Sorry, this movie sucks

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The Great Gatsby is not quite one of the all-time literary greats(though one of the great American ones) but it is a wonderful book and a personal/sentimental favourite. It seems also though that it is a difficult book to adapt, because while neither are terrible none of the three adaptations seen(1974, 1949 and this) have done it justice. 1974 looks wonderful with a great supporting cast but suffers from being too faithful, being too long and dull and having two leads not up to the task, while 1949 captured the spirit of the story better generally and casting was not too shabby(apart from Daisy and Tom) but it also wasn't that authentic, was too film-noir-ish and felt too 40s melodrama by the end.It is difficult to say which is the best or worst of the three, as all have good and bad points in their own ways. If there had to be choices to make, for the look of the film and the supporting cast best is probably 1974, and despite what I said in my review for the Alan Ladd film about it being promising this one for worst. There are good things to be had. It is a very handsome adaptation to look at, the scenery and settings are eye-catching, the costumes are equally attractive and relatively true to period(one notable exception being Daisy's hair, too contemporary as beautiful as it looked) and the photography is not too simplistic nor does it try too hard. The jazzy nature of the music is like getting transported back to the 1920s, while the dialogue does show loyalty to Fitzgerald's poetic and very specific prose. And while with some senseless additions and omissions the story is mostly easy to follow and some of it like being lifted out of the pages of the book itself. To have Nick Carraway serve as narrator was a great choice, the voice-over, in observer style, is a very good example in fidelity to Fitzgerald's writing and despite Gatsby being the titular character Nick is the one really that is the glue of the story- that's true in the book and all of the three adaptations- so it makes sense for him to narrate.With the casting it is very hit-and-miss, but there are bright spots, and the bright spots in the cast are actually very good. The best is Paul Rudd, who does a great job handling Nick's social awkwardness and dignity which he couples with personal charm and a very composed-sounding voice. William Camp is good as George Wilson too, the character is not the brightest bulb on the block but he is a tormented soul also and Camp conveys that very touchingly. Heather Gooldenhersh is suitably conniving and selfish as Myrtle(on par with Shelley Winters in the 1949 film but Myrtle's role here is much more expansive) and Francine Swift lights up the screen whenever she appears, playing Jordan with entrancing wit.Unfortunately the other three big roles aside from Nick don't fare so well. Toby Stephens actually is a mixed bag in the title role, he is dashing, refined and enigmatic with generally convincing line delivery and doesn't play him too restrained, but the overused grimacing gets creepy after a while and he comes across as somewhat too arrogant for Gatsby, not showing enough his redeeming qualities. Mira Sorvino is miscast as Daisy, then again neither of the three Daisys have worked, Mia Farrow being too shrill and strident and Betty Field being too vacuous. Sorvino is the most beautiful and youthful of the three and she has in a way the most ideal speaking voice, but her presence is bland and rather airy-fairy. Of the three Toms, only Bruce Dern in the 1974 film nailed his attitude and mannerisms despite not quite being right physically. Martin Donovan- once we forget that he is the complete opposite physically to how Tom is described- fares the least of the three, not oily or brutish enough instead coming across as too soft and respectful(like when Tom actually apologises for causing Myrtle's nose to bleed, some men causing domestic violence might do that in manipulation but it's out of character for Tom).But this adaptation does have other problems other than three problematic performances. While it is faithful to the plot-line, the mood isn't there(like it wasn't in the 1974 film as a result of the over-languid pacing and the dry and skim-the-surface script-writing), the dream-like quality the story adopts at times is absent. The Jazz Age depiction is not extravagant enough and feels somewhat too modern(a lot of it is reminiscent of drawing room drama too). And while I am not a "purist"(or don't try to be), revealing Gatsby's background and who he is too early was a mistake, you actually know the ending from the beginning. As was said in my review for the 1949 film, part of the allure of the book and the whole point of it is that Gatsby is mysterious and like an enigma, which is completely lost. The direction is rather pedestrian is too conventional, and the pacing is dull, making much of the drama lifeless and without passion- though with some exceptions like with the hit-and-run scene. There are scenes also that are clipped and have a glossed-over and incomplete feel. Considering the role of the narrator and how the beginning played out, I completely understand why flashbacks were used. Sadly not all of them worked with some rather stiffly staged and some transitions not as smooth as they ought to be. The characters are very vivid when done right, and they seemed too one-dimensional and with not enough depth here.Overall, not as bad as some have said but a very mixed bag and admittedly it left me disappointed. Now onto Baz Luhrmann's film, while it sounds as though it could go either way maybe there is a chance of The Great Gatsby being served well. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Toby Stephens is a genuinely talented actor, and it is painful to have to see stuff like this on his CV. He's an excellent Gatsby -- much better than Robert Redford. He really conveyed the not- quite-at-home-in-his-skin quality of Jay Gatsby. Unfortunately, he has to contend with Mira Sorvino, who must surely have watched a lot of Marilyn Monroe films to prepare for the role of Daisy. She's such a dope you just can't quite believe Gatsby would a) fall in love with her in the first place or b), if he did fall in love with her in a fit of youthful stupidity, continue to love her once he met her again. Paul Rudd doesn't amount to much, either. But the truly awful thing is the score. Holy crap. I would rather drive red-hot pokers through my eardrums than listen to that dreck again.

This is a good movie. I have seen this one first, and the 1974 version with Robert Redford, second. I haven't read the book, but for me this one is much better:1. Toby Stephens's personality is better suited for the role than Robert Redford's. 2. Mira Sorvino is also more attractive in her role as Daisy, than the other actress. 3. The 1974 version was too slow and long. 4. I liked the extra part where they showed what happened when they met the first time.

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.