Add a Review

  • I have taught Great Gatsby for many years, and always been disappointed in the film (and lately opera) dramatizations. The plot of the novel is rather sordid and simplistic when deprived of Fitzgerald's presence as narrator (through the character Nick). The vital essence of the novel is the author's mastery of phraseology and vocabulary, which, since they are not directly part of the plot, but comment on the plot, are not easily translated into dramatic form, despite efforts in past versions to utilize some of the author's dialogue. This new adaptation is exceptionally faithful to the text. The finest feature is that the adapter has chosen to use Nick as an over-voice, (as in the novel), so that much of Fitzgerald's gorgeous language has been preserved. The flashbacks are handled so as to blend naturally into the action, and not much is added to the original except some transitional dialogue. The performances are above average, especially the three women leads, but all are good (though Gatsby need not have smiled quite so much).
  • Honestly, I'm not sure what would inspire anyone to watch ANY version of _The Great Gatsby_ unless you are (1) a teacher wanting to show it in conjunction with teaching the novel or (2) a student attempting to bolster your understanding of the book. (Just read the book already!) So, with that audience in mind, I think this version has it all over the 1974 film in most respects. It runs closer to the book with far fewer invented (or re-ordered or moved-to-another-location) scenes. Mira Sorvino has the convincingly lovely voice to play Daisy, whereas Mia Farrow in the older version ruins any semblance to the book character with her Minnie Mouse shrillness. Toby Stephens is not as dreamy as Robert Redford, but he does better at conveying that sinister side of Gatsby which I think many first-time readers miss or minimize. Gatsby's illicit activities, so tantalizingly vague in Fitzgerald, are rendered with too much clarity for my taste, but on the whole I found this a fine accompaniment to the novel.
  • Sorvino, Rudd and Donovan are very good; Sorvino, in fact, is excellent, better than Farrow in the 1974 version. But Toby Stephens is badly miscast as Jay Gatsby; there's no sense of romance to him, no yearning; he has none of Gatsby's strengths NOR his weaknesses. He looks like a cigarette ad.

    But the real problem here is to reveal Gatsby's background much, much too early; he should remain mysterious to us for longer than he does. The production lacks the richness required, and ducks away from important scenes; it's sentimental instead of wryly wistful, and doesn't capture the period very well.

    The Great Great Gatsby remains to be made. We're left with a lost silent version, the elusive Ladd version (which is quite good) and the good, but not outstanding, version from 1974. This one is just a footnote.
  • I like this adaptation far more than the Robert Redford version-- the sets aren't quite as lavish, but then, they aren't quite as pretentious either. The performances are sound and solid, and Mira Sorvino gives a convincing fragility to the rather high strung Daisy. Paul Rudd has covertly expressive features, that he uses to his advantage, and small town sophistication looks good on him. The book itself is full ofnarration and description with little dialogue, so finding the right mix of old dialogue (classic and remembered) and new dialogue is probably a real challenge. All in all, this is a fair version-- handsome and sweet-- and my only complaint is that Mira Sorvino is almost too sympathetic-- it's hard to believe she is the "careless person" that Americans have come to both revile and idolize.
  • Yes, folks, the story is a classic. But really- Mira Sorvino as the 'light and airy Daisy'? What were they thinking? She's about as light and blonde and airy as a mack truck. Paul Rudd does his usual grin and watch, with nothing behind it, and Marin Donovan is just boring. The adaption is okay, but it's becoming clearer that there are some books that cannot make the transition to films, and this is one of them. But it might have had a shot if the people casting it had actually READ the book!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I first saw this film when it was shown on A&E. I must admit that I did not know any of the actors except Mira Sorvino, but I was taken with all of them. Since then, I have become familiar with at least some of the work of Toby Stephens, Paul Rudd, and Martin Donovan, all of whom I now admire. Naturally, I bought a copy as soon as I found a video store still selling this movie on VHS, and I do not regret it. The performances were wonderfully done, and it is as if the characters possessed the bodies of the actors. Gatsby is charming, and self-assured at times; vulnerable at other times. Beneath that flashy exterior is a man whose depth for feeling is unparalleled by any of the other characters. Tom comes off as so cold throughout most of the movie that you can feel your blood freeze, but then suddenly surprises you with his intensity. Next to Gatsby, he is the one with the most depth. Daisy is the hardest to figure out, because even in the end, the viewer cannot be sure of what is really in her heart, only that she has brought death, ruin, and suffering to the only man who truly loved her. Nick's character is not as well developed because he is only an observer to this unfolding tragedy, but Paul Rudd plays the part well. The same is true of Jordan, Mr. Wilson, and Myrtle Wilson, but there is not enough time to develop every character who appears on screen.

