The Great Gatsby (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

Maladroit adaptation of Fitzgerald

[Erewhon · 5/10 · 3 July 2001]

Sorvino, Rudd and Donovan are very good; Sorvino, in fact, is excellent, better than Farrow in the 1974 version. But Toby Stephens is badly miscast as Jay Gatsby; there's no sense of romance to him, no yearning; he has none of Gatsby's strengths NOR his weaknesses. He looks like a cigarette ad.



But the real problem here is to reveal Gatsby's background much, much too early; he should remain mysterious to us for longer than he does. The production lacks the richness required, and ducks away from important scenes; it's sentimental instead of wryly wistful, and doesn't capture the period very well.

The Great Great Gatsby remains to be made. We're left with a lost silent version, the elusive Ladd version (which is quite good) and the good, but not outstanding, version from 1974. This one is just a footnote.

A pretty adaptatation-- but the book can never be recaptured...

[smcclellan · 7/10 · 1 May 2003]

I like this adaptation far more than the Robert Redford version-- the sets aren't quite as lavish, but then, they aren't quite as pretentious either. The performances are sound and solid, and Mira Sorvino gives a convincing fragility to the rather high strung Daisy. Paul Rudd has covertly expressive features, that he uses to his advantage, and small town sophistication looks good on him. The book itself is full ofnarration and description with little dialogue, so finding the right mix of old dialogue (classic and remembered) and new dialogue is probably a real challenge. All in all, this is a fair version-- handsome and sweet-- and my only complaint is that Mira Sorvino is almost too sympathetic-- it's hard to believe she is the "careless person" that Americans have come to both revile and idolize.

5/10

[ifh · 5/10 · 14 January 2001]

i don't know how the director did this, but he somehow made F. Scott Fitzgerald's timeless classic into a dull, insipid TV movie. i could hardly bear though this massacre. many of the important symbols dealing with the loss of morals, hopes and dreams were dimmed to nothing or omitted while others like the eyes of god dominated the show.

Look-wise, i really like the casting of Mira Sorvino[Daisy Fay Buchannan] and Paul Rudd [Nick Carraway]; however Tony Stephens counterbalances their beauty as he tackles the role of Jay Gatsby. Stephens' priggish smile made me want to laugh when the emotions of Daisy Fay (should have) made me want to cry.

Emotionally, many of the scenes were also dumbed down. Granted this was a made for TV movie, i probably shouldn't have expected a follow-up performance by Mira Sorvino. her performace, amongst everyone else's, was terrible. where were her emotions when she reunited with gatsby? where were her emotions after she ran over Myrtle? More importantly, where were everyone's emotions when all the characters are juxtaposed in that New York apartment?

Please, Robert Markowitz, next time you try adapting a classic, spend more time on the ideas that the writer spent long nights up trying to put into words. if i were fitzgerald, i would be insulted.

What???

[anglstearx · 15 January 2001]

I've been reading the other comments here, and all I can ask is what planet are you from? You're saying that "the story wasn't that good." Don't you realize that this is an adaptation of one of America's best novels? This is a tragic story of a man who builds his life to deserve a dream he'll never have? Admittedly, I've read the book and can't just separate my knowledge of the Great Gatsby, but it should be obvious that there is tremendous emotional depth. "Not a good story." I thought it was a good representation--I loved finally seeing my valley of ashes and Dr. Eckelberger's imposing eyes. Casting was excellent, except Tom wasn't enough of a bigoted ignoramus. But I thought they were pretty faithful. Tom's house, Gatsby's party, and Nick's house were all that I imagined. It was great in that respect.

Searching for Gatsby

[tomsview · 7/10 · 25 July 2016]

This is the most faithful film version of Scott F. Fitzgerald's famous novel. However, I feel other versions, although not necessarily as true to the book, have captured the elusive character of Jay Gatsby more successfully.

Told through the Eyes of Nick Carraway (Paul Rudd) the film follows the book fairly closely with less rearranging of the material than the Ladd, Redford or DiCaprio versions.

Obsession is a tricky quality to treat sympathetically on the screen. But that is exactly what Jay Gatsby displays in his pursuit of Daisy: the love he lost and thinks he has found again.

Toby Stephens as Gatsby just seems too squared away to be harbouring a 5-year obsession, which he will go to any lengths to satisfy including openly stealing another man's wife. He carries off the self-made man to a point, but he doesn't project that almost indefinable, enigmatic quality that is the key to Gatsby's character. He and Paul Rudd also project a similar style - the different look of Leo DiCaprio as Gatsby and Toby Maguire as Nick was a better counterpoint in Baz Lurhmann's 2013 film.

