top of page


Public·10 members

The Great Gatsby YIFY

A Midwesterner (Sam Waterston) becomes fascinated with his nouveau riche neighbor (Robert Redford), who obsesses over his lost love (Mia Farrow).What we have here is a big name cast, though not as stylish as Baz Luhrmann's version forty years later. Luhrmann does seem to follow the same plot and use much of the same dialogue, suggesting at the least both enjoyed certain lines from the novel, or perhaps even that Luhrmann used this film as his cue. A few scenes, such as the clothes-tossing, seemed to be a direct borrowing. Also, Redford says "old sport" more naturally than Leonardo DiCaprio.I have seen some criticism for this film being too literal. So, is being literal good or bad? I imagine if they strayed from the novel there would be just as many critics (or more) complaining... you just cannot win when adapting classic literature (though I personally loved this).A great use of Karen Black. All I need to say.The original script allegedly had homosexual undertones, and I think that comes through here. Also, when thinking of this as a tale from an unreliable narrator, it is interesting to wonder what is strictly true and what is puffed up from Nick's obsessive and doting point of view.

The Great Gatsby YIFY

Apparently there is some kind of unwritten rule that Jay Gatsby has to be played by a blond. So in three different sound versions of The Great Gatsby we've seen him played by Alan Ladd, Robert Redford, and Leonardo DiCaprio. And with that selection of players we get a different Gatsby in all of them.You can barely catch a hint of Gatsby's plebeian origins in Redford's performance. He seems to the manor born, but his rise to the company of the movers and shakers of the Roaring Twenties puzzles all. He certainly keeps interesting company, he's about to go into business with Meyer Wolfsheim played here by Howard DaSilva who was F. Scott Fitzgerald's caricature of Arnold Rothstein.Sam Waterston plays Nick Carraway an ambitious young man from the Midwest who happens to have a cousin in Daisy Buchanan married to the wealthy and ruthless Tom Buchanan. Tom's connections are going to see that Carraway will start rising on Wall Street. Daisy and Tom are played by Mia Farrow and Bruce Dern.Waterston lives in a small cottage on Long Island which today would be astronomical in value given the area. Next door is the mansion of Jay Gatsby where it seems parties never stop. One night Waterston gets an invitation to meet his mysterious neighbor. And he discovers that cousin Daisy and Jay have some history.Sometimes you can never go back and it's best to leave the past lay and push on ahead. Something that Redford just can't do as he tries to rekindle things with Farrow.This Gatsby is one elegant film with Oscars for Costume Design and Best Musical Scoring. Given the music of the Roaring Twenties that he had to work with Nelson Riddle came up with great background sounds for the period. The film was also responsible for a bit of a revival of the Irving Berlin classic What'll I Do. The worst thing about the DiCaprio version was that ersatz rock score in that film. I so prefer this.But I say each Gatsby to your respective taste.I

Maybe it's not possible to portray one of the greatest books ever written on the silver screen. This is at least the third time and I've been really disappointed all three. Neither DiCaprio or Redford (both of whom I really like) catch the true sense of the mysterious Gatsby. At least Redford was a bit detached. His failures of the past are in his head. DiCaprio (or the script he must follow) make him seem like a giddy love soaked schoolboy. He is so obsessed as to appear weak and maudlin. Another issue, however, is with the portrayal of Nick Carraway. Tobey Maguire is just too cute. I never pictured Nick as the little boy seen here (Sam Waterston, while not perfect, at least seemed like a possibility). Again, I like Maguire in other roles, but here he seems nothing more that Gatsby's toy. He's still physically lacking as a leading man. Mostly, it just lacked a bit of pizazz. Luhrman seems to think he can do it all visually, but this is a story of lost souls, trying to recover something they can't seem to reach. It fades and fades and in the end, it's hard to care much. Also, the portrayals of Daisy and Jordan just don't seem to draw us in.