    Check out Toby Stephens in the James Bond film "Die Another Day" and "Martin Donovan" in "Portrait of A Lady". Very good performances.
  • This is the worst adaptation of the Great Gatsby ever.

    The main fault is the bad casting.

    Mira Sorvino doesn't look the part physically. She has this silly expression on her face throughout and speaks in a very strange voice. Mia Farrow was so much better. Toby Stephens is too scowling and posturing for the role. He makes Robert Redford look like a good actor. Paul Rudd looks ill at ease as well and not of the era.

    Don't bother with this one at all. The production has a cheap feel. Why did they bother? This ranks with the Catherine Oxenberg Tom Conti Roman Holiday as one of the most needless remakes in history.
  • Just viewed this tonight at an English Lit Society event.

    This is a seamless adaptation of the book which is considered by many to be the Great American Novel. Much of the narration from the text is used, helping to create the feeling of being an outsider looking in, just as the narrator and main character himself does.

    Most of the scenes are clearly taken straight from the book's pages. The actors remain in character, and the plot is not toyed with or distorted. The movie may be daunting to someone who has not read the book, but lovers of the book are very likely to enjoy it.

    My only small objections were that Gatsby seemed too old and his wide half-smile was a bit creepy, but that's neither here nor there.

    Two thumbs way way up! Where can I buy a copy?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    How can I even begin? ... It sends chills through my spine when I read that human beings actually like this movie over Jack Clayton's movie. My grade 11 English class has spent the last month analyzing F. Scott Fitzgeral's "The Great Gatsby" and the corresponding movie by Jack Clayton. We are 45 minutes into this one and I can already tell it doesn't even compare. The imagery in Clayton's film was so powerfully symbolic. The dog and bird imagery, the garden imagery, Daisy looking like a daisy... It was all just amazing! Not to mention that Clayton followed the plot of F. Scott's novel almost spot on. Markowitz's film? I have seen no real underlying symbolism. I looked and looked but I found none. Also, WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS UP WITH GATSBY GETTING HIS NAME FROM DAISY?!?!? ANYONE WHO HAS READ THE BOOK WILL CLEARLY KNOW THAT JAY GATSBY WAS INVENTED WHEN JAMES GATZ MET DAN CODY! I-I can't even go on... It was just not good... Especially in comparison to Clayton's film. Oh and by-the-way, only someone who has read and studied the book will know that Clayton had also read and studied the book by his film and his overly in-depth movie.
  • Ok, some of these people giving comments about this movie obviously never paid attention to the 1974 version. For one thing, this adaptation is actually interesting. The 1974 version was totally boring, mostly because the actors/actresses showed no enthusiasm at all. And I believe this version is just as close if not closer to the book as the 1974 version. This new adaptation is much more enjoyable than the old.
  • ck_bffe_2314 February 2007
    I have just finished reading The Great Gatsby for my English class and I found that this particular movie version portrays the novel very well. It is almost close enough to the book that you could read along with the movie. The narration is done wonderfully and the cast was chosen amazingly. The actors portray the drama of the situations exactly as I, myself saw it in my mind as i read the book. The movie I highly recommend this movie to anyone and everyone, especially those who have read the novel.

    Definitely an 8 out of 10 on this wonderful movie. Hardly can you find movies that are just as wonderful as the novel it was based on.
  • Regarding the review from Erin ( - just a quick point of clarification. The reviewer noted that "Gatsby seemed too old" - an interesting observation given that of all the actors who have so far portrayed Gatsby on film, Toby Stephens was significantly the youngest at the time of filming. He was born in 1969 and the film was released in 2000 thereby making Stephens no more than 31 by the time of the film's release. In the silent film of "The Great Gatsby" released in 1926, Gatsby was played by Warner Baxter, born in 1889, making him no more than 37. Alan Ladd was born in 1913 and played Gatsby in the 1949 release making him no more than 36 at the time. Robert Redford was born in 1936 making him no more than 38 by the time of the 1974 release. Leonardo DiCaprio was born that same year (ie 1974) making him no more than 39 by the time of the spectacular Baz Luhrmann 2013 release. It's hard to believe but just going by the mathematics, Leonardo may very well have been the oldest film actor yet to have played Jay Gatsby at the time of filming. Toby Stephens however holds the record to this date (ie 7 February 2014) as being by far the youngest actor. This still doesn't refute the original reviewer's contention however that "Gatsby SEEMED too old." He clearly did to the reviewer. It's just that anyone wishing to go by the cold hard facts need only "do the maths."
  • Having viewed this recently, I must say that the film failed on almost all levels for me. The only thing I really got out of this film was a laugh at the poor acting, the ridiculous crash scene, and a sore fist from pounding it as I was continually angered by unoriginal camera work. I can't really see why this film was even made... The previous three films combined can at least give a decent rendition of the profound and wonderful work that was 'The Great Gatsby'. It was a book that was made to be a movie (as shown by the many attempts), but It has never quite made the transition smoothly. At least in the past, the films weren't quite so laughable, and didn't make nearly as many changes from the text that hurt the overall presentation for no apparent reason. I cannot recommend this film to anyone. I must advise that you simply read the novel, but If you must see a film adaption, make something other than this...
  • After watching this version of the Great Gatsby, I can definitely say I was displeased throughout the entire film.

