El Gran Gatsby [Blu-ray] [Spain Import]

I love The Great Gatsby, so I have high standards when it comes to its films. The 1974 version was adequate at best. It looks very dated now-- like it was the 1970s trying to be in the 1920s. Not very modern in the filmmaking sense. This production is just bad. The acting is basically horrid, especially on Mira Sorvinos part. Sorvino was badly miscast as Daisy. She didnt have the right voice, look, or mannerisms that the WASP-y Daisy Buchanan has. In fact, Sorvino is Italian. So why on earth is she playing a 20s socialite WASP? She really butchered the role. Toby Stephens, while not exactly the definitive Gatsby, doesnt do a bad job. Hes got the stellar smile down pat and hes very suave. I dont think it was a case of bad acting with Stephens, I just think he concentrated too much on Gatsbys phoniness and not enough on the redeeming qualities in the character. And despite what people say, I thought Paul Rudd was good as Carraway. At least he did a fine job of narrating. The cinematography and all that wasnt bad, but not enough research went into the costumes and makeup. Daisys hair was not period-appropriate at all. Hello, bob and finger waves! Where are you? And her clothing wasnt right either. So, if you want to see a decent production of The Great American Novel watch the 1974 version, but if you want to see a definitive production of The Great Gatsby, youll have to keep waiting....

First of all, if you havent read The Great Gatsby, you should, because no one will ever make a perfect film version of the book. It is a classic because of the lyrical and--to borrow one of Fitzgeralds own much-used words--gorgeous, prose. Fitzgerald was a genius, and he created a novel with a magical quality like no other, a feat impossible to replicate on film. Having said that,Ill try to write what I think about this version of Gatsby, and why. I think the makers of this film did an excellent job, giving us a new slant on the book. One of the great things here is the use of the narrator to inject Fitzgeralds actual words into the film, giving it an ethereal quality. The music and cinematography are beautiful and evocative, helping to sustain the atmosphere during times when the acting or script fall short, which sometimes unfortunately happens. As to the casting, Im conflicted. Paul Rudd was a great choice for Nick Carraway, and that one crucial thing gives the film some serious mileage. And Francie Swift does Jordan Baker to a T. Mira Sorvino was badly miscast as Daisy Buchanan--shes too human, too messy, and fails to achieve the heroines perfect facade. Likewise, the actor who plays Gatsby--see, thats one of his faults--he is the actor who plays Gatsby! And he tries admirably, but you can see him trying, and Gatsby should be effortless. Again, the actor who plays Tom Buchanan is just grumpy, lacking the spite of the character in the book. Overall, this is a beautifully atmospheric rendition of the book. Not perfect by any means, but very well done nonetheless. Just watch it, and the beauty of the music and the haunting quality of Fitzgeralds prose will echo in your mind for a long time afterward.

good solid interpretation of F. Scott Fitzgeralds novel, this version evokes many of the novels themes, but misses the mark on the main theme: the rich are different than the rest of us. The rich are not bound by the morals and ethics of the rest of us. The rich can hurt, damage and kill and walk away as if nothing happened and the rich can go on and live their vacuous lives in the present because, for them there is no unpleasant past or future.

I purchased this film after seeing Toby Stephens excellent performance in the 2006 adaptation of Jane Eyre. He oozed charisma and owned the lead role... I have seen him in other films since then, and realize that he is a versatile and proficient actor. So, what happened here?! First of all, this was a TGG adaptation on a shoe string budget... However, since opulence played such a major part in the story written by FSF, not having it present in the film was equivalent to cutting out a lead character. Secondly, there was zero chemistry between the leads. Stephens performance was exhausting, as if he were being kept on a tight leash by the director. I could almost hear the guy giving TS a cue when to flash a smile, when to drop another labourious old sport phraze (which had me in a fully homicidal mode after the third utterance). Most actors, including the Academy Award winner Mira Sorvino, gave equally poor, high school level performances (no offence to high schoolers intended...). I felt genuinely embarrased for everyone involved...There is more, but....who cares? The makers didnt... Verdict: I want my money back!

This is a great film, my son was reading the book for school and needed to get a head start on what the book was about. Quick shipping too!

The movie starts out with Gatsby being shot in his pool, and his cufflinks fall from his hands. We are then taken back in time to see the events that lead up to Gatsbys demise. Nick, the narrator, is in the bond business and he moves into the house next to Gatsby. Gatsby has been waiting for and opportunity to finally see Daisy, the woman he loved but was not wealthy enough to marry. Now that Nick, who also knows Daisy, moved next door, Gatsby finally has a way to casually bump into her. Since Gatsby is wealthy, he can impress Daisy and win her heart back. The dilemma is that Daisy loves her husband, Tom, or at least she loved him at one point. They even had a daughter. This isnt a problem for long because a rapid string of events occurs, and we find that a man shoots Gatsby. Paul Rudd played the character of Nick. I think he did an excellent job. He was exactly how I pictured Nick in the book. Gatsby, on the other hand, is a different story. Toby Stephens was not who I pictured as Gatsby when I read the book. I pictured Gatsby as being noticeably older than Nick and not phony at all. Toby Stephens appeared to have trouble performing Gatsbys smile and old sport. They just didnt seem to come naturally to him, which hindered the image of Gatsby. The movie followed the book very well. However, the beginning of the movie was different than the book because rather than having Nick foreshadow something bad to happen in the future, it started off with Gatsby being shot. Other than that part, Id say the movie didnt alter the book. The scenes were just how I pictured them. For instance, Toms house was breezy and white when we first met Daisy and Jordan. Thats just how I pictured it in the book. Gatsbys house was not how I pictured it, though that is only my opinion. I thought the yard where the parties took place should have been larger, and the inside of the house should have been more spacious. The costumes were right on, even Gatsbys silver suit and gold tie from when he met Daisy again at Nicks house. Im sorry to say that the movie version of The Great Gatsby fell short of the novel. Though it was easy to follow and its mood seemed to match that of the book, it just wasnt impressive. The role of Gatsby could have been performed a lot better. The movie was somewhat enjoyable, but it lacked something. I recommend reading the book.

