The Great Gatsby (A&E)

Rating:
Summary: Toby Stephens Shines
Review: This movie is a must see for all fans of Toby Stephens. I truly enjoyed every moment of this film. He is a very gifted actor who deserves much credit for his role in this film. Not only is his face handsome to look at, but his facial expressions convey such emotion in his character. This timeless tale unfolds with a gripping storyline and poignant tale of love found and lost. Don't miss this wonderful film!

Rating:
Summary: Awful-Stay Away!
Review: The only reason why this movie even gets 1 star is because there isn't a "0 star" option. Without a doubt, this is the worst adaptation of Fitzgerald's classic-and that is really saying something, considering all the awful attempts that have been made. For one, the characters are terribly miscast. Not only is the actor that plays Gatsby terrible at acting, he looks nothing like Gatsby. Gatsby is supposed to be a slim, blonde-haired playboy transplanted from the mid-west, along the lines of Robert Redford's Gatsby. He also lacks the charisma necessary to play Gatsby. His delivery of Gatsby's famous "old sport" was brutal. Furthermore, Paul Rudd is completely unconvincing as Nick Carraway, and the same is true of Mira Sorvino as Daisy. The movie never captures the spirit of Fitzgerald's novel. Since this is an original movie, it, predictably, had a low budget and the sets, costumes, and just about every aspect of the film suffered because of it. The characters are never adequately established. When Gatsby meets his fate, all of the feelings and emotions one feels while reading the book are missing. There is no connection to the characters. They are completely wooden, completely betraying the book. Also, the direction of this film was terrible, as just about every scene feels like it was rushed through. My advice is to stay away from this sorry excuse of a film. Somewhere, F. Scott is turning in his grave. If you have your heart set on seeing a film version of "The Great Gatsby", stick with the Robert Redford, Mia Farrow, Sam Waterston version made in the 70's-while it was not a perfect adaptation, it was moderately successful and was true to the book.

Rating:
Summary: Enchanting
Review: I particulary loved this adaptation of The Great Gatsby. It far surpasses the earlier Redford-Farrow version by its sheer possession of substance. I do, however, feel that it should only be watched after the book has been read. It accomplishes more when viewed in that manner. The movie version helped bring the story to life for me, building tension and tragedy in a wonderful way. I was forced to read the book over the summer and after reading commentaries on it, I got some sort of grasp on the meaning behind the story, but was not duly impressed. The life given to it by the movie, however, made me realize why it was such a classic, oh so American, tragedy. The A&E version holds its own.

Rating:
Summary: Reasonably Entertaining Version of an Unfilmable Novel
Review: Given that the Fitzgerald novel is not so much about an ill-fated romance as it is about money and what money will and will not buy, it seems unlikely that any film version can do the novel justice, particularly in reference to the character of Daisy Buchannan. Still, this A&E adaptation is considerably superior to the lavish but empty Redford-Farrow version and offers a strong, unpretentious cast in a straightforward love story that--although it barely scrapes the top of Fitzgerald's novel--is reasonably entertaining to watch.

Rating:
Summary: Shallow
Review: I found this version, on my first time seeing it, quite good. The acting amused me and the story was both interesting and well planned. Then, I read the book. I found the movie, after a second time seeing it, a horribale adaption to F. Scott's masterpeice and will never live up to the book. The acting is apauling. Although Mira Sorvino is a wonderful actress ( as can be seen in such films as Mighty Aphrodite) she can not be seen as her best in this adaption. Her lack of entusiasim pulls the production down, and it lacks the excentricy and entusiastic energy that the charector of Daisy requires. The part of Tom is also horribally acted by what ever his name is, an unknown. You would think casting could find a better "brute". Both these charetors are met to the top in every charectoristc that the parts require, Daisy and Tom in the 1974 version by Mia Farrow, which is a much better adaption. Perhaps it did have more mouney and big Hollywood producers, but it does not take mouney to make a good movie. Some good things (which were very few) I found were the parts of Jordan aand Nick. Nick was wonderfully well acted by a young actor who is making a good name for himself. Jordan, at sometimes,also had her lows, but her highs, if you're comparing the Jordan in the 1974 version. And last but not least, in this review, is the oh so crucial part of Jay Gatzby, which was played in the most of cornieness you could possibly find, and if you're comparing him with Robert Redford's betrayel he shouldn't even be noticed. In conclusion this shallow and boring adaption is not worth wasting mouney, or late fees.

