Rating: 
Summary: A abominable show by a promising list of names.
Review: Anyone who has read the book (Robert Redford apparently didn't) can tell that this movie is a pathetic adaptation of a really good book. Robert Redford ruins the mysterious role of Gatsby by playing the pretty rich boy while Mia Farrow pines annoyingly for her cardboard lover. Fortunately she almost redeems herself in the last scene, but by then it's too late to forgive her insipid portrayal of Daisy. Sam Waterston as Nick Carroway is a breath of fresh air and some of his better monologues are taken straight from the book, but they don't fit among the remaining tripe of the screenplay. Frances Ford Coppola's screenplay was distinctly dissapointing and almost deplorable, especially for a master of his standing. The two best acted parts were two of the breifest speaking roles--those of George Wilson and Gatsby's father. And it looks like it was filmed in Newport, not on Long Island. The parties were a spectacle if you like that sort of thing (I do) and the costumes were gorgeous, especially the flapper dresses. Robert Redford was never meant to be put in a pink suit, but Daisy and Jordan's dresses were beautiful. Gatsby's pile of shirts was pathetic, but that hardly counts. Overall, a waste of two hundred twenty four minutes. This movie is only good for Redford (or Farrow) fans, and only if they are watching the movie especially for him and don't mind the absence of plot, character development. Read the book.
Rating: 
Summary: A Robert Redford fans must see movie.
Review: True to the book, this slow moving, yet provacative movie about the life of a 20's golden boy is a must see for Robert Redford fans. Costumes and party scenes are the best part. The video is a disappointment from the orginal movie since it omits "What'll I Do", which is played throughout the movie version. I was VERY disappointed when viewing the video without this song. It is truly the most romantic part of the film with the chemistry between the two leads.
Rating: 
Summary: a great interpretation of the book
Review: the book is one of my favorites and this movie captures the books emotion. I think the story of gatsby is a very sad story but a story that most of us go through. I read in another review that this is a chick flick a man won't mind watching I disagree I think this movie and book was made for men because most men have been in Gatsby's shoes to some extent
Rating:
Summary: Guilt! The Eyes Of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg, O.D. See ALL !
Review: F. Scott Fitzgerald presents taut tension and symbolism between Modernism and Victorianism in the 1925's quintessential jazz age of the great American novel, "The Great Gatsby" and this 1974 adaptation of Fitzgerald's novel with Francis Ford Coppola's screenwriting captures the better part of it! Daisy's green light at the end of her dock that symbolizes all hope and want in not just Gatsby but all people, the "haves" and the "have-nots", guilt and carelessness, living above judgement and consequences, and of course, the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg over the "valley of the ashes"... All are all beautifully and sadly portrayed. Mia Farrow as the self centered, one-dimensional Daisy, Bruce Dern as the philandering Tom and Robert Redford as the nouveau riche, enamoured Gatsby turn in quite decent performances. As Nick says, "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money ortheir vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made." However, it is Karen Black as Myrtle, Scott Wilson as George and a sublime Sam Waterson cast as the perfect Nick are the highlight of this film along with the musical score, great costuming and elaborate set design. This is well worth the watch and I enjoy this adaptation more than the A&E presentation, of which I USUALLY favor! "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no
matter- tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther..... And one fine morning - " (Nick) Happy Watching!
Rating:
Summary: GREAT GATSBY REVIEW FOR MR. TURNER'S CLASS
Review: BOOKS AND FILMS ARE NOT USUALLY EXACTLY THE SAME. IT WOULD BE HARD TO TAKE A TEST ON A BOOK IF YOU HAD ONLY WATCHED THE MOVIE. THE MOVIE THE GREAT GATSBY IS LIKE THE BOOK IN MANY WAYS. IT IS ALSO NOT LIKE IT IN MANY WAYS.
THE GREAT GATSBY TOOK PLACE IN THE 1920'S. THE CHARACTERS ARE ALL EITHER NEW RICH OR OLD RICH CITIZENS OF NEW YORK. THE MAIN CHARACTERS WERE DAISY AND GATSBY. GATSBY IS OBSESSED WITH DAISY. THEY WERE IN LOVE AT ONE POINT, BEFORE HE WENT OFF TO THE WAR. WHEN GATSBY RETURNS FROM THE WAR, HE HOPES HE WILL BE ABLE TO LOCATEDAISY AND LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER. WHEN DAISY'S COUSIN NICK IS PUT INTO THE PICTURE GATSBY HAS A CHANCE OF GETTING HIS DREAM BACK. IT IS NOT ALWAYS EASY GETTING WHAT YOU WANT, AND IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT EASY FOR GATSBY. THE ENTIRE MOVIE AND NOVEL REVOLVE AROUND GATSBY TRYING TO GET DAISY BACK.