The other three sound versions had a major star in the role. Where you would think a lesser-known actor could inhabit the role more comfortably without reference to his star quality, the opposite seems to be true. Both Alan Ladd and Leo DiCaprio delivered a complex, enigmatic Gatsby.

Only Robert Redford's star power may have worked against him. His persona also seemed too solid and sensible to let his emotions totally take over his life. However, charisma was no problem for Redford.

Although Gatsby is an enigma - Daisy is also a mystery. Whereas Fitzgerald had words to describe her, an actress playing Daisy must project what it is that Gatsby sees in her. Daisy is attractive, but fundamentally weak and simply wants to run when confronted with the traumas in her life. Nick Carraway sees right through her.

I think Cary Mulligan in Baz Lurhmann's film caught those qualities, as did Betty Field opposite Alan Ladd, Mia Farrow gave her a neurotic edge, while Mira Sorvino plays it low-key here, masking Daisy's indecision - it's a thoughtful performance.

The production of this movie is adequate for the story, and it is probably the best version to see first, because all the others bring something else to the table beyond a straight interpretation of the book.

Love and money don't mix. Never have. Never will.

[helpless_dancer · 7/10 · 7 August 2001]

Interesting re-make of the re-make of the re-make of the original. I have seen the previous 2 efforts and enjoyed both of them more than this one, although I thought much of this film was better done and easier understood. The stupendous looking houses, cars, and period clothes, hairstyles, and dancing did much for creating a roaring 20's look. Good performances by all, but I think Bruce Dern was a more effective Tom than the fellow in this picture. Old money will never get along with new money, will it?

Isn't it time to give up?

[rmax304823 · 4/10 · 26 July 2007]

I hate to do this but how can one NOT compare the several Gatsby films to the novel on which they're based? The book has three outstanding features: (1) A somewhat disjointed narrative in which Gatsby is a man of mystery until half-way through, and then POW. It's like Hitchcock killing off Marian Crane in the middle of "Psycho". (2) A first-person narration by the naive but thoughtful Nick Carraway, whose prose sometimes edges sideways into poetry. And (3) a subtext about the death of illusions, romantic and otherwise, as they bark their shins against reality.

How does this TV version, from 2000, handle the story? Well, the mystery is over with in the first 15 minutes, when a flashback shows us the first meeting between the lovers Daisy Fay and Jay Gatsby. Daisy even gives him his fake name. (His real name is Gatz.) Any mystery behind the way Gatsby makes his living is likewise done away with, unlike the novel, which only hints at a slightly crooked source for his immense wealth. According to the film, Gatsby and his partners in crime forged bonds and sold them. Nick burns the documents at the end to save Gatsby from being labeled a swindler post mortem.

The prose, out of necessity, is clipped and trimmed for Nick's voice overs. Too bad. Some of the most famous lines are retained intact ("And so we beat on. . . ."). Others are pruned. "In his blue gardens, men and girls came and went like moths among the champagne and the whispering and the stars." In the film, "and the stars" is dropped, probably because the scene in which it's heard is shot during daytime, but it still leaves us wondering what moths are doing in the garden when the sun is shining. Much of this kind of surgery can't be helped in transposing a written work for the screen, but this movie doesn't give us much visual compensation for the loss of Fitzgerald's writing. Daisy's observation that "poor boys don't marry rich girls" is dropped. Daisy is wrong, of course. It's not just a matter of money, because Gatsby is now filthy rich. It's a matter of class and character. In Tom Buchanan, Daisy has found a companionate moral moron while Gatsby remains a parvenu.

The disillusionment -- well, Nick Carraway's disillusionment anyway -- is kept pretty much intact. It pervades the narrative, and the writers have wisely preserved the most relevant parts. Nick begins by telling us that when he was a young boy his father warned him against making hasty judgments about others, and Nick in fact avoids such judgments until the day of the somber "party" at the Plaza (or the Biltmore, in the film). He realizes on that occasion that today is his birthday. He's 30. A milestone age, when one becomes experienced enough, mature enough, to begin making judgments about others. And it's on this day that he realizes how worthless Tom and Daisy are, how stunningly and stubbornly romantic Gatsby is, and it's on the next morning that Nick tells Gatsby that "they're a filthy bunch." You can't repeat the past, Nick tells him earlier. "Why of course you can, old sport," replies Gatsby easily, wrapped in his fantasies.

