I am very torn over what to rate this film. I want to like it, I really do, but I just can't seem to find all that much to like about the film. The sets/scenes and costumes were phenomenal, but I can't give a good rating based on that. I feel the major flaw in this movie was not the acting or casting (though I definitely have to comment on that later), it was the adaptation. I had already read the book a while ago, and it remains my favorite. However, for a school project we had to compare listening to a book on tape, to reading the book, so I chose The Great Gatsby. Having the words freshly in my mind, I also decided to try experiencing the story in the film medium. I've heard people praise the film for how close it was to the book, but I couldn't disagree more. Sure, it has the same gist to it, but everything is out of place. Dialogue is spoken in scenes far from where it was written, and many scene, especially in the beginning, were left out, which made me wonder how much a viewer who hasn't read the book could understand.
Now for the acting and casting reviews. First off, what were they thinking casting Bruce Dern as Tom?! I simply don't care if he acted the part well. It's just not right to stray that far from the author's obvious depiction of a character. He's a brute, upper-class polo player; not some sleazy used car salesman! I cringed when I first saw Dern as Tom. However, he did fine acting, so I have nothing against the actor, just the casting director. Next, the inevitable review of Mia Farrow's Dasiy. I have to quote my father on this one... "You look at Redford, and look at Farrow, and just think, nah... It wouldn't happen." And I have to agree. There's no way Gatsby would have spent years pining after her, or the flat, shrill character she played Daisy as. Karen Black as Myrtle was fine I thought, though she varied from who I had pictured when I read the book, but that's a strictly personal thing. Whoever it was that played Jordan, I can't seem to find her name, did a wonderful job. She was definitely not who I pictured in the role, but never the less she did well. I loved Redford as Gatsby, but who didn't. Last but not least, Sam Waterston or Waterston (which is it, could someone tell me, even the credits in the movie vary... it's Waterston it the beginning, Waterson in the end) was wonderful, delightful, and PERFECT as Nick Carraway. He was right on the money!
Lastly, I just have to throw in my comments about various symbols in the movie. Was it just me, or did the light at the end of Daisy's dock seem, well, just not as impressive as it did in the book. Maybe that's why it was shown so many darned times. Also, what on Earth was the director thinking with the sign of T.J. Eckleburg being shown so many times. You hear of it ONCE in the book, and I really don't get what he was going for with the eyes. Also, what happened to the owl-eyed man in the library and at the grave?! I thought that was an important part of the book, and something that meant a lot.
Overall, the movie is pretty good, but a horrible adaptation of the book if you ask me. I would rent it at least just to experience it, but don't expect too much.
Rating:
Summary: Much Better Than Average
Review: It is often difficult to make an adequate movie of a great novel. In this instance, however, I am really not that disappointed in the final product although the film does have a few shortcomings. Bruce Dern was not the best choice for the role of Tom Buchanan. He simply did not create a convincing portrait of the cruel monster depicted by Fitzgerald. Robert Redford as Jay Gatsby and Mis Farrow as Daisy Buchanan gave stronger performances. Sam Waterston also did a good job as Nick Carraway who serves as the story's narrator. If you decide to read the book first, you will notice some of the minor deviations from Fitzgerald's original plot. Nonetheless, on the whole the movie is much better than average and I therefore recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Why read, when you can watch... and analyze.
Review: As all the other High Schools in Broward County Florida, it has become a requirement to read F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby". However, with only 2 weeks left in the entire school year, and the fear of having to pressure my fellow classmates into reading 10 chapters a day, our teacher decided to go with plan B: Show us the movie version. But don't get me wrong, the point of our lesson of watching the movie was not to be entertained and relax. We had to analyze the movie, and put up with our mentor's hints and comments as she stopped the film countless time. There came a warning though: Don't expect this film to be quite as enjoyable as the other ones we've seen" (referring to the Crucable*). But she was quickly proven wrong as my Junior-English III H. class includng me was entertained by the dialogue, the expression , and the intrigue from Gatsby's "James Bond" appearances. Who needs "Saving Private Ryan" gore and action when the action and chaos on both sides of the tale from Gatsby is enough to satisfy the need for entertainment (for a couple of hours)? But there came a price... and a big one too. Like I said, this novel is a requirement, so to not read this book and watch the film is like driving without learning how. We were all deprived of key information on certain parts, and the beginning of the movie? We would be lost if it weren't for the efforts of our mentor to provide us with what we missed from the book. So my only advice is to read the book before the movie. Most people do not realize this but a film portrayed from a book usually leaves out info that is quite interesting from the book. Cutting away though from the school-time logic, the movie was quite entertaining. Although I do not know any of these actors I can say that their performance deserves high ratings. This and the use of all those classic cars, the settings, and the behavior makes it really seem like the 1920's. Although there is hardly no violence, there are many scenes that the viewer would probably shout out: "hit him, or hit her". The action in this movie is done with the use of the words, the expression of the speakers, and the way that the scene is portrayed. However as for the music... I wish John Williams could have done something with it. If you do not know about this film, nor the book, here's a small preview. Theres this man named Gatsby whos obsessed with a lady named Daisy. However before becomming rich, Daisy had to turn down Gatsby since "rich girls don't marry poor boys". So Gatsby gets rich, buys a mansion, and lives across a lake from Daisy... but Daisy is married. Does this stop Gatsby? No. But after hosting parties and waiting for Daisy to be there (which she never does) he goes to step 2: bring her to the house using her cousin (who lives next to Gatsby) as "bait". The plan works and Daisy and Gatsby are together again... or are they. This movie has many twists and turns as well as it is unpredictable. So to cut it short: "Don't critisize a book turned into a film, since the book may have more advantages over that film..." (*hehe*)
Rating:
Summary: Be a Sport Irving, Old Sport!