Rating:
Summary: Brooding, dark....
Review: A brooding, dark film which is semi-autobiographical on the lives and times of the Fitzgeralds. F. Scott and Zelda both personified the "roaring twenties" excesses and sexual liberation of the times. All of which came crashing down with the collapse of the stock market and the events brewing in Europe. A winsome look back to the life and times.

Rating:
Summary: Dull production
Review: I find this production completely faceless and at the end boring. One only has to wonder how, after the cinema has been in existence for around 100 years and capable of producing real works of art and at least some good entertaining films, there are films done now being so stillborn. It does not entice any feelings, as far as I can judge, and may be good only to while away the time. It's certainly more beneficial for an individual to invest that leisure time into reading the book, that way it can be understood why it had become famous. If Great Gatsby were represented only by this picture, no one would care for it after couple of months following its release in movie theaters. This one will collect the dust in movie rental stores in the near future, I am convinced...

Rating:
Summary: For A Gatsby remake ---- WONDERFUL!
Review: I was very pleased that A&E made an accurate adaptation of this book. Although I would not suggest movie versions over the book ,at any rate, if you have to choose one, choose this one. I've watched the others, and they are appauling, especially the 1970's remake with Mia Farrow.

Rating:
Summary: A successful attempt to honor Fitzgerald's masterpiece
Review: While many of you may turn your nose at a movie version of perhaps the greatest American novel starring Mira Sorvino and Paul Rudd, I assure you the casting was wonderfully done. Sorvino fulfills the character of Daisy, somewhat ditzy, materialistic, and self-centered. And Paul Rudd has always been a wonderful actor (let's just pretend "Clueless" never happened). The rest of the cast is wonderful as well. As I mentioned in my review of the OTHER movie version of the Great Gatsby, I was disappointed that (among other things) there was no narrator. Nick DOES narrate this one. It is brilliantly accomplished as well, because he is only narrator at crucial moments where dialogue would otherwise be lost. This movie also includes the famous last words of the novel: "So we beat on, boats against the current, born ceaselessly into the past" which I feel is a crucial part to include in the movie. Scenes were also accomplished with more tact and finesse than the other. The important ones had more time to sink into your memory. It's shorter than the other one, yet you gain more from this version than the older. A&E does not dissappoint!

Rating:
Summary: A Misguided Attempt
Review: It is shocking that, in the Age of Political Correct-ness, students and teachers have moved away (with polite obtuseness) from the central issues of personality and identity--when they run parallel with "race". "Gatsby," for instance. Why was the character so willing to part with his original name, Gatz? --The answer: Gatz (a corruption of Katz) is a German Jewish name. The character--a social climber of the 1920s--was emulating the wealthy and privileged Anglo-Saxon society from which he was forever barred. This issue of the ethnic upstart, who tries--to somewhat embarrassing effect ["old sport"]--to efface his past and assimilate is a major theme of 20th Century American culture. But everywhere, this very obvious component of the story is neglected . . . or else passed over in an embarrassed conspiracy of silence as director after director cast they wasp-ish looking actors they can find--at one stroke eliminating the character's motivation in changing his name, moving away from his home and creating a false past. Secondly, it goes a long way toward explaining his rejection by the shallow "Daisy" character. In this current cinematic treatment of Gatsby, all of the mistakes are repeated from previous motion pictures--with a whole new batch of gaffes, blunders and just plain bad acting. For this reason, I suggest to anyone who sees it to read the novel--it'll make much more sense.