I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

That was an excellent one.

In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I, like millions of other Americans, read F. Scott Fitzgerald's iconic novel The Great Gatsby during my junior year of high school. I didn't care for it; in fact, it literally put me to sleep. My English teacher, a woman to whom I am eternally grateful and inspired my pen name, showed our class the 1974 film adaptation. From the first scene, I was captivated. The novel is now one of my favorites, as is the film. It made me a lifelong fan of Sam Waterston and Mia Farrow, and completely reversed my opinion of Robert Redford, whom I'd only previously seen in Barefoot in the Park. I've attempted to watch every other version of The Great Gatsby, and I have yet to watch one all the way through. This version, as far as I'm concerned, is the only acceptable version to watch.If you managed to skip English in high school, The Great Gatsby is a novel that has inspired as many interpretations as people who have read it. It means something different to everyone, so rather than pawn off my own personal feelings on the text, I'll provide the simplest synopsis I can: In 1920s New York, a man with a secret past pursues a former love. Don't throw anything at me; I realize that was the worst plot synopsis in history, but if you watch the film with only that knowledge, you'll be surprised at every turn! Robert Redford plays Gatsby and gives the best performance of his career. Not only does he embody every characteristic written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, but he inserts nuances of his own that add volumes to the role. Every inflection has a hidden meaning, and every facial expression is covering two beneath it. If Fitzgerald wrote a skeleton, Robert Redford makes the entire body come to life. I've watched the film at least ten times, and I'm still unspeakably moved by his performance.Everyone in the film was superbly cast, which is ironic because of the well-known trivia of how many people vied for the lead roles. Besides Robert Redford, I'd never seen any of the actors in other films. I had no preconceived notion of Mia Farrow from Rosemary's Baby or her many Woody Allen films, so to me, it wasn't implausible to see her in a seriously dramatic and classic role. She's fantastic as Daisy, conveying the combination of thoughtlessness and calculation that Fitzgerald wrote as no other actress has been able to master since.While everyone was given complex characters to portray, Sam Waterston was given a particularly tricky role. Gatsby is actually not the lead; the book is told from the perspective of Gatsby's friend and neighbor. Although he's technically the lead, Sam Waterston had to be careful not to steal attention away from Robert Redford. He had to be a canvas, open to the information he—and the audience—is given. He had to be honest, trusting, trustworthy, and at the same time, embody every person in the audience. Sam Waterston is perfect. He'll always be Nick to me, just as Robert Redford will always be Gatsby, Mia Farrow will always be Daisy, and Bruce Dern will always be Tom.The role of Tom is often portrayed as a menacing villain, but he isn't written that way in the novel. He has many unsavory qualities, but he's also human and, if played correctly, evokes a human reaction out of the audience. Bruce Dern is a fantastic Tom, allowing the audience to see the story from his point of view without intentionally attracting attention.Although I haven't praised the acting nearly enough as it deserves, I must move on to the technical aspects of the film. Rather than being universally panned, The Great Gatsby should have swept the 1975 Oscars, including Best Director for Jack Clayton and Best Adapted Screenplay for Francis Ford Coppola. After several disastrous attempts from other writers, Francis Ford Coppola was brought in and wrote a draft in three weeks. The script is even more thoughtful, symbolic, tragic, and poignant than the novel—and that's saying something! Jack Clayton treats the story with beautiful respect. Every shot is thoughtfully framed, and every scene flows effortlessly into the next. The set design and art direction is so perfectly matched to Fitzgerald's creation, it's impossible to read the novel without reliving scenes from the film in your head. Thankfully, Theoni Aldredge won an Oscar for her costume design, and Nelson Riddle won—after four previous nominations—for his music. All the visual and auditory elements combine to make a truly unforgettable film experience.I could say this is the only acceptable film version of The Great Gatsby, or that whenever I reread the novel I'm a little disappointed that the extra perfections of the movie aren't present, but if I can offer one last bit of praise it's this: I believe deep in my core that F. Scott Fitzgerald built a time machine, traveled forward to 1974, watched the film, returned to 1925, and then wrote out The Great Gatsby.Kiddy warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to some upsetting content, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

