The Great Gatsby (2000)

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

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.

Regarding the review from Erin ([email protected]) - just a quick point of clarification. The reviewer noted that "Gatsby seemed too old" - an interesting observation given that of all the actors who have so far portrayed Gatsby on film, Toby Stephens was significantly the youngest at the time of filming. He was born in 1969 and the film was released in 2000 thereby making Stephens no more than 31 by the time of the film's release. In the silent film of "The Great Gatsby" released in 1926, Gatsby was played by Warner Baxter, born in 1889, making him no more than 37. Alan Ladd was born in 1913 and played Gatsby in the 1949 release making him no more than 36 at the time. Robert Redford was born in 1936 making him no more than 38 by the time of the 1974 release. Leonardo DiCaprio was born that same year (ie 1974) making him no more than 39 by the time of the spectacular Baz Luhrmann 2013 release. It's hard to believe but just going by the mathematics, Leonardo may very well have been the oldest film actor yet to have played Jay Gatsby at the time of filming. Toby Stephens however holds the record to this date (ie 7 February 2014) as being by far the youngest actor. This still doesn't refute the original reviewer's contention however that "Gatsby SEEMED too old." He clearly did to the reviewer. It's just that anyone wishing to go by the cold hard facts need only "do the maths."

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.

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.