    Sorvino is dry, changing the way she delivers her lines and portraying her character too much in the wrong way. Stephens doesn't capture the Gatsby's essence or portray his character right, which Redford definitely had in the 1974 version. The everyones lines seemed off or filled with more or less "cheesy"-ness. Rudd was the only one that was suitable for his part.

    Though I do agree there is no outstanding movie version made of the book I would skip this movie. If you are looking for something a little more authentic in terms of capturing the 20's I would watch the 1974 first. It definitely gives you a good look into the time period.
  • This movie actually angered me it was so amazingly horrible. Now granted I would be critical due to the fact that The Great Gatsby is my favorite book. However, I was more than willing to give it a chance. Within 15 minutes, the movie takes an amazingly over acted and over enthusiastic view of the story.

    The first hour rushes through almost the entire story laid out so evenly by F. Scott Fitzgerald. The second hour is consists of more "speculation" with the storyline and includes several scenes (and additions to scenes) that would NEVER be contrived by Fitzgerald. Including a greater love between Nick and Jordan, a happier first meeting between Gatsby and Daisy, and the omission of several other little nuances that make The Great Gatsby the remarkable work of fiction that it is. There weren't even any flapper girls at any of Gatsby's parties for heaven's sake!

    As for the acting, you're likely to find better actors in a weekend dinner theatre. Toby Stephens as Gatsby is more has more of a misguided frat boy persona rather than the slightly immature but calm and driven Gatsby that Fitzgerald describes in his book. Mira Sorvino's Daisy Buchanan is about as soothing as fingernails across a chalkboard. The entire movie seems forced from almost every point of view. Paul Rudd stands out as the only acceptable performance in this picture. But unfortunately, he only makes an average performance.

    Overall, this version makes 1974's Redford picture seem like Citizen Kane in comparison. Watch it only for pure amusement at how bad a motion picture can be.
  • I just finished reading The Great Gatsby again, and I find the story to be excellent and timeless. This film did a good job of depicting the story and some of the sets were good, but the actors did a horrible job. When I watched it, it was just actors reading lines without any rapport at all--they did nothing to make the story or characters come alive. The conversations seemed forced, unnatural, and somewhat awkward. I'm not saying that the 70's version was perfect, but in that movie Robert Redford WAS Gatsby. Nobody in this movie even came close to truly bringing their character to life. I recommend the Redford version over this movie; it just wasn't good.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I hate to do this but how can one NOT compare the several Gatsby films to the novel on which they're based? The book has three outstanding features: (1) A somewhat disjointed narrative in which Gatsby is a man of mystery until half-way through, and then POW. It's like Hitchcock killing off Marian Crane in the middle of "Psycho". (2) A first-person narration by the naive but thoughtful Nick Carraway, whose prose sometimes edges sideways into poetry. And (3) a subtext about the death of illusions, romantic and otherwise, as they bark their shins against reality.

    How does this TV version, from 2000, handle the story? Well, the mystery is over with in the first 15 minutes, when a flashback shows us the first meeting between the lovers Daisy Fay and Jay Gatsby. Daisy even gives him his fake name. (His real name is Gatz.) Any mystery behind the way Gatsby makes his living is likewise done away with, unlike the novel, which only hints at a slightly crooked source for his immense wealth. According to the film, Gatsby and his partners in crime forged bonds and sold them. Nick burns the documents at the end to save Gatsby from being labeled a swindler post mortem.

    The prose, out of necessity, is clipped and trimmed for Nick's voice overs. Too bad. Some of the most famous lines are retained intact ("And so we beat on. . . ."). Others are pruned. "In his blue gardens, men and girls came and went like moths among the champagne and the whispering and the stars." In the film, "and the stars" is dropped, probably because the scene in which it's heard is shot during daytime, but it still leaves us wondering what moths are doing in the garden when the sun is shining. Much of this kind of surgery can't be helped in transposing a written work for the screen, but this movie doesn't give us much visual compensation for the loss of Fitzgerald's writing. Daisy's observation that "poor boys don't marry rich girls" is dropped. Daisy is wrong, of course. It's not just a matter of money, because Gatsby is now filthy rich. It's a matter of class and character. In Tom Buchanan, Daisy has found a companionate moral moron while Gatsby remains a parvenu.