A brooding, dark film which is semi-autobiographical on the lives and times of the Fitzgeralds. F. Scott and Zelda both personified the roaring twenties excesses and sexual liberation of the times. All of which came crashing down with the collapse of the stock market and the events brewing in Europe. A winsome look back to the life and times.

I liked this movie very much! I saw the original first and was recommended to check out this version. I like this one much better than the original. Highly recommend it!

This 2000 A&E television adaptation of The Great Gatsby is possibly the closest of the four surviving adaptations (the others being 1949, 1974 and 2013) to the source material, despite some omissions (likely due to time constraints), a few small liberties and its modest budget. Baz Lurhmanns presentation of the Fitzgerald novel has overshadowed the other versions and sparked unfavorable comparisons. There was a time when real locations were used and films were not dominated by special effects; not all productions had limitless budgets and not every writer adapts material the same way. While its not perfect, this Great Gatsby is more low-key in its portrayal. Paul Rudd is my favorite Nick Carraway; he is boy-next-door handsome, uncomfortable with high society types, but can listen and observe, even if he doesnt always see what is right in front of him until later. Toby Stephens does a decent job as Gatsby but he overdoes it with the smiles and occasionally his British accent slips through. Some of Gatsbys backstory was left out, but here we get a few more hints of Gatsbys shady business dealings. Mira Sorvinos Daisy is the most sympathetic; which is both a positive and a negative. You know that she is unhappy in her marriage to Tom Buchanan (Martin Donovan), and you do feel that she reciprocates Gatsbys love but shes also trapped in a life that was essentially chosen for her. Yet it is this sympathetic quality that makes it hard to see her as careless and flighty; however, since Daisy is something of an underwritten character in the novel and therefore an ideal slate for others to project their fantasies and thoughts on this may benefit the film more than detract from it. Donovan is one of the weaker links; although he does well with what he is given he is not the aggressive, overbearing athletic old-money brute he is supposed to be. Jordan Baker, a role that seems to be well-played all around, is portrayed by Francie Swift, who does well with her limited screen time, as does Heather Goldenhersh as Toms lover Myrtle and Bill Camp as her husband, the mechanic Wilson. Carl Davis provided a very enjoyable jazz score, even if it seems more suited for neo-noir than the 1920s at times; the party scenes are not as flashy or extravagant as the 1974 or 2013 versions, but again this can likely be attributed to the television budget. Montreal was an interesting double for Long Island; the location is important and the buildings, and The Eyes Of Doctor T.J. Eckleburg has its best depiction here, and Fitzgeralds prose was put more to use. While this Gatsby may not be as mysterious as some of his other incarnations, his romantic side and his refusal to accept the reality and his determination to recapture the past is very much in evidence. Lurhmanns movie omits a crucial scene when Gatsby sees Daisy and Toms young daughter, whereas here and in the 1974 movie the inclusion of this small but vitally important moment enhances the story; the child is proof that Daisy and Tom have in fact, been intimate and possibly there is some love there and this is something that Gatsby has worked hard to ignore. In some cases, less can be more. Subtlety and nuance may say more than dialogue or overdone graphics. Nick Carraways narration carries the film in a way that I havent seen before or since in other on-screen depictions of The Great Gatsby. Ive enjoyed the other adaptations but this one will always have a special quality for me.

The Great Gatsby Movie Review My English teacher Mr. M made us watch the movie The Great Gatsby is about a man named Nick who moves to Long Island on the West egg. The movie shows the different adventures that Nick experiences while living there. He knows Daisy, and Tom of the East egg, and quickly meets Gatsby that is his neighbor on the West Egg. Nick experiences, and witnesses many things while living on the East coast, such as love, obsession, betrayal, and following a hopeless dream. Im a critical person once Ive read a book, and then watch the movie. I usually always wind up thinking that the book was better. This is a natural thought of mine basically because the actors, or actresses in the movie arent as well represented as they are in the book. To my surprise though, the movie The Great Gatsby had a great cast, that I thought did an excellent job at playing their parts. Paul Rudd as Nick was fabulous, he was just as I pictured him. He was nonchalant, humorous (unintentionally), and observant. The only thing that threw me off with this actor, was that I had seen him in another film (Clueless) which made it a little harder to take him as seriously as desired. Toby Stephens played the role as Gatsby, a part in which the character had to be just right. Personally, I had pictured Gatsby as an older man, a little bigger. But Toby Stephens played the part better that I think anyone else could. He had the charm, the smile, and his acting ability was superb. The movie accuracy to the book was well done. I feel though that the book tried to make more of a point of how the American Dream was similar to Gatsbys dream of having Daisy back, and the movie made it more of a deep love tale. Maybe I got the wrong impression while reading, but I expected the movie to really stress on how people have dreams but will never really be able to obtain those dreams. Everything else though, such as characters, themes, symbolism, and setting were correct . The movie seemed to play the same settings that were in my mind while reading. You could tell how much work was put into this movie in order to make it as relevant as possible. The production of the film, such as costumes, pacing, camera angles, and music were fine. I feel that they are all very important factors in order to have a successful movie production. The costumes were correct for the time period. The camera angles captured the perfect moments. The music that was played in the background made it so I could feel more emotion, and really feel for the characters pain, or happiness. Im very glad that Mr. M allowed my English class to watch The Great Gatsby because I really thought it was a great movie. The characters, settings, themes, everything was exactly how it should have been. D.P.