User reviews

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 like this adaptation far more than the Robert Redford version-- the sets aren't quite as lavish, but then, they aren't quite as pretentious either. The performances are sound and solid, and Mira Sorvino gives a convincing fragility to the rather high strung Daisy. Paul Rudd has covertly expressive features, that he uses to his advantage, and small town sophistication looks good on him. The book itself is full ofnarration and description with little dialogue, so finding the right mix of old dialogue (classic and remembered) and new dialogue is probably a real challenge. All in all, this is a fair version-- handsome and sweet-- and my only complaint is that Mira Sorvino is almost too sympathetic-- it's hard to believe she is the "careless person" that Americans have come to both revile and idolize.

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 was 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.

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.

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.

Interesting re-make of the re-make of the re-make of the original. I have seen the previous 2 efforts and enjoyed both of them more than this one, although I thought much of this film was better done and easier understood. The stupendous looking houses, cars, and period clothes, hairstyles, and dancing did much for creating a roaring 20's look. Good performances by all, but I think Bruce Dern was a more effective Tom than the fellow in this picture. Old money will never get along with new money, will it?

Yes, folks, the story is a classic. But really- Mira Sorvino as the 'light and airy Daisy'? What were they thinking? She's about as light and blonde and airy as a mack truck. Paul Rudd does his usual grin and watch, with nothing behind it, and Marin Donovan is just boring. The adaption is okay, but it's becoming clearer that there are some books that cannot make the transition to films, and this is one of them. But it might have had a shot if the people casting it had actually READ the book!

I have taught Great Gatsby for many years, and always been disappointed in the film (and lately opera) dramatizations. The plot of the novel is rather sordid and simplistic when deprived of Fitzgerald's presence as narrator (through the character Nick). The vital essence of the novel is the author's mastery of phraseology and vocabulary, which, since they are not directly part of the plot, but comment on the plot, are not easily translated into dramatic form, despite efforts in past versions to utilize some of the author's dialogue. This new adaptation is exceptionally faithful to the text. The finest feature is that the adapter has chosen to use Nick as an over-voice, (as in the novel), so that much of Fitzgerald's gorgeous language has been preserved. The flashbacks are handled so as to blend naturally into the action, and not much is added to the original except some transitional dialogue. The performances are above average, especially the three women leads, but all are good (though Gatsby need not have smiled quite so much).

The Great Gatsby is a book that is difficult to adapt into a movie.

Baz Luhrmann's 2013 version had a lot of sparkle and visual splendour.

The 1974 version had Robert Redford at his most enigmatic but a screenplay from an overworked Francis Ford Coppola.

The 1949 with Alan ladd was upfront with the gangster part of Gatsby.

The 2000 version was a television movie with higher production values to give it a cinematic feel.

Toby Stephens interpretation of Gatsby owes a lot to Redford. Mira Sorvino brings out the selfishness and self centeredness of Daisy Buchanan. She might love Daisy but care more for her own survival.

Paul Rudd who played Nick Carraway might later have said that he did not like the movie. However this lofi version has a lot to commend it.

A simple bare bones structure, it moves along well. The low budget means there is more emphasis on the story.

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.

I have read the book first and this is the first film adaptation of it I have decided to watch. Not disappointed, but absolutely neutral towards it. I liked the acting a lot. Nothing grand but especially the microexpressions were very good to me. The filmmaking was poor at times but had the nice vibe of a early 2000s movie. Some abrupt cuts but also some good transitions.

The message and its themes got a little lost. The lesson was still presented, not as solidified as in the book. This movie was faithful to the storybeats and important moments but it lacked details. (Probably restricted by budget but still).

I did not really feel for the characters, just like the book. Still, the dynamics were fun and the chemistry was good enough. I actually liked Nick a lot in the movie. The protagonist finally felt like a person with a presence and not just a faceless observer for me.

They haven't pushed any boats out here. There is no dreamy quality like the Redford/Farrow version or exhuberance of the Baz Luhrman. But this is a more faithful rendition and truer to the novel.

The acting is acceptable without being standout, the direction is adequate, but there is is a certain PG quality to proceedings. The action avoids being graphic in any way.

Mira Sorvino is a little lost, Paul Rudd is ok and Toby Stephens is breezy without being inspiring.

Literature students may choose to watch something like this instead of fawning over DiCaprio as they will probably learn more. Although I must confess it that version I prefer most.

After watching this version of the Great Gatsby, I can definitely say I was displeased throughout the entire film.

