Redundant and unnecessary.

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I, like millions of other Americans, read F. Scott Fitzgerald's iconic novel The Great Gatsby during my junior year of high school. I didn't care for it; in fact, it literally put me to sleep. My English teacher, a woman to whom I am eternally grateful and inspired my pen name, showed our class the 1974 film adaptation. From the first scene, I was captivated. The novel is now one of my favorites, as is the film. It made me a lifelong fan of Sam Waterston and Mia Farrow, and completely reversed my opinion of Robert Redford, whom I'd only previously seen in Barefoot in the Park. I've attempted to watch every other version of The Great Gatsby, and I have yet to watch one all the way through. This version, as far as I'm concerned, is the only acceptable version to watch.If you managed to skip English in high school, The Great Gatsby is a novel that has inspired as many interpretations as people who have read it. It means something different to everyone, so rather than pawn off my own personal feelings on the text, I'll provide the simplest synopsis I can: In 1920s New York, a man with a secret past pursues a former love. Don't throw anything at me; I realize that was the worst plot synopsis in history, but if you watch the film with only that knowledge, you'll be surprised at every turn! Robert Redford plays Gatsby and gives the best performance of his career. Not only does he embody every characteristic written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, but he inserts nuances of his own that add volumes to the role. Every inflection has a hidden meaning, and every facial expression is covering two beneath it. If Fitzgerald wrote a skeleton, Robert Redford makes the entire body come to life. I've watched the film at least ten times, and I'm still unspeakably moved by his performance.Everyone in the film was superbly cast, which is ironic because of the well-known trivia of how many people vied for the lead roles. Besides Robert Redford, I'd never seen any of the actors in other films. I had no preconceived notion of Mia Farrow from Rosemary's Baby or her many Woody Allen films, so to me, it wasn't implausible to see her in a seriously dramatic and classic role. She's fantastic as Daisy, conveying the combination of thoughtlessness and calculation that Fitzgerald wrote as no other actress has been able to master since.While everyone was given complex characters to portray, Sam Waterston was given a particularly tricky role. Gatsby is actually not the lead; the book is told from the perspective of Gatsby's friend and neighbor. Although he's technically the lead, Sam Waterston had to be careful not to steal attention away from Robert Redford. He had to be a canvas, open to the information he—and the audience—is given. He had to be honest, trusting, trustworthy, and at the same time, embody every person in the audience. Sam Waterston is perfect. He'll always be Nick to me, just as Robert Redford will always be Gatsby, Mia Farrow will always be Daisy, and Bruce Dern will always be Tom.The role of Tom is often portrayed as a menacing villain, but he isn't written that way in the novel. He has many unsavory qualities, but he's also human and, if played correctly, evokes a human reaction out of the audience. Bruce Dern is a fantastic Tom, allowing the audience to see the story from his point of view without intentionally attracting attention.Although I haven't praised the acting nearly enough as it deserves, I must move on to the technical aspects of the film. Rather than being universally panned, The Great Gatsby should have swept the 1975 Oscars, including Best Director for Jack Clayton and Best Adapted Screenplay for Francis Ford Coppola. After several disastrous attempts from other writers, Francis Ford Coppola was brought in and wrote a draft in three weeks. The script is even more thoughtful, symbolic, tragic, and poignant than the novel—and that's saying something! Jack Clayton treats the story with beautiful respect. Every shot is thoughtfully framed, and every scene flows effortlessly into the next. The set design and art direction is so perfectly matched to Fitzgerald's creation, it's impossible to read the novel without reliving scenes from the film in your head. Thankfully, Theoni Aldredge won an Oscar for her costume design, and Nelson Riddle won—after four previous nominations—for his music. All the visual and auditory elements combine to make a truly unforgettable film experience.I could say this is the only acceptable film version of The Great Gatsby, or that whenever I reread the novel I'm a little disappointed that the extra perfections of the movie aren't present, but if I can offer one last bit of praise it's this: I believe deep in my core that F. Scott Fitzgerald built a time machine, traveled forward to 1974, watched the film, returned to 1925, and then wrote out The Great Gatsby.Kiddy warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to some upsetting content, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

