The Great Gatsby
|
List Price: Our Price: $8.97 You Save: $10.98 (55%) 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: Misses the Point
Summary: 2 Stars
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 Fitzgerald's masterpiece. The older 1970's 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 Fitzgerald's novel of the vapid lifestyle of the rich of the 1920's. Thanks to a superior script by Francis Ford Coppola and great acting by the entire cast, the meaning of Fitzgerald's novel becomes very clear without overstating the obvious. The 1970's 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 1920's New York in a voiceover. What can you say of a film that is too afraid to muss up the makeup of it's too young cast and misses a major plot device used in Fitzgerald's depiction of 1920's 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.Movie Review: I WANT MY EXTRA CREDIT POINTS
Summary: 2 Stars
"The Great Gatsby," is a wonderful and exciting book, which is held close to many readers hearts. "The Great Gatsby" the movie, on the other hand was clearly a made for TV, late night special. Nick the main character is portrayed in the book as a simple, clear headed, individual with a sense of innocence. The movie does accomplish finding a actor to suit Nick as a character. Paul Rudd does an excellenct portraying my image of Nick. His facial twitches seem to work well for his character; these oddly resemble the ones "MR. M" expresses with frustration in class. His acting talent is able to set the tone that you could tell was meant while Fitzgerald was writing the book. Daisy, played by Miamira Sorvino was quite disappointing. The director seemed to change Daisy's character to make her more charming, and sweet but in the book I found her to be quite shallow, and careless. The movies accuracy was pretty good compared to the book. But many symbolic aspects were left out such as the car accident with Owl eyes, and when daisy starts crying when she sees Gatsby's shirts. These are important factors in the whole symbolic storyline Fitzgerald sets up. Most characters fit their roles well such as Nick and Gatsby, But Daisy on the other hand lacked the acting skills needed to do a good job. The set that the movie had was magnificent, located in New Port, Rhode Island, but the movie greatly lacked the cinematography that is crucial in making a good film. You can tell that the budget was quite low for the movie since it did nothing all to extravagant. All and all the movie was ok for a made for TV special, but I must admit that I was somewhat disappointed since I enjoyed the book so much.Movie Review: Toby Stephens was mis-directed
Summary: 2 Stars
Although this film looks beautiful and has some great moments (and Paul Rudd is very good as Nick Carroway), the Robert Redford/Mia Farrow version, despite a few cringe-worthy moments, is superior to this one and a better choice for students who want an insight into F. Scott Fitzgerald's amazing novel. I don't think the wonderful British actor Toby Stephens was miscast as Gatsby, as many other reviewers here have stated, so much as mis-directed. Stephens' gruff American accent and informal diction (although that's the writer's fault) directly contradicts Fitzgerald's insistence that Gatsby spoke with a "gentlemanly" formality just short of absurd. Given Fitzgerald's instructions, and the fact that the events took place in 1922, Stephens' accent should have been pitched much more mid-Atlantic. He plays Gatsby as a more shallow, thuggish man than Fitzgerald presents him, almost completely without the American-dream romantic longing that makes him fascinating and sympathetic. Stephens is more than capable of acting several contradictory aspects of this character at once, but the director chose to focus on the shallow bootlegger at the expense of the pining lover. Redford's performance gives a more tragic insight into Gatsby's Alger-esque illusions and the pain they cause him -- although he could have used some of Toby Stephens' menace. BTW, Francis Ford Coppola, who wrote the Redford/Farrow version, had good cause to sue the producers of this one, who lifted a great deal of his script and staging almost word-for-word.Movie Review: Not a good adaptation of The Great American Novel
Summary: 2 Stars
I love The Great Gatsby, so I have high standards when it comes to its films. The 1974 version was adequate at best. It looks very dated now-- like it was the 1970s trying to be in the 1920s. Not very modern in the filmmaking sense.
This production is just bad. The acting is basically horrid, especially on Mira Sorvino's part. Sorvino was badly miscast as Daisy. She didn't have the right voice, look, or mannerisms that the WASP-y Daisy Buchanan has. In fact, Sorvino is Italian. So why on earth is she playing a 20s socialite WASP? She really butchered the role. Toby Stephens, while not exactly the definitive Gatsby, doesn't do a bad job. He's got the stellar smile down pat and he's very suave. I don't think it was a case of bad acting with Stephens, I just think he concentrated too much on Gatsby's phoniness and not enough on the redeeming qualities in the character.
And despite what people say, I thought Paul Rudd was good as Carraway. At least he did a fine job of narrating.
The cinematography and all that wasn't bad, but not enough research went into the costumes and makeup. Daisy's hair was not period-appropriate at all. Hello, bob and finger waves! Where are you? And her clothing wasn't right either.
So, if you want to see a decent production of The Great American Novel watch the 1974 version, but if you want to see a definitive production of The Great Gatsby, you'll have to keep waiting....
Movie Review: A Misguided Attempt
Summary: 2 Stars
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 character's 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--it'll make much more sense.