The Great Gatsby
|
List Price: Our Price: $9.37 You Save: $10.58 (53%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $6.99 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Great Gatsby
Movie Review: Good... but watch the '74 version instead!!!
Summary: 3 Stars
Whule this made for TV adaptation was a good, generally faithful to Fitzgerald's book, and had gorgeous costumes and scenery, it doesn't hold a candle to the 1974 adaptation. My main problem with this was that the acting felt REALLLLY fake at times, and the actors didn't 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 Myrtle's 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 Daisy's 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!!!
Movie Review: Decent, but could have been better
Summary: 3 Stars
Although I was eager to see the updated version of Fitzgerald's novel, by the end of the film I only felt lukewarm about its delivery. It seems that this version has its faults just like the older version did, but I would probably rate the older one a little better than this one.
Textually, many of the important parts of the book are there in this version. Unlike the 1974 version, this one does a great job of having Nick be the narrator--which seems to follow the book more. However, I was left a little unsatisfied with some of the delivery from Toby Stevens, who plays Gatsby. He has his lines down, but his mannerisms seem to be off at times. There is that awkward scene where he is so overcome with awe at the presence of Daisy that he seems to just stutter "I can't...I can't.." and kind of grimace as if between laughing and crying. I also thought that Gatsby's relationship with Daisy was lacking in depth in this one.
Another beef I had with the film is the last segment, which seems to drag on forever. It's struck me as odd because this film seems slow, going at a plodding pace--the acting, the scenes, everything-- but it is only a little over ninety minutes. Because I like the book, I still liked the film, and have watched it more than one, but to the average movie fan, I think once would be enough.
I mean, it is an updated version of the novel in many respects, but the scenery, dialogue, and characterization were pretty decent.
However, if you want a closer version to the novel, I suggest the Redford version, if you can put up with Mia Farrow being Daisy, old sport!
Movie Review: Brooding, dark....
Summary: 3 Stars
A brooding, dark film which is semi-autobiographical on the lives and times of the Fitzgeralds. F. Scott and Zelda both personified the "roaring twenties" excesses and sexual liberation of the times. All of which came crashing down with the collapse of the stock market and the events brewing in Europe. A winsome look back to the life and times.Movie Review: Not too bad
Summary: 3 Stars
It's an alright movie, and if you feel like giving it a try I would certainly say 'go ahead'. However the book is much better.Movie Review: This is a really flat feeling production
Summary: 2 Stars
While the production boasts some very nice sets, good actors and a better than average source material (to say the least)it just doesn't really seem interested in projecting a first person, immediate experience that the novel shows, or just trying to create the world that character moves through even though he never quite lives in it. All of that was my way of saying the film doesn't really tell the story in a way that is gripping and makes the book that it came from a classic and an extremely fast read even though it's also a short book to begin with. The first thing that I feel grounds this production is that it was made for TV. Although this novel is classic material for the best made for TV movie made in the mid-90's or any other time except now, the director feels the need to disconnect and not play the story straight, as I feel it would be more interestingly portrayed on film. I also feel the actors do a good job, but some of them feel miscast. Toby Stephens really seems to be an odd choice for the title role, since you believe he's handsome enough to be him, but once you've seen acting in it you realize he just doesn't have the effortless charm, or at least slippery feel he should have if he were to be as successful at organized crime as he was. Martin Donovan is a great actor, in my opinion, but he's miscast as Tom, I just feel that Tom should be a little pudgier and younger looking than Gatsby. Neither of these is true in the movie. Paul Ruud really doesn't match what I imagine Nick to be because you mustn't like Nick so much as empathize with him and I feel Ruud isn't the actor to earn that in this story, or at least he doesn't earn my empathy. What's the most tragic is the handling of the funeral scene and the subplot involving Tom and Myrtle and her husband. It just seems like it's given the short end of the stick and I felt that they needed to give it more juice since it really showed just how messed up things where and how dangerous they were. It really only felt like a token presence and it shouldn't have considering that Gatsby dies because of it. Overall, the movie was poorly done. Instead of feeling alive and relevant, it feels like a museum piece choosing to favor a treament in order to show respect instead of earning that respect. I don't blame any of the actors involved since they were at the request of the director, who's good at sets, but not much else. It's funny, you read the book and you think it would be a home run kind of book to film translation, but this one is like walking the winning run home.