The Great Gatsby

Sorvino, Rudd and Donovan are very good; Sorvino, in fact, is excellent, better than Farrow in the 1974 version. But Toby Stephens is badly miscast as Jay Gatsby; there's no sense of romance to him, no yearning; he has none of Gatsby's strengths NOR his weaknesses. He looks like a cigarette ad.



But the real problem here is to reveal Gatsby's background much, much too early; he should remain mysterious to us for longer than he does. The production lacks the richness required, and ducks away from important scenes; it's sentimental instead of wryly wistful, and doesn't capture the period very well.

The Great Great Gatsby remains to be made. We're left with a lost silent version, the elusive Ladd version (which is quite good) and the good, but not outstanding, version from 1974. This one is just a footnote.

I've been reading the other comments here, and all I can ask is what planet are you from? You're saying that "the story wasn't that good." Don't you realize that this is an adaptation of one of America's best novels? This is a tragic story of a man who builds his life to deserve a dream he'll never have? Admittedly, I've read the book and can't just separate my knowledge of the Great Gatsby, but it should be obvious that there is tremendous emotional depth. "Not a good story." I thought it was a good representation--I loved finally seeing my valley of ashes and Dr. Eckelberger's imposing eyes. Casting was excellent, except Tom wasn't enough of a bigoted ignoramus. But I thought they were pretty faithful. Tom's house, Gatsby's party, and Nick's house were all that I imagined. It was great in that respect.

Regarding the review from Erin (leiabelle@msn.com) - just a quick point of clarification. The reviewer noted that "Gatsby seemed too old" - an interesting observation given that of all the actors who have so far portrayed Gatsby on film, Toby Stephens was significantly the youngest at the time of filming. He was born in 1969 and the film was released in 2000 thereby making Stephens no more than 31 by the time of the film's release. In the silent film of "The Great Gatsby" released in 1926, Gatsby was played by Warner Baxter, born in 1889, making him no more than 37. Alan Ladd was born in 1913 and played Gatsby in the 1949 release making him no more than 36 at the time. Robert Redford was born in 1936 making him no more than 38 by the time of the 1974 release. Leonardo DiCaprio was born that same year (ie 1974) making him no more than 39 by the time of the spectacular Baz Luhrmann 2013 release. It's hard to believe but just going by the mathematics, Leonardo may very well have been the oldest film actor yet to have played Jay Gatsby at the time of filming. Toby Stephens however holds the record to this date (ie 7 February 2014) as being by far the youngest actor. This still doesn't refute the original reviewer's contention however that "Gatsby SEEMED too old." He clearly did to the reviewer. It's just that anyone wishing to go by the cold hard facts need only "do the maths."

Honestly, I'm not sure what would inspire anyone to watch ANY version of _The Great Gatsby_ unless you are (1) a teacher wanting to show it in conjunction with teaching the novel or (2) a student attempting to bolster your understanding of the book. (Just read the book already!) So, with that audience in mind, I think this version has it all over the 1974 film in most respects. It runs closer to the book with far fewer invented (or re-ordered or moved-to-another-location) scenes. Mira Sorvino has the convincingly lovely voice to play Daisy, whereas Mia Farrow in the older version ruins any semblance to the book character with her Minnie Mouse shrillness. Toby Stephens is not as dreamy as Robert Redford, but he does better at conveying that sinister side of Gatsby which I think many first-time readers miss or minimize. Gatsby's illicit activities, so tantalizingly vague in Fitzgerald, are rendered with too much clarity for my taste, but on the whole I found this a fine accompaniment to the novel.

Being a huge fan of the original classic novel, I was very disappointed and at times also found myself getting bored during this TV film.

As many other people I was "forced" to study THE GREAT GATSBY in school. After having read it over a dozen times it has now become one of my favourite books. It is such a beautiful and multi-layered work of art. So needless to say it is horrific to watch the way a great novel can become extremely shallow on screen.

The Redford/Farrow version of THE GREAT GATSBY is ten times better then this film which feels at times like a cheap soap opera with cheesy music that does nothing to complement the mood of the film. Everything just looks and feels very tasteless and unreal in this adaptation: the sets, costumes and even the characters.

The major problem I had with this particular version was Toby Stephens portrayel of Gatsby. He looked most of the time like a grinning fool. One good thing about his portrayel compared to Robert Redford's, is that Stephens underlines the darker, more sinister side to Gatsby's personality. However, I thought it was painful to watch him play Gatsby.There was no depth, charm or sparkle in his performance. Whereas Redford truly transformed himself into Gatsby.

Mira Sorvino was okay as Daisy. I thought her voice was perfect: "full of money", but her performance was not one of her best and at times it seemed like she was just reading out lines from a script.

Paul Rudd as Nick Carraway did the best job out of all cast members portraying his character . In my opinion he is very enjoyable to watch and is able to capture some of the mannerisms of Nick.

Martin Donovon as "the polo player" is completely out of character. He is nothing like the novel describes Daisy's husband as. Surely the head of casting could have found someone with a bit more depth!!!

ONE GOOD THING about this adaption is its faithfulness to the novel in terms of storyline. The main plot has not been altered as much as in the the 1970's version with Farrow/Redford. That is why I would recommend this to student's studying the novel. However, the older version has captured fully the atmosphere of the times represented in the book and also the characters are played by a much, much, much, much more talented and suitable cast.

Read the book or see the older version. This is just a waste of your time if you are not a big Fitzgerald fan.

4/10