I DID NOT REALLY KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT OF THE MOVIE. AFTER WATCHING THE MOVIE, I WAS A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED WITH GATSBY'S CHARACTER. HE WAS SO FAKE TO ME, WHICH I GUESS WAS A LITTLE OF WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO PORTRAY. IT WAS STILL A LITTLE TO FAKE FOR ME. DAISY DID A GOOD JOB OF ACTING UPSET. JORDAN BAKER IN THE NOVEL WAS A VERY CARELESS AND CALM PERSON. HER CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE WAS JUST LIKE THAT OF THE BOOK. THE MOVIE WOULD NOT HAD BEEN NEAR AS GOOD WITHOUT NICK. I THINK HIS PART IN THE MOVIE WAS GREAT.
THE MOVIE ITSELF IS THE SAME AS THE NOVEL IN THE WAY THAT NOTHING WAS ADDED. THE MOVIE WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE NOVEL BECAUSE IT LEFT STUFF OUT. EVERYTNIG EXCEPT THE COLROR OF GATSBY'S CAR WAS ACCURATE.
Rating:
Summary: Keen insights into that Time & those Persons!
Review: After Years since our first Encounter, I was keenly surprised at the Graphic Descriptions of that Time-frame of Newly Rich among the HAVES and Inner Longings of those who were the Have-Nots!
Barbara and I were Amazed at the Sweep of Acting Ability of Mia Farrow and Bruce Dern! Not nearly as much difference in Redford! If you compare their High-riding parties with the entertainment of today, here were grand displays of emotions and kicking-up of their heels, almost like the Cotton Club or the Blue Note in Chicago!
We were more interested in the music & costumes than Acting or Story plot. There was contrast of the leading characters in their super display of emotions compared to that restraint of Nick Carraway, Tom Buchanan, or the mechanic named Wilson! What an awesome diplay of Personality Contrasts as well as, the short conversational exchanges that were both snide and more cynical than chit-chat between Gatsby and Tom Buchanan!!
All-in-all we were not entirely in the dark with the depression of the ending yet the Narrator, SAM WATERSON, as Nick C. had all the necessary qualities of being Worthy of an Oscar! Never was it an appetizing, inspiring of high hopes, or sentimental movie as was our recent viewing of The Thomas Crown Affair! Retired Chaplain Fred W Hood
Rating:
Summary: A Fine Adaptation
Review: This 1973 film was a good adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's famous novel. Although some of the actors could have been better, I found the film to be faithful to the story and well directed.
The film follows the classic story of Gatsby, a poor man who made a fortune after the Great War and so became the talk of the town. Although Gatsby's wealth could buy anything he wanted, what he really wanted was Daisy: a beautiful but shallow woman whom Gatsby can't get out of his mind. Daisy is now married and lives across from Gatsby's home. Gatsby's lavish home and parties are little more than Gatsby's subconscious wooing of Daisy. But Gatsby was never born in wealth and so wasn't considered 'polite' enough to be with someone like Daisy (Mia Farrow.) This was certainly the opinion of her brute husband (Bruce Dern)who needs to get his jollies on the poor side of town. Gatsby's only true friend is his narrating neighbor (Law & Order's Sam Waterston.)
I found this adaptation to be just fine. The film was faithful to the book, well directed, and complimented with a good cast. Robert Redford plays his role as the humble Gatsby quite well. A good movie to rent or own.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Great But Sometimes Magical
Review: This movie is both great and awful depending entirely upon one's need for accuracy or how deeply you may have felt about the book by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Francis Ford Coppola wrote the screenplay for this film and followed the classic book about as closely as a film is capable of doing. But I found the direction to be flawed somehow. The film is filled with starlit close-ups (no one's eyes sparkle like that, not even Daisy's) and smoke screen silhouettes, complex party scenes and plenty of flapper costumes. I just couldn't figure out why all of the strange lighting existed after hiring two nearly perfect looking actors, in Mia Farrow and Robert Redford. I would have preferred to see the stars in Daisy's eyes stem from a great acting performance rather than the eerie sparkles falsely placed in every close-up!
Robert Redford was good as Gatsby and he conveyed some of the character's desperate and lonely love. I was disappointed that all of the complexity of Gatsby was never fully explained. If I would not have known the story beforehand I would have never understood what tied Gatsby and Daisy together, other than money of course. But Redford captures Gatsby's aloofness to a tee and one can easily see why Daisy would be in love with Gatsby.
