Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Stock broker Nick Carraway (Paul Rudd) consents to play Cupid for his rich married first cousin Daisy Buchanan and her former love, wealthy Jay Gatsby.I personally thought this film featured an awkward portrayal of Gatsby; Tom is also given an odd casting choice, but acceptable. After Robert Redford had played Gatsby, the bar was set high, and I think it was not met here.Despite this, Rudd shines, though Nick's admiration and attraction towards Gatsby is greatly played down. The undertones are virtually non-existent, which took some of the fun out of it.I also feel like the film reveals a bit too much, both at the beginning and the end. A key plot point is given away during the opening credits, and the film ends five minutes or more after it should -- much of the mystery is dissolved, taking the fun away from the viewers who would otherwise be left guessing.

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.

I hate to do this but how can one NOT compare the several Gatsby films to the novel on which they're based? The book has three outstanding features: (1) A somewhat disjointed narrative in which Gatsby is a man of mystery until half-way through, and then POW. It's like Hitchcock killing off Marian Crane in the middle of "Psycho". (2) A first-person narration by the naive but thoughtful Nick Carraway, whose prose sometimes edges sideways into poetry. And (3) a subtext about the death of illusions, romantic and otherwise, as they bark their shins against reality.How does this TV version, from 2000, handle the story? Well, the mystery is over with in the first 15 minutes, when a flashback shows us the first meeting between the lovers Daisy Fay and Jay Gatsby. Daisy even gives him his fake name. (His real name is Gatz.) Any mystery behind the way Gatsby makes his living is likewise done away with, unlike the novel, which only hints at a slightly crooked source for his immense wealth. According to the film, Gatsby and his partners in crime forged bonds and sold them. Nick burns the documents at the end to save Gatsby from being labeled a swindler post mortem.The prose, out of necessity, is clipped and trimmed for Nick's voice overs. Too bad. Some of the most famous lines are retained intact ("And so we beat on. . . ."). Others are pruned. "In his blue gardens, men and girls came and went like moths among the champagne and the whispering and the stars." In the film, "and the stars" is dropped, probably because the scene in which it's heard is shot during daytime, but it still leaves us wondering what moths are doing in the garden when the sun is shining. Much of this kind of surgery can't be helped in transposing a written work for the screen, but this movie doesn't give us much visual compensation for the loss of Fitzgerald's writing. Daisy's observation that "poor boys don't marry rich girls" is dropped. Daisy is wrong, of course. It's not just a matter of money, because Gatsby is now filthy rich. It's a matter of class and character. In Tom Buchanan, Daisy has found a companionate moral moron while Gatsby remains a parvenu.The disillusionment -- well, Nick Carraway's disillusionment anyway -- is kept pretty much intact. It pervades the narrative, and the writers have wisely preserved the most relevant parts. Nick begins by telling us that when he was a young boy his father warned him against making hasty judgments about others, and Nick in fact avoids such judgments until the day of the somber "party" at the Plaza (or the Biltmore, in the film). He realizes on that occasion that today is his birthday. He's 30. A milestone age, when one becomes experienced enough, mature enough, to begin making judgments about others. And it's on this day that he realizes how worthless Tom and Daisy are, how stunningly and stubbornly romantic Gatsby is, and it's on the next morning that Nick tells Gatsby that "they're a filthy bunch." You can't repeat the past, Nick tells him earlier. "Why of course you can, old sport," replies Gatsby easily, wrapped in his fantasies.The production, while not as splendiferous as the 1975 version, is good enough. The performances vary. Nick Carraway is okay, and so is Toby Stephens as the deluded Gatsby who mistakes high-end whoreishness for love. Myrtle is vulgar without being sensual. Wilson is adequate, no more than that. Mira Sorvino is miscast. She has a decent range as an actress -- eg., "Mighty Aphrodite" -- but she is not the frivolous, nervous, high-pitched, silly, careless Daisy of Fitzgerald's novel. She plays Daisy's love affair with Gatsby straight. She makes us believe that Daisy's whimpering submission to Gatsby's advances are a sign of something genuine, instead of an airhead getting it on with an old beau. And Tom Buchanan is miscast too. Tom Buchanan is an ex-athlete, a polo player now. The book emphasizes his musculature and his dominating demeanor. The actor, Martin Donovan, has done decent work elsewhere but here he comes across as whining and snide, not the kind of guy who commands his environment.I wish I could recommend this but I think I'll recommend the novel instead.

This version of Gatsby came with the best of intentions--to remain as close to the novel as possible. It did so, but that, in my opinion, was its downfall. This movie is an authentic, but drab, adaptation.I've read the book on many occasions. As a reader, I am fascinated by this Fitzgerald masterpiece. Something new and exciting catches my attention every time.In a movie, however, I'm looking for all the frills that came with the 1974 version: An all-star cast; an expensive, elaborate set; never-ending excitement, and a feeling that the movie ended too soon. To those who enjoyed this version: Please rent 1974's. Whether or not you agree with my point of view--I think you will understand its basis.