The production, while not as splendiferous as the 1975 version, is good enough. The performances vary. Nick Carraway is okay, and so is Toby Stephens as the deluded Gatsby who mistakes high-end whoreishness for love. Myrtle is vulgar without being sensual. Wilson is adequate, no more than that. Mira Sorvino is miscast. She has a decent range as an actress -- eg., "Mighty Aphrodite" -- but she is not the frivolous, nervous, high-pitched, silly, careless Daisy of Fitzgerald's novel. She plays Daisy's love affair with Gatsby straight. She makes us believe that Daisy's whimpering submission to Gatsby's advances are a sign of something genuine, instead of an airhead getting it on with an old beau. And Tom Buchanan is miscast too. Tom Buchanan is an ex-athlete, a polo player now. The book emphasizes his musculature and his dominating demeanor. The actor, Martin Donovan, has done decent work elsewhere but here he comes across as whining and snide, not the kind of guy who commands his environment.

I wish I could recommend this but I think I'll recommend the novel instead.

Sorvino is miscast, script is faithful

[mryan-26 · 7/10 · 7 August 2007]

Yes, those of us who know Fitzgerald's elegant writing do appreciate the production values and most of the casting is adequate, but Mia Sorvino is miscast. Without comparing her to any other movie version or actress, I just believe any actress cast as Daisy has to get it right: the Southern belle who appears fragile yet worldly wise, and the voice, well Gatsby and Nick both know her voice is "fiull of money", else how could she be Gatsby's inattainable dream? I know she can act, but Sorvino cannot adapt her height and strident voice to be Daisy B. I Unlike some other viewers, I was not put off by Stephens'performance, and I do think he managed the "old sport" posing and smiling quite nicely. Rudd is lucky to have so many wonderful narrative voice overs and I was moved by his scene with Klipspringer before Gatsby's funeral.

Not a good movie.

[super_fangirl · 1/10 · 17 October 2005]

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.

The Wrong Hero

[kayaker36 · 6/10 · 7 October 2007]

There could at last be a satisfying adaptation of this classic novel of the Jazz Age if the two half-good versions were combined, keeping from each the best. We would keep the sets, costumes, musical score and performances by Sam Waterston, Howard Da Silva and some others from the 1974 mega- production, and from this extremely modest but more literary adaptation, keep Mira Sorvino's Daisy Buchanan, Martin Donovan's Tom and the liberal sprinkling of Scott Fitzgerald's polished prose.

As Daisy, a "beautiful little fool", the Harvard educated Ms. Sorvino is not ideal but more convincing than Mia Farrow--who was too English and looked actually old though I understand now she was pregnant, and only 28.

The best performance here was by Martin Donovan, familiar to television audiences by face if not by name, and that is the problem. His Tom Buchanan is sensitive and restrained, in fact too sympathetic for the bigoted bully and skirt chaser he is supposed to be portraying. Donovan steals every scene from the inexperienced Toby Stephens and when Daisy is won back, the viewer can believe it is because Tom is really the better man. This totally distorts what author Scott Fitzgerald was saying.

Daisy Buchanan stays with Tom because she has chosen respectability over love, making her even more rotten than her husband and quite undeserving of The Great Gatsby.

Horribly miscast.

[johnny-143 · 1/10 · 19 June 2001]

Yes, folks, the story is a classic. But really- Mira Sorvino as the 'light and airy Daisy'? What were they thinking? She's about as light and blonde and airy as a mack truck. Paul Rudd does his usual grin and watch, with nothing behind it, and Marin Donovan is just boring. The adaption is okay, but it's becoming clearer that there are some books that cannot make the transition to films, and this is one of them. But it might have had a shot if the people casting it had actually READ the book!

The best representation yet of the Fitzgerald novel

[doc-55 · 9/10 · 15 January 2001]

I have taught Great Gatsby for many years, and always been disappointed in the film (and lately opera) dramatizations. The plot of the novel is rather sordid and simplistic when deprived of Fitzgerald's presence as narrator (through the character Nick). The vital essence of the novel is the author's mastery of phraseology and vocabulary, which, since they are not directly part of the plot, but comment on the plot, are not easily translated into dramatic form, despite efforts in past versions to utilize some of the author's dialogue. This new adaptation is exceptionally faithful to the text. The finest feature is that the adapter has chosen to use Nick as an over-voice, (as in the novel), so that much of Fitzgerald's gorgeous language has been preserved. The flashbacks are handled so as to blend naturally into the action, and not much is added to the original except some transitional dialogue. The performances are above average, especially the three women leads, but all are good (though Gatsby need not have smiled quite so much).

The Great Gatsby

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 1 September 2022]

The Great Gatsby is a book that is difficult to adapt into a movie.

Baz Luhrmann's 2013 version had a lot of sparkle and visual splendour.

