FilmWiz

This version tries to stay very true to the roots of the story. It's greatest detriment is its lavish budget, made evident from scenery and costuming. Coppola does an admirable job with his script, but it is impossible to fail to realize that he borrowed heavily from the source material, often citing it verbatim. In this sense, the plot is very faithful to the novel. The film fails to recapture the feel, mood, and spirit of the novel and of the twenties. Fitzgerald made Gatsby a very personal character. For him, there was always something unattainable; and for Gatsby, it was Daisy, the lost love of his life, forever symbolized by a flashing green light at her dock.

When it doesn't try, the film captures the mood of the twenties. This is especially true during Gatsby's first party, showing people being themselves. The majority the cast, particularly Mia Farrow, and with the exception of Bruce Dern (Tom Buchanan) play their parts as if they were silent actors. Even the flickering quality of silent film seems to haunt this film stock. It goes without saying the acting was overdone for the most part. This is true of the essence of the characters and of the times, although in the film, it is overkill. The set decoration was visually pleasing and it effectively captured the mood of each scene and the twenties.

This film, more than anything else, is a scary attempt of a tribute. In the novel, the green light, and the T.J. Eckleburg sign had significant meanings. Stranded in the film, they remain merely stripped objects. The set seems to attempt to "fix" Fitzgerald's descriptions. Where in the book, Daisy and Tom Buchanan's home is very inviting, the film drowns in whites and yellows in the film.

Actors aren't exploited to its potential. Clayton fails to give us a relatable Gatsby, a crucial element to the novel. Redford could have played Gatsby very well. It's not his fault that he doesn't. When we are introduced to Gatsby, it's through a low-angle shot of a figure seen against the night sky, framed by marble. This isn't the quiet, unsure, romantic Gatsby on his doomed quest. This is the arrogant, loud and obnoxious Charles Kane, who knows he's rich and isn't shy about it. The scene where Gatsby symbolically reaches out to snatch the green light stays true to the book, but looks stupid on film.

Three essential scenes make the film seem even less credible. These are times where it is essential to portray Gatsby as the one we know and love from the novel. The first is the original meeting between Gatsby and Nick. Redford's inarticulate and formality with Nick is laughable. It's the first time we hear him talk, and he's so mannered that the acting upstages the content of the scene. Nick is supposed to be so relaxed he doesn't realize that he's talking to a millionaire. Changing the location of this scene from in the party to the office is the cause for this dramatic awkwardness. This has to have been Clayton's doing. This changes Gatsby's character, and he Gatsby isn't as sure of himself as the book had made us believe. Doesn't that have to be Clayton's fault? Using The Sting, Butch Cassidy and The Candidate as examples, we know Redford has enough versatility to play this scene several other, better ways. In the Gatsby and Daisy reunion (crucial moments to the picture) we see Gatsby's smiling and Daisy's stunned reaction held for so long, we wonder why Nick just doesn't go out and smoke one cigarette, come back, and go outside again to smoke another one. He'd go through a whole pack. Any tension we might have had has been fed to ridiculousness. The other plot cliché that further adds to this product of celluloid silliness is Gatsby's final scene. The way this is presented may work on stage and it certainly would work in a silent film, but here it is so hackneyed, so irreversibly awkward that any suspense is gone, and it looks silly.

The message of the novel, in my opinion, is that although Gatsby is a crook and has dealt with the likes of Meyer Wolfsheim, gamblers and bootleggers, he is still a romantic, naive, and heroic boy of the Midwest. His idealism is doomed in the confrontation with the Buchanan recklessness. This isn't clear in the movie.

We are told more than shown. The soundtrack contains Nick's narration, often verbatim from the novel. We don't feel much of what we're supposed to feel because of the overproduction and clichés. Even the actors seem somewhat shied away from their characters because of this. We can't figure out why Gatsby's so "Great", or why Gatsby thinks that Daisy is so special. Mia Farrow's portrayal of Daisy falls flat of the novel's description. The musical quality of her voice has been replaced with shrills, and her sophistication has been stripped of her complexity. This is extremely evident by her Clara Bow acting style in this picture, especially in the scene where Redford is throwing his shirts on the floor and she starts crying.

How could a screenplay that borrowed so much of Fitzgerald's novel be portrayed so inaccurately? When one reads a novel, it is up to the author to create his symbolisms from scratch. When a book is transformed into a film, the filmmakers must be sure to covey the symbols more than by merely showing them. They must still be carefully developed, whether by dialogue or more action. In the novel it works well. When translated to film symbolism is lost in translation.

