The Great Gatsby

Rating:
Summary: I Enjoyed This Version of the Great Gatsby
Review: I don't know if I agree with most reviwers here. I rather enjoyed this rendition of the great novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I just read the book for the first time in my life several weeks prior to watching this film [also for the first time], so it was fresh in my memory. I found the movie to be fairly acurrate to the book in most ways, even in tone.

In my opinion, the novel "The Great Gatsby" is one of those art pieces that, like the Disco music and leisure suits of the 1970s, hasn't dated well. But that, is precisely what keeps it alive now. For better or worse, there are fewer things created during "the roaring twenties" that define the era in present-day peoples' imaginations more than "the Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

But what I wonder, is how relevent this story is anymore? Perhaps it's the story of the Great Gatsby that fails to move modern audiences any longer that makes this film not the masterpiece that it should be? I wondered that as I watched this movie. Because all the elements are superb: Robert Redford is inspired as Gatsby and all the casting, the costuming, the music, etc is wonderful here. This is a strong film! In other words, I am suggesting that if the film bores you, so would the original novel likely bore you as well.

The DVD is fine - it isn't a spectacular treatment, nor are there an overwhelming amount of extras, etc. But the picture-quality is nice and the sound is average for a modern-day DVD. I can't call it a five-star DVD restoration, but nor is it a bad treatment either. The low price makes it accesible. It's a perfectly fine DVD.

Rating:
Summary: The Great Ghastly
Review: Despite a beautiful soundtrack (with Nelson Riddle orchestrating variations on Irving Berlin's haunting ballad "What'll I Do?"), this is an almost unwatchable movie, thanks largely to Mia Farrow's excruciating performance as Daisy (she seems to think she's playing Blanche DuBois and boy does she stink). The directing by Jack Clayton doesn't help either --- it's wooden and obvious in its choices and at times the shot set-ups and dissolves are downright ugly. The script is pedestrian, listless and finds no way to deal with the fact that "The Great Gatsby" as a novel gains a lot of its power from Fitzgerald's narrative voice. I've heard stories about the legendary screenplay which was written by Francis Coppola of all people and which supposedly got ruined by director Clayton -- but it seems like hackwork to me; Coppola didn't solve any of the problems in adapting this book into a movie(neither did any of the earlier screen versions). The scene in which Daisy is moved to tears by the sight of Gatsby's beautiful shirts is a textbook case of a scene which works beautifully as a metaphor in the novel but which lies there on the screen like a dead trout. It's really too bad, because Robert Redford in his prime is a perfect choice for Gatsby. And the supporting cast (Sam Waterston, Karen Black and especially Bruce Dern as Tom) would be hard to improve on. My advice to anyone thinking of watching this fiasco -- first, put on a nice recording of "What'll I Do" -- and then sit down and reread the book.

Rating:
Summary: Excess of form.
Review: The novel by F.S.Fitzgerald seemed to be a very good basic for a successful adaptation. It is a truthful and insightful picture of the 1920's America. However experienced the team creating a movie may be though, it appeared to be very hard to express the meaning of the novel and come up to it.
"The great Gatsby" from the year 1974 with good reason was prized for the music and costumes. The realism and a very detailed way of preparing marvelous parties at Gatsby's place, colorful and beautiful costumes, the bands rendering the atmosphere of the Jazz Age; all of this was really taking my breath away. The director Jack Clayton and Nelson Riddle responsible for the music disserve a huge applause for an enormous piece of work they did. But, what I regret to admit, this is actually all that the movie can offer.
The film is very faithful towards the novel and uses a lot of quotations to be as close to the general sense as possible. Unfortunately, it is not very much thought-out and lacks of the deeper message that Fitzgerald's text undoubtedly has. The characters are rather flat and some of the important themes omitted.
In my opinion the best performance gave Sam Waterston as Nick Carraway. That was the only round character in the movie, with almost all the meanings he had in the novel. The most annoying actress was Mia Farrow as Daisy. Her voice and the way of acting could really get on the audience' nerves. She created Daisy as a thoughtless, a little bit insane girl. She some how showed only the outer side of this character without really becoming and understanding Daisy.
I am also very much disappointed with the Robert Redford's acting. Of course, he took care of the general impression of Gatsby being a newly reach and, in a way, conceited loner. He looked very well never sweating like the rest and looking at Daisy with the real desire, bitterness and longing. But, in my opinion, at the time he lacked the maturity needed for creating such a complicated character.
After reading "The great Gatsby" I was expecting much more from the movie. And, as I wrote above, it can only impress the audience with its splendor. I cannot call it a successful movie because of the superficiality.

