El Gran Gatsby [Blu-ray] [Spain Import]

I found this version, on my first time seeing it, quite good. The acting amused me and the story was both interesting and well planned. Then, I read the book. I found the movie, after a second time seeing it, a horribale adaption to F. Scotts masterpeice and will never live up to the book. The acting is apauling. Although Mira Sorvino is a wonderful actress ( as can be seen in such films as Mighty Aphrodite) she can not be seen as her best in this adaption. Her lack of entusiasim pulls the production down, and it lacks the excentricy and entusiastic energy that the charector of Daisy requires. The part of Tom is also horribally acted by what ever his name is, an unknown. You would think casting could find a better brute. Both these charetors are met to the top in every charectoristc that the parts require, Daisy and Tom in the 1974 version by Mia Farrow, which is a much better adaption. Perhaps it did have more mouney and big Hollywood producers, but it does not take mouney to make a good movie. Some good things (which were very few) I found were the parts of Jordan aand Nick. Nick was wonderfully well acted by a young actor who is making a good name for himself. Jordan, at sometimes,also had her lows, but her highs, if youre comparing the Jordan in the 1974 version. And last but not least, in this review, is the oh so crucial part of Jay Gatzby, which was played in the most of cornieness you could possibly find, and if youre comparing him with Robert Redfords betrayel he shouldnt even be noticed. In conclusion this shallow and boring adaption is not worth wasting mouney, or late fees.

It is shocking that, in the Age of Political Correct-ness, students and teachers have moved away (with polite obtuseness) from the central issues of personality and identity--when they run parallel with race. Gatsby, for instance. Why was the character so willing to part with his original name, Gatz? --The answer: Gatz (a corruption of Katz) is a German Jewish name. The character--a social climber of the 1920s--was emulating the wealthy and privileged Anglo-Saxon society from which he was forever barred. This issue of the ethnic upstart, who tries--to somewhat embarrassing effect [old sport]--to efface his past and assimilate is a major theme of 20th Century American culture. But everywhere, this very obvious component of the story is neglected . . . or else passed over in an embarrassed conspiracy of silence as director after director cast they wasp-ish looking actors they can find--at one stroke eliminating the characters motivation in changing his name, moving away from his home and creating a false past. Secondly, it goes a long way toward explaining his rejection by the shallow Daisy character. In this current cinematic treatment of Gatsby, all of the mistakes are repeated from previous motion pictures--with a whole new batch of gaffes, blunders and just plain bad acting. For this reason, I suggest to anyone who sees it to read the novel--itll make much more sense.

The DVD arrived in perfect condition. Didnt get a chance to watch it just yet. I hope to get the new one coming out. Thank you!!

This is a fascinating example of how a movie adaptation can be almost excessively faithful to a book -- transcribing dialogue line for line, including voice-over narration -- and still get the details and nuances almost entirely wrong. The diversity of the novels social world has been completely flattened out: everybody talks the same, regardless of whether theyre from Kentucky, Minneapolis, Chicago, or Queens. Daisys voice is flat and whiny, with no enticing lilt and sparkle. The costumes are frumpy, especially Daisys -- Mira Sorvino has been beautiful and sexy in other roles, but in this one she looks like a gawky teenager wearing shapeless cotton dresses and giant unflattering hats. (In the flashbacks, she looks like Rachel on Friends!) The relative ages are all messed up... Tom (30) is supposed to be significantly older than Daisy (23), and Toms mistress Myrtle is supposed to be significantly older than he is (in her mid-30s). One thing that bothered me is that the film softened Toms character significantly. Admittedly, Martin Donovan is a great actor who probably couldnt help making his character sympathetic and nuanced. But the whole plot turns on Tom being an alpha male, physically domineering and harsh - competitive and contemptuous with men, and instinctively controlling with women. Donovan gets the contempt, but hes too slim and articulate, and he lacks hulking brute sex appeal, and hes much too affectionate/respectful with women. I couldnt believe he APOLOGIZED to Myrtle after bloodying her nose -- in the book he deliberately BREAKS her nose (with one blow of his hand) as a punishment for talking back, and then ignores her wails of pain and everyone else freaking out. Its a grim scene and should show his callousness and controlling nature. Instead the movie makes it a twisted love scene, with him striking out, then apologizing, saying he didnt mean it and kissing her. Absurd. The movie also makes a misguided attempt to turn Daisy - shallow, careless, reckless, life-wrecking Daisy - into a sympathetic heroine. It sets up a parallel between Gatsbys 5-year longing and Daisys... makes it look like she has been missing him and pining for him all through her marriage. But in the book, unhappiness has made her sophisticated and cynical, not wistful and mopey. The movie tries to give her a heart and a soul, which turns the whole story into a goopy star-crossed lovers Lifetime romance instead of the much darker and more ironic fable in the book.

