Rating: 
Summary: An unnecessary remake?
Review: The Great Gatsby has become a 'classic' in American literature, a novel respected by academics, analysed by students at all levels, and enjoyed by the reading public. It also makes a smashing film, as Fitzgerald's writing is, in itself, almost cinematic. Unfortunately, this most recent adaptation does not do as well as the earlier adaptation with Robert Redford, which now is itself a classic in it's own right.This film is, still, lovely to watch, as the Montreal scenery does well in setting up the East and West Egg environs. But what seems missing in this version is the spirit of the thing. Mira Sorvino's Daisy is perhaps the weakest aspect of the film, her character being without any appeal and her voice certainly not 'full of money'. Toby Stephens's Gatsby is annoying, trite and vacuous, and by the end of the film, one has sympathy only for Nick (who is played here excellently by the by), and perhaps Tom, but none for Daisy or Gatsby. Without this small necessary amount of sympathy for these two central characters, the pathos and beauty of the story falls flat, and one would rather sit and look at the green light glowing at the end of the pier than at the film. Viewers who didn't enjoy this film should either read the novel or have a look at the Robert Redford version for a better idea of how Fitzgerald's world looked.
Rating: 
Summary: A Great Adaptation
Review: This movie was a great adaptation from F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel. The actors and actresses portrayed each of their roles beautifully. A very enthusiastic two thumbs up!
Rating: 
Summary: Try it, you'll like it
Review: To date, this is the best version of the classic tale available. Granted, it will never substitute for reading the book, but nothing should. The book is incredible. This outranks the 1974 version by far. Mira Sorvino is almost perfect as the careless single-minded Daisy with a "voice full of money." Toby Stephens is awkward as the all-american Gatsby, but he looks the part, at any rate. Paul Rudd blends marvelously into the scenery as Nick, emerging when he must but always keeping the spotlight on Gatsby and Daisy. Martin Donovan plays Tom very well, playing a complete boor with sympathy achieves an interesting effect. The rest of the cast is well put together, and the script, representing perhaps 25% of the book, pulls out the major events, slims down sub-plots, and gets to the meat of the story. In essence, it tells the story that you remember even years after reading the book. It's hardly complete, but it's excellently edited. Honestly, I think the measure of a movie is in how you feel walking away from it, and I walked away feeling some modicum of the way I felt after the first time I read the book; that's an accomplishment. Besides, how can you really dislike something that wraps up with one of literature's most lyrical lines?
Rating:
Summary: Great Adaptation
Review: I thought this adaptation of the unfogetatble novel was fantastic. The movie had its own uniqueness which made it even more interesting. The acting was superb and I would recommend this movie to anybody who enjoyed the novel!
Rating: 
Summary: Stinko Production
Review: Hard to believe Fitzgerald could be so badly done. The talented Mira Sorvino is miscast. Hairstyles are modernized right out of the period in which this story takes place. Robert Evans' production with Redfield/Farrow was much superior. He was able to mostly stick to the original dialogue and that production had an other-worldly look about it that this new one lacks. In short, it really stinks.
Rating:
Summary: Just stick with the book
Review: "The Great Gatsby" is one of the greatest American Novels, if not the best. So why is it that no one can turn it into a half-descent film? It's almost funny how dreadful film adaptions of this novel have been. Back in 1974, Mia Farrow, Robert Redford, Bruce Dern, a young Sam Waterston and scribe Francis Ford Coppola turned F. Scott Fitzgerald's timeless classic into two and a half hours of forgettable garbage. Considering the failure of that adaption, it was only a matter of time until someone gave the book another try. I guess it has taken twenty-five years because no one thought they could do a better job then Coppola and Redford. As hard as it is to believe, the latest version is even worse. The makers of A&E's version must have studied the 1974 version. This time, instead of being too long, the film is too short. The pace which Fitzgerald sets in the novel is perfect and happens to be one of the aspects that directors and screenwriters have been unable to translate to film. In A&E's version, over half the novel is packed into about forty-five minutes. Everything happens to quickly, there isn't any time to take in what is going on. Then the director, Robert Markowitz, thought he could save even more time, or be stylish (take your pick) by adding flashbacks. Markowitz missed the point of the novel. The story is about Nick and the people who influence him. By adding flash backs, Nick is no longer telling the story. In result, the movie became less about Nick's story and more about Gatsby's. Not only was the script and direction worse then the 1974 version, but the acting was pathetic. Paul Rudd was ok as Nick, but I could never see him selling bonds. Mira Sorvino played Daisy as if she was Marilyn Monrore with an IQ of 45. Toby Stephens (who?) as Gatsby was a total joke. He was dreadful! I've seen high school plays with less overacting then just his performance. He was abominable. It looked like he had no clue what he was doing. I found myself screaming for Robert Redford. He failed to capture the part. Whenever he said "old sport", I got a pain in my stomach. Whoever cast him should be dragged out and shot. One thing the 1974 version did well was the set design, costumes and art direction. They did an excellent job capturing look and feel of the Jazz Age. Gatsby's house and parties were everything I imagined them to be. However, A&E's version failed to recreate the look of the period. The film just wasn't big enough. Gatsby's house is a perfect example of this. His house in the film wasn't outrageous enough. The library, for instance, was tinny. When I read that scene, I pictured a vast two story room you could get lost in. Overall, the film is a complete disaster. It looks and feels rushed. You'd think that the screen play could write itself, but that appears not to be the case. The novel is so good that you shouldn't even need a script, you could just hand out copies of the book out to the cast and crew. I'm surprised that after 75 years no one has been able to do anything with this novel. Well, considering how the books popularity is only growing, and the latest film adaption was a flop, it's only a matter of time until someone else tries to turn "The Great Gatsby" into a movie. Until then, stick with the text.