THE GREAT GATSBY is one of the great works of world literature. The screenplay for the 1974 version is about as perfect as any book transfer can be.Jack Clayton may not have been the best choice for director. How much better might it have been if the screen writing kid, Francis Ford Coppola, had been given a chance? Too bad we'll never know.The star role, Nick Carraway, is perfectly limned by Sam Waterston. Some of the lesser parts are also wonderful. Lois Chiles, Edward Herrmann, Karen Black, Howard da Silva, all are superb.The three major roles of the "romantic triangle" ruin the movie. Bruce Dern would have been much better as George.And then there is the infamous miscasting of Robert Redford and Mia Farrow. Pretty-boy Redford just doesn't look like the sort of guy who fought his way to the top. In fact, he's pretty bland all around. I don't have another choice for his part, but someone with a harder edge would have been preferable. Redford's not even there. He's nothing more than the sum of a lot of nice suits.If Redford was a mistake, Farrow was a disaster, turning in a bizarre performance as Daisy. The character is flighty, but Farrow ought to be institutionalized. If it's true Tuesday Weld was up for the part, someone blundered. Another good choice would have been Blythe Danner, but she was probably not considered enough of a star (though she could act Farrow off the screen in a showdown).Excellent screenplay, excellent production design. I love 1920s styles and I can really wallow in this movie, except when Redford and Farrow, the blandest couple ever, come on. Then I fast forward. Sam and Lois make a much more interesting team. Too bad we can't flush Gatsby and Daisy altogether. When Nick says "You're better than the whole damn bunch put together," we wonder who he's talking about. Certainly not Redford's lousy Gatsby.

The 1974 film "The Great Gatsby" was like a peanut shell, and the book is like the whole peanut. It accurately depicted the main story and setting directly from the book, but the characters appeared hollow. Except for Wilson, the characters fail to make the viewers care for any of them. Also, many characters (especially Daisy) were very overdone and unrelatable. In the book at least Daisy was somewhat relatable. In short, it showed the story of "The Great Gatsby" without all of Fitzgerald's emotional power that made it so great. This movie seemed to take every detail from the book down to the dialogue, but there were some slight alterations. The scene in which Nick and Daisy were alone together and Daisy tells him about troubles with Tom was at Jordan's golf tournament. This is opposed to the actual scene in the book where Daisy and Nick are on the Buchanan's porch. Nick also finds out about Jordan's dishonest behavior from his memory of a Newspaper article, not in person at the golf tournament when she moves the ball . Clayton might have decided to add this because it showed this act out instead of just retelling it through Nick's memories like in the book.. Another change between the film and the novel was that when Nick first met Meyer Wolfsheim in the film, he was informed by Wolfsheim that Gatsby started out poor and was made by Wolfsheim. This is contrary to the novel in which Nick isn't told this by Wolfsheim until after Gatsby is dead. Clayton may have done this in order to show Nick's distrust for Gatsby. In the book, Nick's internal conflict over believing Gatsby was in his thoughts. Clayton may have thought that it would fit better in the film to have the conflicting evidence be presented in conversation rather than through Nick's internal deductions. The film did a good job at recreating the setting and the characters on the outside. However, watching this story failed to have the same beautiful eloquence that Fitzgerald pulled off in the book. The characters in the book were elaborate and had a very distinct personality whereas in the film they seemed flat and simple. Gatsby's death at the end of the film seemed sad but not anywhere close to the same extent as in the book. It is this gap in emotion that makes the novel better than the film.

I have never read the book but I have seen the movie twice. Taking place in the 1920's The Great Gatsby (Jay Gatsby) is a crook that deals with gamblers and bootleggers. He is very romantic, native, and heroic man of the Midwest. He was a poor boy made rich, in search of his love. A lot of lies and confusion goes on throughout the movie. Jay Gatsby goes out of his way to win at all cost. Hosting parties every weekend hoping for his old love to show up one day. I personally rate this movie an 8 out of 10. The actors did a very good job but as in all novels turned into movie it should stick closer to the book. Jay Gatsby is my type of guy though winning by any means.