As a film on its own, the technical qualities are excellent, and can be more than worth your while catching at least an hour's worth just for the scenery, costuming, and for the few great scenes that successfully convey the twenties.

Okay, perhaps that is more than it deserved, but hey, it got you to read this, right?

I have not read the books, and I do not plan to in the near future. The fact that this film had star power did not mean anything, as Jim Carrey was in a role that no one would ever dream he would be in- the menacing bad guy.

But the film itself isn't too bad, and one can enjoy it, even without young children, and as a film that can take your imagination someplace else,. I'm not saying that I particularly enjoyed that other place, but it was fun to be inside.

The film starts and we realize that three children, Violet, Klaus and Sunny lost their parents due to a house fire. Sunny is a tiny little infant, and the other two seemingly are within the stages of puberty. Each has his distinct characteristic. Violet is the inventor, and can think her way through any problem using available resources. Klaus is a very avid reader and retains the information he reads from books. Sunny, however is not intellectual as of yet, and her power is the ability to… well, bite. She can bite through practically anything, including wood tables.

The series of unfortunate events begin with the death of the parents. That begins the domino effect. The children are taken to Count Olaf, their third cousin four times removed, (or is it their forth cousin three times removed?) apparently their closest relative living, who they never heard of before. He attempts to kill them and there they learn that he is a monster (He's such a Shmuck!!, as Sunny bluntly proclaims in translated babble talk), who is only after them for their money. After yet another series of events, the government takes him from there and the children live at Uncle Monty's (Billy Connelly) house, but who should appear there than Count Olaf, posing as someone else. And so on and so forth throughout the rest of the film.

Even those who have not read the books (such as myself) could easily predict the upcoming "unfortunate" events. While there was something sorely missing from the plot, namely any sort of suspense buildup, the film was wonderful to look at, with eye candy all around. The film had the feel of a computer-animated movie, and it was fascinating to watch all of the dazzling special effects, even if the film itself left stuff to be desired.

It occurred to me, while watching the film, that I was being engrossed with a Harry Potter like film. However, after reading claims that the books were much more symbolic and filled with room for interpretation, I may just as well take it upon me to begin reading all thirteen (eleven as of now) of the books. That is of course, after I am done with all of the other books I have on my plate.

Overall, the film was a very entertaining way to spend two hours. A quick survey at the end of the theater calculated that fans of the first three books were not disappointed.

MPAA rating: PG for thematic elements, scary situations and brief language

My Rating: 6 and up

6.5 out of 10

Fresh from his role as Spiderman, Tobey Maguire delivers his best performance he possibly ever gave in his career. Along with Jeff Bridges and Chris Cooper, he rules the screen as a horse jockey with incredible talent. Fans Of the book by Laura Hillenbrand will not be disappointed. Red Pollard (Tobey Maguire) is a young man who would settle for any job offered to him in the Depression Era, and decided to be an exercise boy and stable cleaner. Charles Howard (Jeff Bridges) is a carmaker that has a knack for business, and after financial loss in the Stock Market as well as a personal loss, decided to change directions and train racehorses. Tom Smith (Chris Cooper) is a trainer who liked to heal sick horses so he could let other trainers have a chance to train them. These three men all come together to train Seabiscuit. Seabiscuit is structured like your typical sports film, and it seems to move very slowly in the beginning. They introduce the areas and the times quite nicely, yet excessively. But as the film moves on, it runs much more smoothly as Seabiscuit's tale begins to unfold. Seabiscut himself is a small horse with an immense appetite. He has had many owners in the past, however they all gave up on him thinking that he would never be any good as a racehorse. They lowered his self-esteem tremendously by making him lose to other horses that they were breeding to gain their self-confidence. But this was all before he met three men who would care and love him and help make him a nationally loved sports figure. Since his self-esteem was lowered tremendously, once Red started to express his love and loyalty to Seabiscut, it almost seems as if Seabiscut has an inability to loose, even (and especially) when he is the underdog. (err… underhorse?? Is that a word?) The race scenes are absolutely thrilling. Astounding. Spectacular! Pick any word you like! Cinematographer John Schwartzman gets amazingly close to the actors as they ride towards you. It's almost like being right at the gate at the races. Who knew Spidy can ride a horse? An inspirational tale of determination and a strive for perfection, in a direction style that's not unlike Frank Capra {"It's A Wonderful Life" (1946) and "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" (1939)}, Gary Ross's stunning work is should not have been overlooked at Oscar-time.

Rated PG-13 for some sexual situations and violent sports-related images. Running Time: 140 Minutes. Appropriate for Children aged 12 and up.