drystyx A lot of the failure of this drama about a drug dealing mobster who is cool, is that it relies on the fallacy that it's possible.People who aren't born in the upper class know better. This movie is for the most naive of idiots.A lot of it is due to F Scott himself, but the real blame always goes to the ones making the movie. Coppola could have adapted it in any way, and once written, the director actually has the final say over everything.Even when this movie came out, and I was graduating high school, I thought it was contrived and ridiculous. The Sam Waterson character as narrator of the story, is full of obvious propaganda. His message is sheer hate and lies. We can't possibly believe his "side of the story", because he goes to such extremes to make us think the gangster is nice (thus played by Redford), and the only man against him is a bigot (so he is played by villain star Bruce Dern).The overkill is not possible to believe. There is a credibility problem. If anyone is the bigot, it's obviously the mobster, and the Narrator simply looks for little phrases to back his demonic hatred.It's so obvious, a caveman can see it.Add to this that everything is so predictable that it leaves you flat, with every cliché imaginable, and the fact remains that this is drivel.

Mobithailand The film has come in for a lot of criticism as well as some praise but as far as I can determine it has been generally regarded as a bit of a flop, both financially and critically. I actually quite enjoyed it. There has been much criticism of the acting, especially Mia Farrow in the role of Daisy, but for me, it worked quite well. I thought the lead male actors were particularly good and Redford made a sterling effort in portraying the somewhat enigmatic Gatsby on the big screen. The costumes, scenery, design and cinematography were exceptional and brought to life everything in the way that I had imagined when I read the novel. The music, ably orchestrated by Nelson Riddle, was, of course superb and so evocative of the Jazz Age era.Reading some reviews afterwards, (which ranged from hating it to loving it), I found several reviewers complaining that the screenplay, by no lesser personage than Francis Ford Coppola, was very mundane and lacked the beauty of Fitzgerald's original prose. These comments caused me to wonder about the wilful deceptions of reviewers who are determined to put the boot into a film they don't like. When I saw this movie, I had only just read the book, and Fitzgerald's wonderful writing style was still firmly in my mind; so as I watched the movie, I kept thinking to myself; 'Did they actually pay Coppola to write this?' Not because it was terrible, but because it seemed to me that he had copied the narrative, word for word, from the original novel. It was essentially a 'cut and paste' job. It was quite remarkable how he succeeded in using so much of Fitzgerald's own prose, whether it was from the mouth of 'Nick', by way of narration, or part of the general dialogue. And even when the writer, (or producers), had decided to include new scenes that were not in the novel, you could barely detect any change in the style of the dialogue from that written by the novelist. To me, far from being mundane, the screenplay was a master class on how to be as faithful as possible to the original book. As with the book, it is all quite subjective, but I have sneaking suspicion that the film is now held in much higher regard than when it was originally released.

Python Hyena The Great Gatsby (1974): Dir: Jack Clayton / Cast: Robert Redford, Mia Farrow, Bruce Dern, Sam Waterston, Karen Black: Over-praised spectacle about accomplishment, although this film accomplishes virtually nothing. Jack Clayton's remake is pathetically corny with serious undertones where two individuals are shot to death and then end credits that burst into a bloody musical. There is something truly cynical about that sort of ending. It starts out well with the rich folks and their stupid parties. Sam Waterston lives next door to the mysterious Gatsby who is rich but gossip shields any facts. He is in love with a married woman who was once his but he was poor. Now he wishes to free her from her dominating husband. Director Clayton shifts from drama to comedy to musical with slow motion shirts flying through the air. Whatever he is attempting, he chose the wrong project to project these ideas. Perhaps he should have employed these ideas in a laundry commercial. Robert Redford's job is to look mysterious while Mia Farrow overacts hideously. Either way we could care less for either romantic intention. Bruce Dern plays her pig-headed husband in a role that is as predictable as the leads and every bit as dull. Karen Black is also featured and her role is as dull as everyone else in the film. Only Sam Waterston seems altogether as he observes how totally not great this dog show really is. Score: 3 ½ / 10

Stephanie Mayle There is much allure to Fitzgerald's best-selling novel The Great Gatsby. Perhaps it's the scandalous intimacy shared between the characters, or the extravagance described in the wealthy life of Long Island. Most of all, however, it is the "in-between-the-lines" spin Fitzgerald puts on his storyline. It's the mystique of not knowing the meaning behind each sentence, and the excitement of the readers to draw their own conclusions about the characters and plot line, both of which the film The Great Gatsby (1974) very much lacks. One specific departure from the story is the controversy of Nick's sexuality, which the film promptly leaves out completely. Throughout the novel, the basis of this controversy is alluded to. "'I beg your pardon,' said Mr. McKee with dignity. 'I didn't know I was touching it.' 'All right,' I agreed. 'I'll be glad to.' … I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands…" (Fitzgerald, Chapter 2). What happened in this moment is not specifically stated by Fitzgerald, leaving the readers to draw their own conclusions, and creating a scene that is completely left out from the film. Another difference between the two is the greater emphasis placed on Gatsby and Daisy's relationship in the film than in the novel. In the book, since Nick is the narrator and all is told through his eyes, the readers only see such, leaving much of Gatsby and Daisy's growing relationship in the dark, with only slight references to the workings behind their correspondence. "'I hear you fired all your servants.' 'I wanted someone who wouldn't gossip. Daisy comes over quite often--in the afternoons.'" (Fitzgerald, Chapter 7). In the film, the audience is given the privilege of a larger glimpse into their conversations and meetings. This, however, destroys some of the mystery of not knowing, such as in the novel.The director of the film The Great Gatsby (1974) probably chose to make these changes to Fitzgerald's story because he wanted to savor the plot, the theme of the tale, not the language and diction that Fitzgerald so eloquently placed on paper. In terms of accuracy and storyline, yes, the movie represents the novel. Although, in correctly replicating the overall ideas and emotions and enigma behind Fitzgerald's characters and scenarios, the film does not even come close. As far as personal preference, the novel comes in first by far. There's something about being able to visualize scenes and interactions in the mind, just from simply ink on a page, that a movie will never be able to quite capture.