I found Mia Farrow to be disappointing as Daisy Buchanan, the spoiled debutante who manages to seduce the great Gatsby for a lifetime. As stated previously Farrow's close-ups were far too crafted to seduce anyone. She came across as a flirty silly girl more than a classic seductress and paled in comparison to Redford's portrayal of Gatsby. She looked cute in all of the frilly costumes of course, but I never really found her character believable.
Karen Black is downright scary as the mistress of Mr. Buchanan, with her eyes crossing and spitting with every close-up. Bruce Dern plays the arrogant competitive Mr. Buchanan with great nastiness. Sam Waterston steals the show however with his portrayal as the narrator of the story. He captures innocence and compassion while keeping his open-eyed curiosity and faithfulness to Gatsby from beginning to end.
Overall this film is good, if you have read the book first, but lacks a full explanation. The filmmakers relied more on scenery and lighting than perfect casting and a deeper meaning. Some scenes are magical while others fall flat. For Redford fans and lovers of the 20's it is a gem. The greed and power hungry people are captured but sadly the deepest desires of all that passion become lost behind the filmmakers vision.
Rating:
Summary: Guilt! The Eyes Of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg, O.D. See ALL !
Review: F. Scott Fitzgerald presents taut tension and symbolism between Modernism and Victorianism in the 1925's quintessential jazz age of the great American novel, "The Great Gatsby" and this 1974 adaptation of Fitzgerald's novel with Francis Ford Coppola's screenwriting captures the better part of it! Daisy's green light at the end of her dock that symbolizes all hope and want in not just Gatsby but all people, the "haves" and the "have-nots", guilt and carelessness, living above judgement and consequences, and of course, the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg over the "valley of the ashes"... All are all beautifully and sadly portrayed. Mia Farrow as the self centered, one-dimensional Daisy, Bruce Dern as the philandering Tom and Robert Redford as the nouveau riche, enamoured Gatsby turn in quite decent performances. As Nick says, "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money ortheir vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made." However, it is Karen Black as Myrtle, Scott Wilson as George and a sublime Sam Waterson cast as the perfect Nick are the highlight of this film along with the musical score, great costuming and elaborate set design. This is well worth the watch and I enjoy this adaptation more than the A&E presentation, of which I USUALLY favor! "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no
matter- tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther..... And one fine morning - " (Nick) Happy Watching!
Rating: 
Summary: GONE IS THE HOPE THAT THIS TRANSFER WOULD BE STUNNING!
Review: The Great Gatsby" (1974) is a story of decadence and decay from the 1920s, spawned from the pen of imminent author, F.Scott Fitzgerald. It?s full of wanton greed, lust, sex and murder set during the flapper age. Robert Redford is the quintessential sexy, Jay Gatsby. He?s at once a charmer and a recluse, throwing lavish parties on his Long Island estate for the ritzy jet set, though rarely attending except in absentee through a bird?s eye view from his second story window. But Gatsby?s unassuming secretiveness is brought into the light when he meets gawky paramour, Daisy Buchanan (Mia Farrow). She?s a godless, flighty flapper, married to a wealthy playboy, Tom (Bruce Dern), and cousin to the introspective, Nick Carraway (Sam Waterston) the young man living on the cottage near Gatsby?s estate. Nick is genuine and Gatsby, sensing that he can trust Nick, confides in him his romantic interests in Daisy. The two become lovers ? a relationship which is genuine for Gatsby but shallow, fleeting and inconsequential to Daisy. She soon returns to Tom who decides to set Gatsby up with the accidental hit and run of Myrtle Wilson (Karen Black) that he has committed. Tom and Myrtle used to be an item and Tom?s impregnation is passed off as Gatsby?s, leaving Myrtle?s distraught husband, George (Scott Wilson) with murder on his mind. Despite a screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola and stellar production values the film generally misses its mark in recanting the tale of a millionaire playboy, brooding away in his locked mansion for the woman that he lost. There's just something about Fitzgerald's writing that doesn't translate well to the big screen.
The transfer is a huge, strange disappointment. Despite being anamorphically enhanced the picture elements look as though they've been fed through a meat grinder. Age related scratches and often excessive film grain crop up throughout, while some scenes are remarkably free of either distraction. The contrast levels during the dusk scenes are way too low. Colors are generally muted and during several scenes even bleed. There are digital artifacts throughout including more than a hint of edge enhancement, aliasing and shimmering of fine details. The audio is barely stereo and really weak in its spread. There are no extras.
|