Rating:
Summary: Wasting time
Review: If you've read the book, you know how amazing it is - with lots of symbols and puns,and great way of narrating the story, so it must be hard to make a good movie based on it.And this movie is not good at all. It's like some cheap romanse, and even worse, with this flat character of Daisy by Mia Farrow, who seems not to know the difference between "acting" and "pretending".The rest is played not so bad,but Daisy made me so annoyed...I had to watch it at school,and that was the only reason for which I saw the whole film-otherwise I wouldn't make it to the end.The music is horrible,and the photographies - like those of lonely birds on the grass - made me want to commit a crime on the teacher for forcing me to look at something that disgusting.
So, my piece of advice - you better read the book than watch that crap,or you're gonna break down and never be the same again...

Rating:
Summary: Largely Unfaithful to the Book
Review: Though many of the characters' lines are taken directly from the book, they are often incomplete or in the wrong order. This destroys some of the thematic statements made by F.S. Fitzgerald in the novel, on which the film is based. These themes, such as money, the American Dream, friendship, hypocracy, dishonesty, and carelessness are severely lacking in the film. In some cases, these subjects are present, but are shown in a different way than they were in the book. Many of these themes are almost totally absent, and wouldn't be detectable unless one read the book first, which is highly reccommended.
Read the book, rent the movie, experience its shortcomings, then return it.

Rating:
Summary: There was little that was 'Great' about this movie
Review: I have not read the book, however I am a huge Law and Order fan and have been on a Sam Waterston kick and decided to watch this movie since he was in it. I have to say that I am devoting 1.7 of the two stars to his performance it was one of the only good things about this film. Mia Farrow's performance was breathtaking...ly awful. I sincerely hope that she is a more substantial person in real life than in this movie. I had a hard time even finishing the entire movie because her performance just seems to grate on your nerves until you sincerely wish that she would commit suicide, and unfotunately Bruce Dern is not much further behind. He comes across as someone that is a monster but he just can not seem to convey it all that well. THere is this whiny and wimpy quality to his performance which makes you glad that he and his bimbo wife "suffer" as much as they do in this movie. Robert Redford is gorgeous and while he lacks emotion in some areas over all he is a brighter spot in the movie. I read a review that said that he didn't some off as needy enough but I think that there was a definite air of neediness, however there is only so much insecurity a man as smootha nd beautiful as Redford can convey. The ending to the movie was powerful and I have to admit that I cried because of the way that Gatsby got treated by the woman he truly loved. So shallow and selfish that she couldn't manage to call or pause for a nanosecond in her life for a man who was so obviously in love with her. So the last .3 of the two stars goes to the ending of the movie and while Sam's performance was fantastic it is nice to see he has matured as an actor and the only thing that I would wish different about his character would be that he would stand up to Daisy and Tom at the end and explain what selfish jerks they are. Overall if you are not a Redford or Waterston fan this movie was just to thoroughly annoying to sit through.

Rating:
Summary: Faithful to the book
Review: I first want to praise this movie on how well it followed the book. It captured the 1920s in a splendid way, and it also captured the essence of the characters portrayed in the book. The actor who played Nick was perfect; he was not a strong character, but was not supposed to be. His mere purpose was to provide the audience with an outside point of view to the lives of the other characters (Daisy, Gatsby, Tom, etc).

The one complaint I had was the lack of emotion on Redford's part. When I read the book, I just pictured the pained, pinched look on Gatsby's face when he said to Daisy, "You loved me...too?" However, Redford's character was way too wooden....he should have shown at least SOME hurt in his eyes. I think Redford's Gatsby cared as much for Daisy as Daisy did for him.

Daisy was as obnoxious in the movie as she was in the book. Bravo Mia Farrow! Whether your performance was accidental I dont know, but you hit the shallow, materialistic bimbo bit right on the button. This was all Daisy was, so Farrow was perfect. Only such a shallow person could have that kind of love offered to them and throw it away for money.

Wilson was the perfect, hapless man who married a woman who doesnt give a crap. However, the Myrtle in the book did not seem as repugnant as the Myrtle in the movie. That lady was nuts!

Lastly.......notice how none of the pary-goers showed up at Gatsby's funeral. This added to the tragedy, and the superficial, materialistic message of the story. It reveals how so many people will just use others for a fun time, then forget that they exist. It also portrays how, indeed, most people are like this and that Gatsby is a rare find. This rare find, who believed in true love, was lost forever.

