ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Cortechba Overrated

SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling

tomsview This is the most faithful film version of Scott F. Fitzgerald's famous novel. However, I feel other versions, although not necessarily as true to the book, have captured the elusive character of Jay Gatsby more successfully.Told through the Eyes of Nick Carraway (Paul Rudd) the film follows the book fairly closely with less rearranging of the material than the Ladd, Redford or DiCaprio versions.Obsession is a tricky quality to treat sympathetically on the screen. But that is exactly what Jay Gatsby displays in his pursuit of Daisy: the love he lost and thinks he has found again.Toby Stephens as Gatsby just seems too squared away to be harbouring a 5-year obsession, which he will go to any lengths to satisfy including openly stealing another man's wife. He carries off the self-made man to a point, but he doesn't project that almost indefinable, enigmatic quality that is the key to Gatsby's character. He and Paul Rudd also project a similar style - the different look of Leo DiCaprio as Gatsby and Toby Maguire as Nick were a better counterpoint in Baz Lurhmann's 2013 film.The other three sound versions had a major star in the role. Where you would think a lesser-known actor could inhabit the role more comfortably without reference to his star quality, the opposite seems to be true. Both Alan Ladd and Leo DiCaprio delivered a complex, enigmatic Gatsby.Only Robert Redford's star power may have worked against him. His persona also seemed too solid and sensible to let his emotions totally take over his life. However, charisma was no problem for Redford.Although Gatsby is an enigma - Daisy is also a mystery. Whereas Fitzgerald had words to describe her, an actress playing Daisy must project what it is that Gatsby sees in her. Daisy is attractive, but fundamentally weak and simply wants to run when confronted with the traumas in her life. Nick Carraway sees right through her.I think Cary Mulligan in Baz Lurhmann's film caught those qualities, as did Betty Field opposite Alan Ladd, Mia Farrow gave her a neurotic edge, while Mira Sorvino plays it low-key here, masking Daisy's indecision - it's a thoughtful performance.The production of this movie is adequate for the story, and it is probably the best version to see first, because all the others bring something else to the table beyond a straight interpretation of the book.

kayaker36 There could at last be a satisfying adaptation of this classic novel of the Jazz Age if the two half-good versions were combined, keeping from each the best. We would keep the sets, costumes, musical score and performances by Sam Waterston, Howard Da Silva and some others from the 1974 mega- production, and from this extremely modest but more literary adaptation, keep Mira Sorvino's Daisy Buchanan, Martin Donovan's Tom and the liberal sprinkling of Scott Fitzgerald's polished prose.As Daisy, a "beautiful little fool", the Harvard educated Ms. Sorvino is not ideal but more convincing than Mia Farrow--who was too English and looked actually old though I understand now she was pregnant, and only 28. The best performance here was by Martin Donovan, familiar to television audiences by face if not by name, and that is the problem. His Tom Buchanan is sensitive and restrained, in fact too sympathetic for the bigoted bully and skirt chaser he is supposed to be portraying. Donovan steals every scene from the inexperienced Toby Stephens and when Daisy is won back, the viewer can believe it is because Tom is really the better man. This totally distorts what author Scott Fitzgerald was saying.Daisy Buchanan stays with Tom because she has chosen respectability over love, making her even more rotten than her husband and quite undeserving of The Great Gatsby.

mryan-26 Yes, those of us who know Fitzgerald's elegant writing do appreciate the production values and most of the casting is adequate, but Mia Sorvino is miscast. Without comparing her to any other movie version or actress, I just believe any actress cast as Daisy has to get it right: the Southern belle who appears fragile yet worldly wise, and the voice, well Gatsby and Nick both know her voice is "fiull of money", else how could she be Gatsby's inattainable dream? I know she can act, but Sorvino cannot adapt her height and strident voice to be Daisy B. I Unlike some other viewers, I was not put off by Stephens'performance, and I do think he managed the "old sport" posing and smiling quite nicely. Rudd is lucky to have so many wonderful narrative voice overs and I was moved by his scene with Klipspringer before Gatsby's funeral.

super_fangirl How can I even begin? ... It sends chills through my spine when I read that human beings actually like this movie over Jack Clayton's movie. My grade 11 English class has spent the last month analyzing F. Scott Fitzgeral's "The Great Gatsby" and the corresponding movie by Jack Clayton. We are 45 minutes into this one and I can already tell it doesn't even compare. The imagery in Clayton's film was so powerfully symbolic. The dog and bird imagery, the garden imagery, Daisy looking like a daisy... It was all just amazing! Not to mention that Clayton followed the plot of F. Scott's novel almost spot on. Markowitz's film? I have seen no real underlying symbolism. I looked and looked but I found none. Also, WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS UP WITH GATSBY GETTING HIS NAME FROM DAISY?!?!? ANYONE WHO HAS READ THE BOOK WILL CLEARLY KNOW THAT JAY GATSBY WAS INVENTED WHEN JAMES GATZ MET DAN CODY! I-I can't even go on... It was just not good... Especially in comparison to Clayton's film. Oh and by-the-way, only someone who has read and studied the book will know that Clayton had also read and studied the book by his film and his overly in-depth movie.