Review: I watched this movie today for the first time since I originally saw it, back in'74. I think it plays better now than it did then - it had to really - back then, there was so much hype surrounding it that it was inevitable that one would come away from the theatre feeling a little disappointed. I was one of those people.
Today, Redford is still impressive and Sam Waterston and Scott Wilson are outstanding. Sadly, Mia Farrow's Daisy is just as irritating as she ever was. But, is this Mia's fault, or Scott Fitzgerald's ? After all, aren't ALL his heroines eminently slap-able ??? The main problem with this video release is however, the deletion of most of Nelson Riddle's brilliant score. Riddle used Irving Berlin's song "What'll I Do" as his main theme and interpolated it (to great effect)throughout the movie. The movie was made long before the days of home video,DVD,etc. So, when Paramount wanted to release the movie on video, the Irving Berlin estate said "Hang on a minute, we only licensed the song for theatrical release. Nobody said anything about a video release. If you want to use our song in your video, you have to pay us another zillion (I exagerate- but you get the idea!) dollars for the priviledge". Naturally, Paramount said "No way !".
That is why we have this bowdlerised video, and why we have no DVD, or CD release. Although in the latter case, there is the added complication of the soundtrack being released on the now defunct Paramount label. So, if you still have your original LP's and Cassette Tape copies of the Soundtrack, hang on to them. They are much sought after.
If anyone from the Berlin/Rodgers & Hammerstein organization reads this, please be a Sport and give us the original movie back..pretty please.
In the meantime,enjoy what's left of this entertaining movie, but DO read the book. It's somewhat better !
Rating: 
Summary: THE GLITTER OF JAZZ AGE
Review: This faithful adaptation of the F. Scott Fitzgerald's masterpiece on the screen features some great acting by the young Robert Redford and especially by Karen Black, before she got typed an an Evil Woman in horror films of the seventies. Obviously, you can't get too deeply inside the stream of consciousness or remembrance, the narrative devices on which F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel hinges, therefore you can not have a perfect adaptation of the novel to screen. Other than that, the script is absolutely faithful to the novel, and even though some places are unrecognizable as Queens, New York, even in the twenties, the ostentation of Gatsby's new wealth and the style and glitter of the twenties are perfectly recreated in this film that has potential to become a classic.
Rating:
Summary: Beware VHS Version Without Original Score!
Review: I too would rate this film MUCH higher if the original musical score was reinstated by Paramount. TV editions still have it, but some music royalty issues scuttled the VHS version, effectively destroying the whole tone of the movie. Without the original film having Irving Berlin's "What'll I Do" and a few other '20s standards, the mystical, romantic soul of the movie is banished, and what comes across is a shadow of the original production. If there's ever a DVD version, the original soundtrack BETTER be reinstated, since this is NOT the true film otherwise!
Rating:
Summary: Would Fitzgerald Be Proud? Probably Not
Review: Almost everyone who has graduated from high school has heard of F. Scott Fitzgerald's highly acclaimed book, The Great Gatsby. But how about the movie? Does it do the 1925 novel justice? Does it even compare? My answer is no, and here's why: First of all, the movie version of a book is almost never as good as the novel because the reader can create his or her own ideas about what is taking place. Unfortunately, director Jack Clayton seems to have better ideas about costumes and music rather than interpretations of the text. Secondly, Mia Farrow, who plays Daisy, is transparent as an actress; the viewer might as well be looking at a window.
The director did an excellent job of recreating the party scenes and outfits of The Great Gatsby. However, his interpretations of F. Scott Fitzgerald's text were somewhat disappointing. Symbols such as the green light at the end of Daisy's dock were not as satisfying as they were in the book. The one scene that I felt was well done was the hotel room, where everyone was sweaty and irritable but Gatsby, and the argument that occurred there was quite convincing. Other than this well-done scene, something was lost in the translation from words to pictures.
The casting was well done, with the exception of Mia Farrow as Daisy, who ruined the movie. Every scene that featured Farrow was disappointing. Farrow's version of Daisy had absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever, making it very hard to believe that Gatsby, or anyone, would be willing to break up a marriage or spend millions of dollars for parties, just so that he could reclaim her as his own.
The 1974 film The Great Gatsby, based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, does not do the book justice. A few of the scenes from the book were recreated well, but Clayton and Farrow both failed to capture the entire essence of Fitzgerald's original story line and theme. I would recommend this movie only to those who are looking to spend a quiet evening at home, not to the serious moviegoer or novel reader.
Rating: 
Summary: The Missing Score
Review: I could watch this film over and over, and was delighted to find it at Amazon.com. But I was bitterly disappointed to discover that the original score had been replaced. I would not have made this purchase had I known. With the original score, I'd rate The Great Gatsby 5 stars.
|
