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

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.

going through life wrecking other peoples lives. Cheating on their spouses. Marrying for money. Trying to claim accomplishments they never earned to impress other people. This is a great movie! I love it!

as described thank you!

I had the pleasure recently of re-reading the book and then watching both film versions. This version is definitely not the one to watch if you want any sense of the greatness of F. Scott Fitzgeralds masterpiece. The older 1970s version was not perfect by any means. That film, led by Robert Redford, Sam Waterston, Bruce Dern, and Mia Farrow, essentially captured the subtext of F. Scott Fitzgeralds novel of the vapid lifestyle of the rich of the 1920s. Thanks to a superior script by Francis Ford Coppola and great acting by the entire cast, the meaning of Fitzgeralds novel becomes very clear without overstating the obvious. The 1970s film is a perfect companion to any discussion of the novel. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of this version. The only positive comment I can make is that it is mercifully almost 1 hour shorter than the original. The actors are miscast, the set design pedestrian, and the story re-written to produce no more than a better than average movie of the week. The entire point of the novel is missed here. Too much time is spend concentrating on Mira Sorvino who is a miscast as a too young Daisy. The other major roles are dull and not very believable. What can you say about a film (SPOILER HERE) that has Gatbsy killed at the very beginning of the film instead of the end. What can you say about a film that has to add an explanation to the viewer that they are watching a film about the rich in 1920s New York in a voiceover. What can you say of a film that is too afraid to muss up the makeup of its too young cast and misses a major plot device used in Fitzgeralds depiction of 1920s Great Neck, er, I mean East Egg - that it was a HOT summer before air conditioning and everyone was hot, tired and sweaty. Watch this for comparative purposes only. As a TV movie it is OK, as a depiction of The Great Gatsby, this film missed the whole point.

This somewhat modest TV adaptation is the best of the modern Gatsby films. For one thing, the casting is perfect--Toby Stephens embodies to the nth the mixture of thug and sweetheart that is Gatsby, Paul Rudd delivers the most nuanced of all Nicks (though he is unflatteringly costumed in a ridiculous hat over a three-piece suit, which might be true to the period but just looks clunky), and Martin Donovan is wonderfully hateful as Tom. Francie Swift is a great Jordan, too, but the role is easy to play, I must admit. As for Daisy, Mira Sorvino is fine without suggesting the mystically magical being that so captures Gatsbys soul--but then this role is hard to play. Very, very hard. All the location work is fine, right down to the all-important Valley of Ashes with the sign of the optometrists glasses. The Gatsby parties are not as vast as in the recent Di Caprio version, but they really were way over the top. This version seems more faithful to the book, to the times...a real achievement.

This movie, in my opinion does an excellent job of recreating the novel, The Great Gatsby. Im sure that Fitzgerald would approve. Although a few scenes are brief, or entirely skipped over, this is necessary for almost all conversions of books to movies. The movie, like the book, starts out introducing Nick and the two eggs, West Egg and East Egg. From there you are introduced to Daisy, Gatsby, Tom, George, Myrtle, along with the other characters. The movie follows the same track of explaining Gatsby and Daisys past together and Gatsby obsession with her. Just like the book, Gatsby is murdered by Tom in the end and Nick ends up moving out of West Egg and back home, but before he does this he realizes the lifestyle that people live and the true nature of theses peoples character. I believe that there were some really excellent actors in this movie. But the two that I believe really reenacted the original novel characters the best, were Daisy and Nick. I was pleasantly surprised after seeing the movie, because I realized that Nick was exactly how I had pictured him. From his attitude to his appearance, he really embraced and acted excellently, the narrator role of Nick Carroway. Daisy was in this same way wonderfully cast. The actress did a great job showing her careless ways and her obsession with material things in life. Throughout the drinking, the infidelities, and the love, Daisy did an admirable job playing the role. I believed that the movie was actually incredibly like the book. I recognized most of the dialogue as direct quotes from the book. If not all speech was direct from the text, then at least all memorable scenes and phrases where. The dreamy scenes and the lifelike flashbacks, I thought, were excellently displayed. With a book like Gatsby it must have been difficult to put many of the feelings and scenes onto a screen. The directors did a great job portraying the emotions that were felt in the book. Through the directors camera angles, costumes, and soundtrack I believe the moods were wonderfully and accurately shown. Personally, I enjoyed this movie because of its accuracy. It is a pet peeve of mine when books like The Great Gatsby are made into movies and not done right. In this case, the movies do not even do the books justice. Normally, books are much better than movies, it is an inevitable fact. But after viewing this movie, I was pleasantly surprised with the well done screen play and accuracy to the original writing.

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.

I thought this adaptation of the unfogetatble novel was fantastic. The movie had its own uniqueness which made it even more interesting. The acting was superb and I would recommend this movie to anybody who enjoyed the novel!

The movie played out just much like the book. I enjoyed that. Really the only difference was how they began with showing Gatsby getting killed, which I thought was good. It really gave a dramatic feel to the film. It assumed we had read the book before and gave a more dramatic mood. Nicks character was played perfectly, it could not have been done much better. His role was played perfectly, he always seemed a little bit confused yet, at the same time had a sence of what is going on and could see through all the phonies the movie presents. Gatsby also was done well I think overall in this movie. It would be hard to find someone that could pull off all of Gatsbys grins and comments. This was done well though. The movie was very acurate to the book I believed. The production was well done and the costumes were very accurate. It definetly gave the feel of the time period. I especially like the performance by daisy. Still who ever cast the daughter must have had some sort of eye problems or something. Im sorry but, that is probaly the only thing wrong with this movie. Overall this film is very good and I give it my full review.

Liked the book. Enjoyed the 1974 version with Robert Redford and even liked the Alan Ladd version. But just couldnt enjoy this version of F. Scott Fitzgeralds story. I felt that Paul Rudd did a good job as Nick Carraway. Toby Stephens, on the other hand, did not come off charming and like able. When he smiled it felt more insincere than comfortable and when he delivered the catch phrase old sport it sounded unlikeable, with a bite, more like a insult. Mira Sorvinos Daisy came off so innocent and pure it didnt fit well. The storyline- for those unfamiliar with it - has a handsome rich bootlegger and forger moving into a huge mansion directly across the bay from Daisy Buchanans home in the affluent section of West Egg, Long Island in 1922. 5 years earlier, prior to her marriage to Tom Buchanan and during the Great War, the two had been in love. Now he hoped to win her back. Using his new next door neighbor, Nick Carraway a second cousin to Daisy, he hopes to be officially introduced again to her. He had been poor before and now he is extremely rich and hopes to use that to induce Daisy back. This is a slow developing drama so you need to know that up front. This is a nice way to spend time, especially to compare the different versions of the film if you have seen one of the others. Worth a watch. Everyone has different feelings of each version available.