Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

tomsview 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 were 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.

johannsb 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.

Scifanime 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...

car04_au This movie fails to capture any of the ideals set out in F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel. We studied it in senior English, and every person who saw it hated it. Even those who don't like the book at all preferred the 1974 Redford film. Toby Stephens is just plain annoying as Gatsby, I just wanted to punch him every time he grinned like the stupid fool he portrayed Gatsby as.The casting was just plain bad, there's no other way to put it. Admittedly, Mia Farrow was a tad ditzy as Daisy in the '74 adaption, but at least she was believable. I just absolutely despised this film, and will never see it again as long as I live.Part of the problem of this film was its inaccurate portrayal of the 20's. In this television film, they've modernised everything: the mannerisms, the clothing, the behaviour, I could go on for ages. Additionally, the book left gaps to be filled and as such engaged the reader. This was carried across in the '74 version, but the 2001 film filled every single one. While I was watching it, I felt as though they were telling me "You're too dumb to actually figure out the subtleties of what's happening, so we're going to tell you."The entire film kept telling me I was stupid! This is to say nothing of the abysmal performances of this cast. If I hadn't had to watch this film for assessment, I would have walked out; I'm not kidding. The book was making statements about 1920's American culture, which the film failed to capture. It made little or no comments on the materialism and shallowness of the upper class, and made daisy appear as making a painful choice between Tom and Gatsby, when in the novel she was cold and careless. After all, she ran over Myrtle Wilson, and yet a few days later, was fine! If I ran someone over, I'd probably be in therapy, but that's just me.If you haven't seen any adaption of the novel, and would like to, avoid this one if you don't want to be disappointed. Just crap, there's no other word that fits the awful film that this is.