The 1974 version had Robert Redford at his most enigmatic but a screenplay from an overworked Francis Ford Coppola.

The 1949 with Alan ladd was upfront with the gangster part of Gatsby.

The 2000 version was a television movie with higher production values to give it a cinematic feel.

Toby Stephens interpretation of Gatsby owes a lot to Redford. Mira Sorvino brings out the selfishness and self centeredness of Daisy Buchanan. She might love Daisy but care more for her own survival.

Paul Rudd who played Nick Carraway might later have said that he did not like the movie. However this lofi version has a lot to commend it.

A simple bare bones structure, it moves along well. The low budget means there is more emphasis on the story.

cringe worthy

[sou_chanlover23 · 1/10 · 9 May 2008]

After watching this version of the Great Gatsby, I can definitely say I was displeased throughout the entire film.

Sorvino is dry, changing the way she delivers her lines and portraying her character too much in the wrong way. Stephens doesn't capture the Gatsby's essence or portray his character right, which Redford definitely had in the 1974 version. The everyones lines seemed off or filled with more or less "cheesy"-ness. Rudd was the only one that was suitable for his part.

Though I do agree there is no outstanding movie version made of the book I would skip this movie. If you are looking for something a little more authentic in terms of capturing the 20's I would watch the 1974 first. It definitely gives you a good look into the time period.

Good teaching tool...

[kelligriffis · 20 January 2004]

Honestly, I'm not sure what would inspire anyone to watch ANY version of _The Great Gatsby_ unless you are (1) a teacher wanting to show it in conjunction with teaching the novel or (2) a student attempting to bolster your understanding of the book. (Just read the book already!) So, with that audience in mind, I think this version has it all over the 1974 film in most respects. It runs closer to the book with far fewer invented (or re-ordered or moved-to-another-location) scenes. Mira Sorvino has the convincingly lovely voice to play Daisy, whereas Mia Farrow in the older version ruins any semblance to the book character with her Minnie Mouse shrillness. Toby Stephens is not as dreamy as Robert Redford, but he does better at conveying that sinister side of Gatsby which I think many first-time readers miss or minimize. Gatsby's illicit activities, so tantalizingly vague in Fitzgerald, are rendered with too much clarity for my taste, but on the whole I found this a fine accompaniment to the novel.

About this movie

[lieke · 6/10 · 30 March 2000]

Well, last night I saw this movie. Expecting it to be with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow. Well it wasn't. It was not a very interesting movie, but it was do-able. Although I think the one with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow would be better.

A decent faithful adaptation of the novel

[stevelivesey-37183 · 6/10 · 25 March 2024]

They haven't pushed any boats out here. There is no dreamy quality like the Redford/Farrow version or exhuberance of the Baz Luhrman. But this is a more faithful rendition and truer to the novel.

The acting is acceptable without being standout, the direction is adequate, but there is is a certain PG quality to proceedings. The action avoids being graphic in any way.

Mira Sorvino is a little lost, Paul Rudd is ok and Toby Stephens is breezy without being inspiring.

Literature students may choose to watch something like this instead of fawning over DiCaprio as they will probably learn more. Although I must confess it that version I prefer most.

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic

[tiggs75 · 1/10 · 14 January 2001]

This movie actually angered me it was so amazingly horrible. Now granted I would be critical due to the fact that The Great Gatsby is my favorite book. However, I was more than willing to give it a chance. Within 15 minutes, the movie takes an amazingly over acted and over enthusiastic view of the story.

The first hour rushes through almost the entire story laid out so evenly by F. Scott Fitzgerald. The second hour is consists of more "speculation" with the storyline and includes several scenes (and additions to scenes) that would NEVER be contrived by Fitzgerald. Including a greater love between Nick and Jordan, a happier first meeting between Gatsby and Daisy, and the omission of several other little nuances that make The Great Gatsby the remarkable work of fiction that it is. There weren't even any flapper girls at any of Gatsby's parties for heaven's sake!

As for the acting, you're likely to find better actors in a weekend dinner theatre. Toby Stephens as Gatsby is more has more of a misguided frat boy persona rather than the slightly immature but calm and driven Gatsby that Fitzgerald describes in his book. Mira Sorvino's Daisy Buchanan is about as soothing as fingernails across a chalkboard. The entire movie seems forced from almost every point of view. Paul Rudd stands out as the only acceptable performance in this picture. But unfortunately, he only makes an average performance.

Overall, this version makes 1974's Redford picture seem like Citizen Kane in comparison. Watch it only for pure amusement at how bad a motion picture can be.

Bark has more flavor!

