I enjoyed this movie!
It was more realistic than the Leo D. version.
Which version is your favorite and why?
"It's a good thing!"--Martha Stewart
I'm with you the remake sucked
shareThe remake was just painful to watch! This one is definitely better!
I am just a girl who likes coffee and tea
by BedHeadTalks » 17 minutes ago (Sun May 31 2015 02:16:23)
IMDb member since May 2015
The remake was just painful to watch! This one is definitely better!
It's a good thing!-Martha Stewartshare
You can't improve on perfection. I don't know why they even tried.
Matrixflower :)
This version must be for the older crowd. I have read the book, watched the Leo version and now this version and I was bored to tears by this rendition. It in no way captured the over the top, party indulgence. Every character in this version sounded like they were reading directly off a que card. The worst acting ever!!!
shareRedford brings an understated elegance to the role that can't ever be matched.
shareElegance? A better description would be "clueless aloofness".
By this time, Redford was such an A-lister that he would show up on set, smile, recite his lines, and collect his paycheck. He clearly didn't care about this role, and simply saw it as one more hoop to jump through on the way to superstardom.
The character of Gatsby needs to be beyond attractive, even beguiling, while Redford played him as simply charming. When he's killed at the end, we should be stunned, even if we know the book's plot. With Redford, we don't really care because he didn't really care.
This great novel has never had a satisfying motion picture. There have been several. Which was best? That's a matter of opinion.
I wouldn't say Redford didn't care. His performance was understated. I thought he was good.
"The character of Gatsby needs to be beyond attractive, even beguiling, while Redford played him as simply charming."
That would be very difficult for an actor. Who would have been better?
Callahan7:
Thank you for your response to my (relatively) old post. I'm sorry I haven't responded sooner, but your reply has really made me think about both this movie and the novel that inspired it.
I fully agree that The Great Gatsby has never had a fully satisfying film adaptation. There's just "something" about the very nature of the novel that prevents this from being possible, far beyond its Roaring 20s setting. It's told from the point of view of Gatsby's neighbor Nick Carraway, and the different filmmakers have variously made him either important or irrelevant to the plot. Then there's Gatsby himself. The actor portraying him must play a character (James Gatz) who's playing a far-from-understated lightning rod (Jay Gatsby) in a desperate attempt to win back an old love who's already married someone else. Superimposed on top of this is Fitzgerald's simultaneous fascination with and contempt for both "old money" and the nouveau riche. What works well in a thought-provoking, relatively concise book does less well in a 2-hour movie.
You asked who would have been better to play Gatsby than Redford. It says less about my knowledge of potential actors and more about Fitzgerald's most amazing literary creation when I say, "I can't think of anyone who could capture everything the character should be." Redford was too old (Gatsby should be about 30-32) and played him as just a smiling socialite. DiCaprio was also too old and saw Gatsby as a smug hipster. Writer/filmmaker Bill Joyce is currently working on an animated re-telling of the story - it will be interesting to see what he comes up with. Thanks again for responding and sorry about this long-winded post!