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

I read the book finally, this production follows the book very closely, even some of what the characters say.everything else was all wrong. the biggest casting error was Mira Sorvino as Daisy. Ms Sorvino's niche is the street wise and very beautiful leading lady; smart and witty and attractive. Daisy is the 1920's damsel-in-distress; an idle femme fatale socialite with daily concerns including whether enough windows are open. i.e. a bubblehead.its always nice to see a period piece, albeit the early 20th century period with all the suits, gowns, vehicles to match; it adds to the mood of the story but has yet in all Hollywood history to suffice if the casting, storyline, script or combination isn't up to snuff. set decoration is only ever the cherry on top, nothing more.the book is a fast read; read the book before making final judgement on any 'gatsby' versions. as far as the morality angle, the story continues to be very very timely: read the newspapers: milken, enron, worldcom, conrad black, etc etc; anyone who gets a LOT of money really really fast cheated. it has to do with basic physics or something; it can't be done.

The acting was spectacular. In fact, the actress used for Daisy carried the character off exceptionally.The pain and sorrow of her past and the fake idiocy was displayed through her eyes while her false, random words were spoken.Gatsby was perfect. Better than perfect! Marvelous, simply wonderful. Nick Carraway was a little wrong from what I'd pictured in my head but another version of Nick Carraway is wonderful.Paul Rudd was wonderful for clumsy, judgmental Nick. However, Tom could've been portrayed as someone a little more aggressive. In the book, Tom is an aggressive, bitter man, but in the movie, he was a little softer and not as rude. Gatsby - EXCEPTIONAL! I loved Gatsby. He made us feel sorry for him, he made us feel pity for him, and he had me fooled. I honestly thought that Toby Stephens had fallen for the actress who played Daisy.

Being a huge fan of the original classic novel, I was very disappointed and at times also found myself getting bored during this TV film. As many other people I was "forced" to study THE GREAT GATSBY in school. After having read it over a dozen times it has now become one of my favourite books. It is such a beautiful and multi-layered work of art. So needless to say it is horrific to watch the way a great novel can become extremely shallow on screen.The Redford/Farrow version of THE GREAT GATSBY is ten times better then this film which feels at times like a cheap soap opera with cheesy music that does nothing to complement the mood of the film. Everything just looks and feels very tasteless and unreal in this adaptation: the sets, costumes and even the characters.The major problem I had with this particular version was Toby Stephens portrayel of Gatsby. He looked most of the time like a grinning fool. One good thing about his portrayel compared to Robert Redford's, is that Stephens underlines the darker, more sinister side to Gatsby's personality. However, I thought it was painful to watch him play Gatsby.There was no depth, charm or sparkle in his performance. Whereas Redford truly transformed himself into Gatsby.Mira Sorvino was okay as Daisy. I thought her voice was perfect: "full of money", but her performance was not one of her best and at times it seemed like she was just reading out lines from a script.Paul Rudd as Nick Carraway did the best job out of all cast members portraying his character . In my opinion he is very enjoyable to watch and is able to capture some of the mannerisms of Nick.Martin Donovon as "the polo player" is completely out of character. He is nothing like the novel describes Daisy's husband as. Surely the head of casting could have found someone with a bit more depth!!!ONE GOOD THING about this adaption is its faithfulness to the novel in terms of storyline. The main plot has not been altered as much as in the the 1970's version with Farrow/Redford. That is why I would recommend this to student's studying the novel. However, the older version has captured fully the atmosphere of the times represented in the book and also the characters are played by a much, much, much, much more talented and suitable cast.Read the book or see the older version. This is just a waste of your time if you are not a big Fitzgerald fan. 4/10