[Scifanime · 3/10 · 7 August 2004]

Having viewed this recently, I must say that the film failed on almost all levels for me. The only thing I really got out of this film was a laugh at the poor acting, the ridiculous crash scene, and a sore fist from pounding it as I was continually angered by unoriginal camera work. I can't really see why this film was even made... The previous three films combined can at least give a decent rendition of the profound and wonderful work that was 'The Great Gatsby'. It was a book that was made to be a movie (as shown by the many attempts), but It has never quite made the transition smoothly. At least in the past, the films weren't quite so laughable, and didn't make nearly as many changes from the text that hurt the overall presentation for no apparent reason. I cannot recommend this film to anyone. I must advise that you simply read the novel, but If you must see a film adaption, make something other than this...

Try again, old sport

[Roy Boy · 3/10 · 22 March 2002]

I just finished reading The Great Gatsby again, and I find the story to be excellent and timeless. This film did a good job of depicting the story and some of the sets were good, but the actors did a horrible job. When I watched it, it was just actors reading lines without any rapport at all--they did nothing to make the story or characters come alive. The conversations seemed forced, unnatural, and somewhat awkward. I'm not saying that the 70's version was perfect, but in that movie Robert Redford WAS Gatsby. Nobody in this movie even came close to truly bringing their character to life. I recommend the Redford version over this movie; it just wasn't good.

The Great A&E (possible spoiler)

[artemis_5 · 9/10 · 10 December 2002]

I first saw this film when it was shown on A&E. I must admit that I did not know any of the actors except Mira Sorvino, but I was taken with all of them. Since then, I have become familiar with at least some of the work of Toby Stephens, Paul Rudd, and Martin Donovan, all of whom I now admire. Naturally, I bought a copy as soon as I found a video store still selling this movie on VHS, and I do not regret it. The performances were wonderfully done, and it is as if the characters possessed the bodies of the actors. Gatsby is charming, and self-assured at times; vulnerable at other times. Beneath that flashy exterior is a man whose depth for feeling is unparalleled by any of the other characters. Tom comes off as so cold throughout most of the movie that you can feel your blood freeze, but then suddenly surprises you with his intensity. Next to Gatsby, he is the one with the most depth. Daisy is the hardest to figure out, because even in the end, the viewer cannot be sure of what is really in her heart, only that she has brought death, ruin, and suffering to the only man who truly loved her. Nick's character is not as well developed because he is only an observer to this unfolding tragedy, but Paul Rudd plays the part well. The same is true of Jordan, Mr. Wilson, and Myrtle Wilson, but there is not enough time to develop every character who appears on screen.

Check out Toby Stephens in the James Bond film "Die Another Day" and "Martin Donovan" in "Portrait of A Lady". Very good performances.

Exceptionally Awful!

[johannsb · 1/10 · 25 May 2005]

This movie is unbelievably terrible. It butchers the book, inserts random flashbacks for no apparent reason, mixes up events, omits important plot points entirely, and moves at an extremely fast pace.

The acting is positively awful. The actors ruin the characters from the book completely, and the actor who plays Gatsby has the worst and most forced smile I've ever seen, old sport.

It adds nothing to the original story. It only subtracts from it. If someone decides to see this before reading the book, the confusion will be immense. The movie invents things that don't belong in the story at all.

It is not worth seeing, under any circumstances. Avoid it like the plague.

The best adaptation yet.

[tiptonj-2 · 14 February 2001]

Ok, some of these people giving comments about this movie obviously never paid attention to the 1974 version. For one thing, this adaptation is actually interesting. The 1974 version was totally boring, mostly because the actors/actresses showed no enthusiasm at all. And I believe this version is just as close if not closer to the book as the 1974 version. This new adaptation is much more enjoyable than the old.

A very mixed view here

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 16 November 2013]

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

Rent the Redford/Farrow version

[RDT-3 · 1/10 · 14 January 2001]

If one is going to re-make Gatsby, then for God's sake aim to out class the 1970's version (if that is possible). Paul Rudd and Martin Donovan were fine, but who directed Mira Sorvino to play Daisy ala Marilyn Monroe? AND better yet - who bothered to direct Toby Stephens as Jay Gatsby? Did he receive ANY direction?? I felt like I was watching a junior college production of a classic play. I had high expectations for this production, but those expectations were dashed away 5 minutes into this mess. The department heads of Wardrobe, Make-up, Hair and Set Decoration should all have their union cards revoked. (It doesn't take a lot of effort to re-block a vintage hat or steam out a reproduction suit.) Why can't filmmakers, producers and networks strive for quality productions (even if they are shot in Canada)?