The film has come in for a lot of criticism as well as some praise but as far as I can determine it has been generally regarded as a bit of a flop, both financially and critically. I actually quite enjoyed it. There has been much criticism of the acting, especially Mia Farrow in the role of Daisy, but for me, it worked quite well. I thought the lead male actors were particularly good and Redford made a sterling effort in portraying the somewhat enigmatic Gatsby on the big screen. The costumes, scenery, design and cinematography were exceptional and brought to life everything in the way that I had imagined when I read the novel. The music, ably orchestrated by Nelson Riddle, was, of course superb and so evocative of the Jazz Age era.Reading some reviews afterwards, (which ranged from hating it to loving it), I found several reviewers complaining that the screenplay, by no lesser personage than Francis Ford Coppola, was very mundane and lacked the beauty of Fitzgerald's original prose. These comments caused me to wonder about the wilful deceptions of reviewers who are determined to put the boot into a film they don't like. When I saw this movie, I had only just read the book, and Fitzgerald's wonderful writing style was still firmly in my mind; so as I watched the movie, I kept thinking to myself; 'Did they actually pay Coppola to write this?' Not because it was terrible, but because it seemed to me that he had copied the narrative, word for word, from the original novel. It was essentially a 'cut and paste' job. It was quite remarkable how he succeeded in using so much of Fitzgerald's own prose, whether it was from the mouth of 'Nick', by way of narration, or part of the general dialogue. And even when the writer, (or producers), had decided to include new scenes that were not in the novel, you could barely detect any change in the style of the dialogue from that written by the novelist. To me, far from being mundane, the screenplay was a master class on how to be as faithful as possible to the original book. As with the book, it is all quite subjective, but I have sneaking suspicion that the film is now held in much higher regard than when it was originally released.

THE GREAT GATSBY is one of the great works of world literature. The screenplay for the 1974 version is about as perfect as any book transfer can be.Jack Clayton may not have been the best choice for director. How much better might it have been if the screen writing kid, Francis Ford Coppola, had been given a chance? Too bad we'll never know.The star role, Nick Carraway, is perfectly limned by Sam Waterston. Some of the lesser parts are also wonderful. Lois Chiles, Edward Herrmann, Karen Black, Howard da Silva, all are superb.The three major roles of the "romantic triangle" ruin the movie. Bruce Dern would have been much better as George.And then there is the infamous miscasting of Robert Redford and Mia Farrow. Pretty-boy Redford just doesn't look like the sort of guy who fought his way to the top. In fact, he's pretty bland all around. I don't have another choice for his part, but someone with a harder edge would have been preferable. Redford's not even there. He's nothing more than the sum of a lot of nice suits.If Redford was a mistake, Farrow was a disaster, turning in a bizarre performance as Daisy. The character is flighty, but Farrow ought to be institutionalized. If it's true Tuesday Weld was up for the part, someone blundered. Another good choice would have been Blythe Danner, but she was probably not considered enough of a star (though she could act Farrow off the screen in a showdown).Excellent screenplay, excellent production design. I love 1920s styles and I can really wallow in this movie, except when Redford and Farrow, the blandest couple ever, come on. Then I fast forward. Sam and Lois make a much more interesting team. Too bad we can't flush Gatsby and Daisy altogether. When Nick says "You're better than the whole damn bunch put together," we wonder who he's talking about. Certainly not Redford's lousy Gatsby.

If you can get past the god-awful acting, the dull camera- work, and the horribly drawn out story, you will see that the 1974 film adaptation of The Great Gatsby is actually, surprisingly faithful to the novel. Though not exactly emulating the mood that the novel had, Jack Clayton directs a film that sticks very close to original story that Fitzgerald envisioned. A decadent and lavish lifestyle is portrayed with the utmost attention to detail, careful not to stray far from the book. But, as it seems to be with every book-to-film adaptation, there are some minor differences. All of these differences honestly, do not really seem to make that big of a difference though. The biggest changes that the movie seems to make are the alterations of the dialogue, which the writer no doubt made to make the conversations, scenes, and overall story flow better on screen. Other minor differences include the fact that in the book, Tom is described as a "hulking brute of a man", while in the film, he is just portrayed as an average looking guy. This change does not affect the story much, if at all, and was probably made just because it would be kind of off-putting to see an incredibly giant, muscular man the entire run-time of this movie. Mostly, all of the changes are a lot like these two. They help to adapt the novel onto the big screen and they rarely ever take away from the actual story in any way, shape, or form.But, in my personal opinion, I thought that the book was far superior to the movie-adaptation. The novel felt as though it had so much more character and atmosphere while the movie just loses all of the spirit that the original had. Also, as with most film adaptations of books, you lose the key factor that your imagination plays when you are reading the book. You get to envision everything that the author wanted you to see when he wrote it. But with the film, there is no envisioning, no imagination. Just the pictures that came to the director's mind when he read the book. Film can be an incredibly powerful form of emotion and story-telling, but when done like this, I think that you are better off with the book.

A Midwesterner (Sam Waterston) becomes fascinated with his nouveau riche neighbor (Robert Redford), who obsesses over his lost love (Mia Farrow).What we have here is a big name cast, though not as stylish as Baz Luhrmann's version forty years later. Luhrmann does seem to follow the same plot and use much of the same dialogue, suggesting at the least both enjoyed certain lines from the novel, or perhaps even that Luhrmann used this film as his cue. A few scenes, such as the clothes-tossing, seemed to be a direct borrowing. Also, Redford says "old sport" more naturally than Leonardo DiCaprio.I have seen some criticism for this film being too literal. So, is being literal good or bad? I imagine if they strayed from the novel there would be just as many critics (or more) complaining... you just cannot win when adapting classic literature (though I personally loved this).A great use of Karen Black. All I need to say.The original script allegedly had homosexual undertones, and I think that comes through here. Also, when thinking of this as a tale from an unreliable narrator, it is interesting to wonder what is strictly true and what is puffed up from Nick's obsessive and doting point of view.