pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

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

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

tomsview 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.

Francis Hogan Regarding the review from Erin ([email protected]) - just a quick point of clarification. The reviewer noted that "Gatsby seemed too old" - an interesting observation given that of all the actors who have so far portrayed Gatsby on film, Toby Stephens was significantly the youngest at the time of filming. He was born in 1969 and the film was released in 2000 thereby making Stephens no more than 31 by the time of the film's release. In the silent film of "The Great Gatsby" released in 1926, Gatsby was played by Warner Baxter, born in 1889, making him no more than 37. Alan Ladd was born in 1913 and played Gatsby in the 1949 release making him no more than 36 at the time. Robert Redford was born in 1936 making him no more than 38 by the time of the 1974 release. Leonardo DiCaprio was born that same year (ie 1974) making him no more than 39 by the time of the spectacular Baz Luhrmann 2013 release. It's hard to believe but just going by the mathematics, Leonardo may very well have been the oldest film actor yet to have played Jay Gatsby at the time of filming. Toby Stephens however holds the record to this date (ie 7 February 2014) as being by far the youngest actor. This still doesn't refute the original reviewer's contention however that "Gatsby SEEMED too old." He clearly did to the reviewer. It's just that anyone wishing to go by the cold hard facts need only "do the maths."

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.

RPattinsonfanatic The acting was spectacular. In fact, the actress used for Daisy carried the character off exceptionally.The pain and sorrow of her past and the fake idiocy was displayed through her eyes while her false, random words were spoken.Gatsby was perfect. Better than perfect! Marvelous, simply wonderful. Nick Carraway was a little wrong from what I'd pictured in my head but another version of Nick Carraway is wonderful.Paul Rudd was wonderful for clumsy, judgmental Nick. However, Tom could've been portrayed as someone a little more aggressive. In the book, Tom is an aggressive, bitter man, but in the movie, he was a little softer and not as rude. Gatsby - EXCEPTIONAL! I loved Gatsby. He made us feel sorry for him, he made us feel pity for him, and he had me fooled. I honestly thought that Toby Stephens had fallen for the actress who played Daisy.