Rating:
Summary: The Great Gatsby
Review: This was actually a fairly faithful adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's book. Many of the lines will sound very familiar. Whether or not that faithfulness is a good thing depends on your perspective. After all, Fitzgerald was writing a novel, not a screenplay, and some of the scenes don't transfer as powerfully to film.
For example, at the end Nick tells Gatsby, "They're a rotten crowd...You're worth the whole damn bunch put together." This is an important and powerful moment in the book, but it appears stiff and strange in the movie.
The acting performances were tremendous. Rudd was perfect as Nick. When I first saw Toby Stephens, he didn't strike me as a good fit for Gatsby, but he had won me over by the end of the movie.
The DVD also comes with an A&E bio on F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Rating:
Summary: Stop where you are! Do NOT watch this movie!!!!
Review: Where to begin?! I had such hope due to the cast, but oh my. The stiff dialogue, the completely made up storylines (I kept imagining the writer saying "ok, the book is a masterpiece, but wait till they get a load of what I can do with it.....") The horrible cheap and ugly costumes, and the cufflinks, my heavens, the cufflinks.
About 20 minutes in my high school students held a revolt and begged me to turn it off lest it permanently taint their enjoyment of Fitzgerald's work. I think Brandon said it best, "it's like bad Titanic meets a flapper Soap Opera...no, a Spanish flapper Soap Opera."
Horrible, horrible, horrible. The only redeeming quality is that any student who watches this mess instead of reading the book will fail any and all quizzes. Stick to Francis Ford Coppala's 1974 version with Redford and Farrow. Nelson Riddle music, Ralph Lauren costumes, Cartier jewelry and an acurate plotline...that's more like it.
Rating: 
Summary: Hey Mr. M
Review: ... While the movie version does not do the book justice (as almost no movie versions can), it was made enjoyable by a few key factors. Paul Rudd as Nick was fabulous. He manages to capture the character perfectly with his attitude towards Gatsby and Daisy, and does a wonderful job narrating. The addition of direct quotes added to his performance and my enjoyment of the movie. The soundtrack was almost perfect, bringing you right into each scene. The costumes were also wonderful, although I got the impression that Gatsby's weren't flashy enough. Gatsby himself, played by Toby Stephens, was a disappointment. His smile was more eerie than reassuring, and the phrase "old sport" didn't so much as roll off his tongue as fall ungracefully to the floor. If you are a huge fan of Fitzgerald's book, I don't suggest seeing this movie. But if it was only a book you somewhat enjoyed, go rent this movie, if only to see Paul Rudd's performance,...
Rating:
Summary: Review for "Mr. M"
Review: The movie starts out with Gatsby being shot in his pool, and his cufflinks fall from his hands. We are then taken back in time to see the events that lead up to Gatsby's demise. Nick, the narrator, is in the bond business and he moves into the house next to Gatsby. Gatsby has been waiting for and opportunity to finally see Daisy, the woman he loved but was not wealthy enough to marry. Now that Nick, who also knows Daisy, moved next door, Gatsby finally has a way to casually bump into her. Since Gatsby is wealthy, he can impress Daisy and win her heart back. The dilemma is that Daisy loves her husband, Tom, or at least she loved him at one point. They even had a daughter. This isn't a problem for long because a rapid string of events occurs, and we find that a man shoots Gatsby.
Paul Rudd played the character of Nick. I think he did an excellent job. He was exactly how I pictured Nick in the book. Gatsby, on the other hand, is a different story. Toby Stephens was not who I pictured as Gatsby when I read the book. I pictured Gatsby as being noticeably older than Nick and not phony at all. Toby Stephens appeared to have trouble performing Gatsby's smile and "old sport." They just didn't seem to come naturally to him, which hindered the image of Gatsby.
The movie followed the book very well. However, the beginning of the movie was different than the book because rather than having Nick foreshadow something bad to happen in the future, it started off with Gatsby being shot. Other than that part, I'd say the movie didn't alter the book. The scenes were just how I pictured them. For instance, Tom's house was breezy and white when we first met Daisy and Jordan. That's just how I pictured it in the book. Gatsby's house was not how I pictured it, though that is only my opinion. I thought the yard where the parties took place should have been larger, and the inside of the house should have been more spacious. The costumes were right on, even Gatsby's silver suit and gold tie from when he met Daisy again at Nick's house.
I'm sorry to say that the movie version of The Great Gatsby fell short of the novel. Though it was easy to follow and its mood seemed to match that of the book, it just wasn't impressive. The role of Gatsby could have been performed a lot better. The movie was somewhat enjoyable, but it lacked something. I recommend reading the book.
|