Overall, a decent portrayal.......but you need to read the book to fully appreciate the story.

Rating:
Summary: Not Bad, if you havn't read the book...
Review: I had to read the Great Gatsby before my junior year in high school. I didn't look like a book i'd want to read. But, after reading it, i was so exicted. This had to have been the best book i've ever read. But, i havn't read a whole lot of books. Anyway, the Great Gatsby stars Robert Redford as Mr. Jay Gatsby. And Mia Farrow as the jovial Daisy Buchanan. Both portray the characters very well. The narator, Nick Carraway, is played by Scott Wilson. And the lovley, Lois Chiles plays the golfer, Jordan Baker. How can you forgot Tom Buchanan, played by Bruce Dern. Now, I think that whoever watches this movie will enjoy it. But, you may not enjoy it if you had read the book. The movie is so off. They do, however, take the script almost directly from the book. But, in many instances, it would be hard to put every single detail that Fitzgerald gives in his book. I was a bit dissapointed on the inaccuracies. But, whats to expect. Most movies aren't as good as the books they are based on.

Rating:
Summary: MR M
Review: The movie version of The Great Gatsby, was very concise with the book. I was surprised that the lines were said word for word. It made the book become real, and I was finally able to see certain places that I couldn't picture in my head while reading the book. I believe that while the settings and events were accurate some of the actors that played their character could have been chosen better to fit the part.
The performance of Nick played by Paul Rudd did an excellent job with his character. In the book I was always picturing Nick to be this man that was relatively quiet, boring, and the most normal of all the Great Gatsby characters. In the movie that's exactly what he played. He did a good job looking very glum throughout the book, and I believed his character very much.
As for Gatsby, who was played by Toby Stephens, I feel they could have found someone that would have played the part better. I pictured a character that looked older, and wasn't so perfect looking, (hair, teeth, etc.). I just feel that he didn't play up to his role, and when he spoke I didn't feel as though the movie was as real anymore, because I don't think he fit the character. I also think it could be due to the fact that finding an actor for the role of Gatsby would be difficult because Gatsby is such a hard character to play.
The movies accuracy to the book was extremely concise, and fitting. I totally believed it, and the director, (Robert Markowitz) did an excellent job keeping things parallel with the book, instead of putting a Hollywood spin on things. The characters were mostly played well and were accurate with the exception of Tom, whom I thought would be a much heavier and stouter character, and Myrtle, whom, I thought would have more beauty to her than she did. Even though she played such a small role, I though that Tom and Daisy's little girl would have been a blonde haired cute little thing, and turned out to have brownish/blackish WILD curly hair. Of course Gatsby, who I felt didn't fit his character well at all.
The production of the film was very well done. The settings and places in the book were extremely concise in matching up with the book. The tone and the feel of the movie were well done also. The book, to me, felt dark and depressing, and surprisingly enough the movie gave off that vibe too.

Rating:
Summary: Mia was a perfect Daisy
Review: I loved this movie. The casting was superb, the costumes brilliant, the score fabulous and the story gripping, tragic and faithful to the book. I was not surprised to read that Fitzgerald wrote this book, while based in Paris, because although an essentially American tale it simple reeks of European decadence and obscene, useless excess. I do not believe an American mistress would not squirrel away at least some of the money given to her, if only to leave her husband, or have her hair done. Not since Camille or Nana has a whore/mistress been represented as so stupidly self-destructive, yet this film made it believable. Gatsby reminded me of the heroes of Goethe and Chekov, what a shame!!! what a waste!! and yet he was so American. This Redford portrayed so well, he missed, as was meant, the dour, dark, suicidal tragedy of the European hero, replacing it with the can-do bust-through new-money air even though in the end he was not to be allowed to do so, because of the will-not-be-done-out-of-my-share misguided resentment and ignorance of the cuckolded huband. Daisy however had all the lightness, thoughtlessness and money needed to cause, continue and blithely survive the consequences of her actions. She floated through the film as only Mia could, not looking in the corners, not furnishing the house or checking the doors or burglar alarm, NOT BEING CAREFUL. And whether we feel she was worth it or not - Gatsby would not have had it any other way, nor would Scott Fitzgerald, because, Scott loved Zelda and Gatsby loved Daisy, whatever the cost, even though neither Daisy nor Zelda really cared. CONGRATULATIONS COPPOLA, IT'S UP THERE WITH THE GODFATHER