The Great Gatsby (2000)

People are voting emotionally.

Disturbing yet enthralling

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

Yes, those of us who know Fitzgerald's elegant writing do appreciate the production values and most of the casting is adequate, but Mia Sorvino is miscast. Without comparing her to any other movie version or actress, I just believe any actress cast as Daisy has to get it right: the Southern belle who appears fragile yet worldly wise, and the voice, well Gatsby and Nick both know her voice is "fiull of money", else how could she be Gatsby's inattainable dream? I know she can act, but Sorvino cannot adapt her height and strident voice to be Daisy B. I Unlike some other viewers, I was not put off by Stephens'performance, and I do think he managed the "old sport" posing and smiling quite nicely. Rudd is lucky to have so many wonderful narrative voice overs and I was moved by his scene with Klipspringer before Gatsby's funeral.

This version of Gatsby came with the best of intentions--to remain as close to the novel as possible. It did so, but that, in my opinion, was its downfall. This movie is an authentic, but drab, adaptation.I've read the book on many occasions. As a reader, I am fascinated by this Fitzgerald masterpiece. Something new and exciting catches my attention every time.In a movie, however, I'm looking for all the frills that came with the 1974 version: An all-star cast; an expensive, elaborate set; never-ending excitement, and a feeling that the movie ended too soon. To those who enjoyed this version: Please rent 1974's. Whether or not you agree with my point of view--I think you will understand its basis.