Sorvino is dry, changing the way she delivers her lines and portraying her character too much in the wrong way. Stephens doesn't capture the Gatsby's essence or portray his character right, which Redford definitely had in the 1974 version. The everyones lines seemed off or filled with more or less "cheesy"-ness. Rudd was the only one that was suitable for his part.

Though I do agree there is no outstanding movie version made of the book I would skip this movie. If you are looking for something a little more authentic in terms of capturing the 20's I would watch the 1974 first. It definitely gives you a good look into the time period.

Well, last night I saw this movie. Expecting it to be with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow. Well it wasn't. It was not a very interesting movie, but it was do-able. Although I think the one with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow would be better.

This movie is unbelievably terrible. It butchers the book, inserts random flashbacks for no apparent reason, mixes up events, omits important plot points entirely, and moves at an extremely fast pace.

The acting is positively awful. The actors ruin the characters from the book completely, and the actor who plays Gatsby has the worst and most forced smile I've ever seen, old sport.

It adds nothing to the original story. It only subtracts from it. If someone decides to see this before reading the book, the confusion will be immense. The movie invents things that don't belong in the story at all.

It is not worth seeing, under any circumstances. Avoid it like the plague.

i don't know how the director did this, but he somehow made F. Scott Fitzgerald's timeless classic into a dull, insipid TV movie. i could hardly bear though this massacre. many of the important symbols dealing with the loss of morals, hopes and dreams were dimmed to nothing or omitted while others like the eyes of god dominated the show.

Look-wise, i really like the casting of Mira Sorvino[Daisy Fay Buchannan] and Paul Rudd [Nick Carraway]; however Tony Stephens counterbalances their beauty as he tackles the role of Jay Gatsby. Stephens' priggish smile made me want to laugh when the emotions of Daisy Fay (should have) made me want to cry.

Emotionally, many of the scenes were also dumbed down. Granted this was a made for TV movie, i probably shouldn't have expected a follow-up performance by Mira Sorvino. her performace, amongst everyone else's, was terrible. where were her emotions when she reunited with gatsby? where were her emotions after she ran over Myrtle? More importantly, where were everyone's emotions when all the characters are juxtaposed in that New York apartment?

Please, Robert Markowitz, next time you try adapting a classic, spend more time on the ideas that the writer spent long nights up trying to put into words. if i were fitzgerald, i would be insulted.

I just finished reading The Great Gatsby again, and I find the story to be excellent and timeless. This film did a good job of depicting the story and some of the sets were good, but the actors did a horrible job. When I watched it, it was just actors reading lines without any rapport at all--they did nothing to make the story or characters come alive. The conversations seemed forced, unnatural, and somewhat awkward. I'm not saying that the 70's version was perfect, but in that movie Robert Redford WAS Gatsby. Nobody in this movie even came close to truly bringing their character to life. I recommend the Redford version over this movie; it just wasn't good.

Ok, some of these people giving comments about this movie obviously never paid attention to the 1974 version. For one thing, this adaptation is actually interesting. The 1974 version was totally boring, mostly because the actors/actresses showed no enthusiasm at all. And I believe this version is just as close if not closer to the book as the 1974 version. This new adaptation is much more enjoyable than the old.

This movie actually angered me it was so amazingly horrible. Now granted I would be critical due to the fact that The Great Gatsby is my favorite book. However, I was more than willing to give it a chance. Within 15 minutes, the movie takes an amazingly over acted and over enthusiastic view of the story.

The first hour rushes through almost the entire story laid out so evenly by F. Scott Fitzgerald. The second hour is consists of more "speculation" with the storyline and includes several scenes (and additions to scenes) that would NEVER be contrived by Fitzgerald. Including a greater love between Nick and Jordan, a happier first meeting between Gatsby and Daisy, and the omission of several other little nuances that make The Great Gatsby the remarkable work of fiction that it is. There weren't even any flapper girls at any of Gatsby's parties for heaven's sake!

As for the acting, you're likely to find better actors in a weekend dinner theatre. Toby Stephens as Gatsby is more has more of a misguided frat boy persona rather than the slightly immature but calm and driven Gatsby that Fitzgerald describes in his book. Mira Sorvino's Daisy Buchanan is about as soothing as fingernails across a chalkboard. The entire movie seems forced from almost every point of view. Paul Rudd stands out as the only acceptable performance in this picture. But unfortunately, he only makes an average performance.

Overall, this version makes 1974's Redford picture seem like Citizen Kane in comparison. Watch it only for pure amusement at how bad a motion picture can be.