This film is okay. Nothing too great, yet nothing too bad. It has one of the best setups for a film I've seen in ages. And the story adaptation is absolutely fantastic, as it almost doesn't miss a thing from the book by F. Scott Fitzgerald. However, when it comes to perks about this film, that's about it. This whole film is extremely flawed otherwise. One example of this is that the actors did sub-par at best when it comes to being believable. Some scenes seem a bit unnecessarily sloppy due to the overly cheesy acting in this film. It just doesn't fit too well with what the movie is about, and can come off as more hilarious than serious. One example is when Robert Redford as Jay Gatsby looks out and clenches his fist as he tries to look mysterious, when in reality, it's just silly, because of the fact that his face is clearly being shown in that scene, which completely kills the mood. And that type of stuff happens a lot in this film. Another example is that, while the casting was okay, it could've been better. I feel like the way that Tom Buchanan was portrayed in this film felt a bit off putting, considering that Tom in this film isn't exactly what you would expect for him to really look like. This film may be very disappointing for those looking for a film with great performances and great casts, as this film doesn't really have either. And because of that, this film can also come off as boring. However, I will be honest and say that the setup and the faithfulness to the book by F. Scott Fitzgerald is enough for me to recommend who are fans of the book, as this film did fantastic with following the book. However, at the end of the day, the version with Leonardo DiCaprio is more recommended than this film, as it's not only better acted, but is just, all around, more fun to watch. As this version doesn't seem to have either of those perks unfortunately.

As Roger Vadim once famously said, "A film is not a book." When adapting a novel to a film, it is necessary that certain changes be made in order for the story to work in the new medium. Despite what book purists may claim, a good adaptation is not always a faithful one. One need look no further than Stanley Kubrick's very loose, yet brilliant, adaptation of The Shining for evidence of this. When a director sticks too close to the source material, even with good intentions, it can sometimes result in a film that's confusing, emotionless, or just plain boring. Such is the case with Francis Ford Coppola and Jack Clayton's adaptation of The Great Gatsby.With this film, Coppola and Clayton have essentially filmed the novel word-for- word, with the actors reciting the book's dialogue verbatim. The performances are serviceable, but they are undercut by the passionless directing style. There seems to have been very little thought put into the cinematography, which often involves awkward static shots of people standing still. The editing doesn't help matters, and many shots feel either longer or shorter than they ought to be. In the end, it's a cold, dry film that leaves no impact on the viewer.Having seen both versions, I will assert that the 2013 adaptation is far better, and I highly recommend you see that one instead.

Starring Robert Redford in the titular role, I wasn't even aware of this films existence until the new film released, and apart from some dated cinematography, this film by Jack Clayton came very close to how I felt the book was told.Seen from the perspective of everyday man Nick Carraway (Sam Waterston) visiting his cousin Daisy Buchanan, we are exposed to a lifestyle of American bliss, riches, ignorance and selfishness. Jay Gatsby, a mysterious man who hates social interaction, hosts parties at his mansion every week for anyone to attend. But he personally invites Nick, seemingly out of the blue, as his confidant and soon Nick discovers that recluse and shadowy Gatsby has feelings for the married Daisy.The book is a quick read; it barrels along because it does one thing only and does it well, it explores the sickness that comes with riches and the often two-faced nature of human beings for both good and ill reasons. Daisy is the embodiment of blissful ignorance; on the surface she is a damsel, she says all women can only be "beautiful little fools", but deep down she has an unpleasantness all her own. Every character has this dark trouble inside of them, apart from Carraway, who behaves here much as he does in the book; as an audience surrogate. The betrayal, misdeeds and affairs that run through the other characters can be clearly shown from the eyes of an outsider.Jack Clayton's film captures the look and feel of the book excellently; from Gatsby's mansion to Wilson's garage, from the cars to the ominous billboard that watches over our characters with unblinking eyes. With a run time of over two hours, everything is explored in detail and the script is the dialogue lifted from the source material. Most of the iconic lines are left intact, and delivered with conviction.However towards the end of the story I wasn't sure if all the characters' darkest motivations were given their fullest attention. I didn't feel Daisy was represented as selfish or as destructive as she could have been, for me the tables radically turn on all of the characters throughout the book. The same goes for Gatsby himself, but his character is more up to personal interpretation (by the end of the book, I didn't care for Gatsby) A final note on Redford's Gatsby, he is good in the role as he pulls off the shady and introverted one moment and the noble soldier in the next with authenticity. He looks like he could have been a soldier a lifetime ago.That is what seems best about this film; its honest appearance and integrity to the book. It just might seem a bit drab, I'm not sure it captures quite how truly weak and corrupted each of the characters truly were.