The Great Gatsby

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

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.

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.

Stick with the Redford/Farrow version if you want to see a good movie. Sorvino looked lost the whole time and her portrayal of Daisy made me wonder if she'd ever read the book. However, Toby Stephens made an excellent Gatsby and did a bang-up American accent, but he alone couldn't save this movie.

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."