People are voting emotionally.

Brilliant and touching

A Brilliant Conflict

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

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.

After watching this version of the Great Gatsby, I can definitely say I was displeased throughout the entire film.Sorvino is dry, changing the way she delivers her lines and portraying her character too much in the wrong way. Stephens doesn't capture the Gatsby's essence or portray his character right, which Redford definitely had in the 1974 version. The everyones lines seemed off or filled with more or less "cheesy"-ness. Rudd was the only one that was suitable for his part.Though I do agree there is no outstanding movie version made of the book I would skip this movie. If you are looking for something a little more authentic in terms of capturing the 20's I would watch the 1974 first. It definitely gives you a good look into the time period.

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.

How can I even begin? ... It sends chills through my spine when I read that human beings actually like this movie over Jack Clayton's movie. My grade 11 English class has spent the last month analyzing F. Scott Fitzgeral's "The Great Gatsby" and the corresponding movie by Jack Clayton. We are 45 minutes into this one and I can already tell it doesn't even compare. The imagery in Clayton's film was so powerfully symbolic. The dog and bird imagery, the garden imagery, Daisy looking like a daisy... It was all just amazing! Not to mention that Clayton followed the plot of F. Scott's novel almost spot on. Markowitz's film? I have seen no real underlying symbolism. I looked and looked but I found none. Also, WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS UP WITH GATSBY GETTING HIS NAME FROM DAISY?!?!? ANYONE WHO HAS READ THE BOOK WILL CLEARLY KNOW THAT JAY GATSBY WAS INVENTED WHEN JAMES GATZ MET DAN CODY! I-I can't even go on... It was just not good... Especially in comparison to Clayton's film. Oh and by-the-way, only someone who has read and studied the book will know that Clayton had also read and studied the book by his film and his overly in-depth movie.