It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

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.

Only reason I watched this was to see some of Stephen's earlier work. OMG, what a talented actor. Taking into consideration that Stephene is British, he did an incredible job of pulling off the American accent. Having seen two versions of the movie and read the book, Stephen's portrayal of Jaye Gatsby was excellent and closer than the book. It had to be a challenging role for him and he did it well.Sorvino pulled Daisy's character from the bok and put it on the screen well. Soundtrack fit the movie well as did the scenery.Well produced.

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 in this film is awful. Everyone except Paul Rudd had no idea what they were doing. The cinematography is fine, it is a good LOOKING movie, but the overall approach is an elementary no-no. A movie's purpose is to convey meaning primarily through images, visual sensations. If, however, the movie simply reads the narration of the book rather than inventing a meaningful way to integrate the theme into the overall sequence of images and events, the movie has failed. It is an audio book. However, when an audio book plays, the actors usually have some sort of idea as to their character's motivations. These actors did not. They wandered around, limply saying their lines like a class of ninth graders reading Shakespeare impromptu in English class. The only redeeming scene in this movie -- and I don't believe this to be too much of a spoiler but I marked it anyway -- was the scene of Myrtle being run over. Wonderful special effects were present in that scene, and while the sudden gory detail was unnecessary and crude, at least I had a reason to look up.