F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is a great, no, wonderful book, a beautiful story and just as brilliantly written and one of those books where you can read in one sitting and not feel bored at all. In my reviews of the previous three versions it was said that I wasn't entirely sure as to whether it was one of the all-time literary greats. After reading it again in preparation for this film- considering that it is based on a great story though it's also by Baz Luhrmann(whose style you either like or dislike)- it does deserve this distinction as well as a contender for the best American novel.Before seeing this films, I saw the 1974, 1949 and 2000 versions. All had good things but also a fair number of flaws, neither really doing the book justice. That is not saying at all that this film is 100% perfect because it isn't, and it doesn't completely do justice to the book. However despite some questionable stylistic touches the spirit of the book and prose as well as of the Jazz Age are here in the way that the other three versions didn't really do so well. It is easy though to see why people criticise the latest version of The Great Gatsby.The first 20-30 minutes are very rushed and overblown with editing that is so dizzying it could induce a seizure. There are a couple of nice moments in the soundtrack, like some of the background music and a bit of Gershwin(the use of Rhapsody in Blue was clever), but the hip-hop/rap was overused, overbearing and anachronistic(I confess also that I detest that style of music so there is some bias). The CGI was overdone and not needed, it also looks a little too cartoonish. Tobey Maguire is the weakest of the Nick Carraways(the best being Sam Waterson), the observer and the glue of the story, he's too wide-eyed and too much of a blank and doesn't really convey the dignity, carelessness and social awkwardness.On the other hand, the film on the most part looks great, it is beautifully shot and the lavish costumes and sets are never short of exquisite. The party scenes generally have the glitz and glamour any party of the 20s would do. Also period-detail wise it's the most authentic to the 20s period, like for example Daisy's clothing and cropped hair. Where The Great Gatsby(2013) scores the best of the four adaptations is in the depiction of the Jazz Age, it is glitzy but there is also the sense of fun, danger and excitement that weren't there before. While there is Luhrmann's style written over the spirit of the story is essentially there.Nick's narration has a lot of lines directly lifted out of the book and much of the dialogues are the same(the old sport utterings get too much though admittedly). The story has the life, emotion and passion that the 1974 film as a consequence of being too faithful did not have. And the structure and essence are present with Gatsby still an enigma(always was part of the book's allure, 2000's ruined that quality by revealing Gatsby's background and who he is far too early). From the first 20-30 minutes there is a real temptation to turn the film off, but if you stay with it it does slow down and becomes a huge improvement to what was seen before. Some won't like the sanitarium stuff, actually Nick telling the story in retrospect to someone else was not too bad a storytelling device and did better than how the 2000 version did it.As with the acting, it is very good and is the most consistent cast of the four versions. Only Maguire didn't across as well as he ought to have done. Leonardo DiCaprio lives up to his character's greatness. There is a sense of him paying homage somewhat to Robert Redford's mannerisms but instead DiCaprio is much more charismatic in the role and there is much more of sense of mystery, more charm, more yearning and a sense of arrogance. This is also the only one of the four adaptations where I found myself really liking and relating to Gatsby. Carey Mulligan is also the best of the Daisys, a character that wasn't played very well at all previously. With Mulligan she is pretty and doesn't play too blandly or stridently, there is a charm and spirit about her but she doesn't make us forget that Daisy is shallow and selfish as well. The chemistry between the two is more convincing than that of the other versions, in a way it is somewhat cold but it is in keeping of the sense that their love is incompatible.Joel Edgerton is the second best Tom after Bruce Dern. He resembles the character better physically, but is the only actor after Dern to actually get the attitude and mannerisms of Tom exactly right, he is a real hard-edged brute but with a glimmer of tenderness instead of being too suave or too soft. Jason Clarke is good as George, he does show a tormented side but also a sense of not being the brightest bulb on the block. Elizabeth Debicki is beautiful and witty and brings depth and assurance also to Jordan, despite being somewhat underused, and Isla Fisher is appropriately conniving as Myrtle if not as much a sleaze as Karen Black. Luhrmann does direct efficiently with much of the drama being allowed to breathe while bringing his own style to it, though there are scenes with it being too much. The pacing is rushed to begin with but when it slows down there's not much of a problem.Overall, not the great motion picture it could have been, but I found it very enjoyable and the best of the four adaptations. The best version will always be the book though. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page