The acting was excellent. I liked the flashbacks when Gatsby and Daisy met and when she made her choice to marry a rich man. Costumes, sets, and music set the mood. You know Gatsys dream of finally having Daisy will never happen, that even his great wealth will not win her.

Judging this movie was difficult, and having read the book in Mr.CMs class made it even more hard. To come clean, I have to say the characters were portrayed in a very *unpleasing* manner. Toby Stephen played a ridiculous Gatsby that made me almost want to quit watching. His old sport routine did only get older and repetive, amd his smirky smile made him seem so fake. He expressed emotions towards Daisey, but not in a very convincing way. To me, as others, I could feel no sympathy for him because he couldnt convince me that he really loved Daisey. Speaking of Daisey, she dissapointed me as well. She didnt come off to me as a snobby and self-centered person as I would like to imagine. As for Nick, Paul Rudd did a great job acting as the narrator and the main character, so I could easily feel sympathy for him. As for the rest of the movie, it seemed to have had a low budget and couldnt express the true *wealth* of the movie as much as I would have liked it to. All in all, this movie would be worth watching nothing more as a time waster, and it would only make you confused with all the plot holes. Reading the book is a much better idea and would help all understand what The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald is really trying to get at.

I saw this DVD after reading the book. I thought it followed the book very well except in a few instances. I know I will view it a least once a year.

Whule this made for TV adaptation was a good, generally faithful to Fitzgeralds book, and had gorgeous costumes and scenery, it doesnt hold a candle to the 1974 adaptation. My main problem with this was that the acting felt REALLLLY fake at times, and the actors didnt portray them as I thought they would. A breakdown of the good... 1)Paul Rudd did a pretty good job playing Nick Carraway. Some of his acting felt forced, but overall a pretty good job. 2)William Camp was a good Wilson, portraying him as not exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch. 3)For Myrtles performance, Heather Gooldenhersh did well in portraying Myrtle as the conniving, selfish woman that she was meant to be. And the bad.... 4)Tom Buchanan was meant to be portrayed as a hulking abusive brute of a man, and Martin Donavan was... well, none of these, to be perfectly honest. Bruce Dern did a better job as Ton in the 1974 version. 5) While Mira Sorvino is good looking, her acting chops in this film were awful. Mia Farrow did a better job capturing Daisys flightyness and lack of attention. 6) And finally... Gatsby. I had such high hopes for this character, since he is the main central story line. In metaphorical terms, I was hoping for chocolate pudding, and all I got was vanilla. What I mean is, Toby Stephens portraya of Gatsby was...blah.Although he is very handsome, Toby needed more range here. But he did a much better job playing Mr. Rochester! In conclusion, if you want to buy a version of this literary classic, get the 1974 version. Just watch this one on Youtube!!!

Not a fan of fitzgerald but I like this version better than the other two

A bit bland and certainly not as good as the Redford/Farrow or DiCaprio/Mulligan versions, but still a satisfying rendition of Fitzgeralds great novel.