EssenceStory Well Deserved Praise

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Desertman84 F. Scott Fitzgerald's masterpiece is once again brought to screen.This time as a movie in this made-for-TV feature.It was produced in collaboration with the A&E Cable Network and Granada Entertainment.This production marked the fourth time that The Great Gatsby had been committed to film.The film stars Toby Stephens as Jay Gatsby,Mira Sorvino as Daisy,Paul Rudd as Nick Carraway and Martin Donovan as Tom.It was directed by Robert Markowitz from a teleplay by John J. McLaughlin.The 2000 The Great Gatsby has a better cast for Daisy with Mira Sorvino as compared to the 1974 The Great Gatsby's Daisy who happens to be Mia Farrow in terms of appeal and beauty.That is one aspect that makes this TV adaptation of Fitzgerald novel better as Sorvino possess the physical characteristics that a man would pursue after and a man's dream woman.She also did a better job than Farrow.But inspite of that,I still think that she still was never able to portray the essence of Daisy's character.She wasn't able to fully capture her emotions and personality.She could have done better considering that she was an Academy Award winning actress.Unfortunately,she fell short for her work here.As for the rest of the cast,I still think that the actors of the 1974 version were a lot better as compared to this one.Toby Stephens as Jay Gatsby was definitely no match to Robert Redford in 1974 as the former as dull and uninteresting. As for Paul Rudd,he lacks charisma necessary for the character of Nick.Despite of being good looking,his performance was nothing compared to that of Sam Waterson in the 1974 version.Overall,the acting of the 1974 version was superior as compared to this TV movie.As for the production values,obviously the 2000 version would never match the 1974 version due as the latter has more budget compared to the former being only a TV movie.But nevertheless,it still managed to do well within its means.Storywise,I think that this was a truncated version of the novel with a few flashbacks put in.That made this TV movie a major disappointment especially those who are familiar with the book.Other characters of the classic novel definitely weren't fully developed and many events of the novel were skipped.It also never captured the spirit of the 1920's as it was not very engaging at all.But nevertheless,it remains entertaining especially for people not particular about Literature.Overall,the 2000 TV Movie failed to bring justice to the Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby just like the 1974 film.A viewer would probably say,"A major disappointment,old sport!!!!"Will the 2012 film starring Leonardo DiCaprio,Toby Maguire and Carrie Mulligan finally do it?Let's just wait and see.

sou_chanlover23 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.

doromafr This is the best adaptation of the book into film, that I have ever seen. The whole production is stunning. Toby Stephens is superb as Jay Gatsby (you'd never know he's a British actor...his American access is uncanny). When I saw this film, I was not familiar with Toby Stephens ( I have since seen him on Jane Eyre, as Rochester...fabulous performance!!), but I was very impressed by his portrayal of Gatsby (I thought he was an American actor). Mira Sorbino's interpretation of Daisy, captured the character perfectly. I found the 1974 film, with Mia Farrow and Robert Redford, rather boring and not true to the book. You'll enjoy the photography and the fine performances by Paul Rudd and Martin Donovan. Markowitz directed a fine film! I know you'll take pleasure, in this delightful version.

super_fangirl 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.