    The disillusionment -- well, Nick Carraway's disillusionment anyway -- is kept pretty much intact. It pervades the narrative, and the writers have wisely preserved the most relevant parts. Nick begins by telling us that when he was a young boy his father warned him against making hasty judgments about others, and Nick in fact avoids such judgments until the day of the somber "party" at the Plaza (or the Biltmore, in the film). He realizes on that occasion that today is his birthday. He's 30. A milestone age, when one becomes experienced enough, mature enough, to begin making judgments about others. And it's on this day that he realizes how worthless Tom and Daisy are, how stunningly and stubbornly romantic Gatsby is, and it's on the next morning that Nick tells Gatsby that "they're a filthy bunch." You can't repeat the past, Nick tells him earlier. "Why of course you can, old sport," replies Gatsby easily, wrapped in his fantasies.

    The production, while not as splendiferous as the 1975 version, is good enough. The performances vary. Nick Carraway is okay, and so is Toby Stephens as the deluded Gatsby who mistakes high-end whoreishness for love. Myrtle is vulgar without being sensual. Wilson is adequate, no more than that. Mira Sorvino is miscast. She has a decent range as an actress -- eg., "Mighty Aphrodite" -- but she is not the frivolous, nervous, high-pitched, silly, careless Daisy of Fitzgerald's novel. She plays Daisy's love affair with Gatsby straight. She makes us believe that Daisy's whimpering submission to Gatsby's advances are a sign of something genuine, instead of an airhead getting it on with an old beau. And Tom Buchanan is miscast too. Tom Buchanan is an ex-athlete, a polo player now. The book emphasizes his musculature and his dominating demeanor. The actor, Martin Donovan, has done decent work elsewhere but here he comes across as whining and snide, not the kind of guy who commands his environment.

    I wish I could recommend this but I think I'll recommend the novel instead.
  • juliet76278 November 2001
    Stick with the Redford/Farrow version if you want to see a good movie. Sorvino looked lost the whole time and her portrayal of Daisy made me wonder if she'd ever read the book. However, Toby Stephens made an excellent Gatsby and did a bang-up American accent, but he alone couldn't save this movie.
  • This movie is unbelievably terrible. It butchers the book, inserts random flashbacks for no apparent reason, mixes up events, omits important plot points entirely, and moves at an extremely fast pace.

    The acting is positively awful. The actors ruin the characters from the book completely, and the actor who plays Gatsby has the worst and most forced smile I've ever seen, old sport.

    It adds nothing to the original story. It only subtracts from it. If someone decides to see this before reading the book, the confusion will be immense. The movie invents things that don't belong in the story at all.

    It is not worth seeing, under any circumstances. Avoid it like the plague.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Great Gatsby is not quite one of the all-time literary greats(though one of the great American ones) but it is a wonderful book and a personal/sentimental favourite. It seems also though that it is a difficult book to adapt, because while neither are terrible none of the three adaptations seen(1974, 1949 and this) have done it justice. 1974 looks wonderful with a great supporting cast but suffers from being too faithful, being too long and dull and having two leads not up to the task, while 1949 captured the spirit of the story better generally and casting was not too shabby(apart from Daisy and Tom) but it also wasn't that authentic, was too film-noir-ish and felt too 40s melodrama by the end.

    It is difficult to say which is the best or worst of the three, as all have good and bad points in their own ways. If there had to be choices to make, for the look of the film and the supporting cast best is probably 1974, and despite what I said in my review for the Alan Ladd film about it being promising this one for worst. There are good things to be had. It is a very handsome adaptation to look at, the scenery and settings are eye-catching, the costumes are equally attractive and relatively true to period(one notable exception being Daisy's hair, too contemporary as beautiful as it looked) and the photography is not too simplistic nor does it try too hard. The jazzy nature of the music is like getting transported back to the 1920s, while the dialogue does show loyalty to Fitzgerald's poetic and very specific prose. And while with some senseless additions and omissions the story is mostly easy to follow and some of it like being lifted out of the pages of the book itself. To have Nick Carraway serve as narrator was a great choice, the voice-over, in observer style, is a very good example in fidelity to Fitzgerald's writing and despite Gatsby being the titular character Nick is the one really that is the glue of the story- that's true in the book and all of the three adaptations- so it makes sense for him to narrate.

    With the casting it is very hit-and-miss, but there are bright spots, and the bright spots in the cast are actually very good. The best is Paul Rudd, who does a great job handling Nick's social awkwardness and dignity which he couples with personal charm and a very composed-sounding voice. William Camp is good as George Wilson too, the character is not the brightest bulb on the block but he is a tormented soul also and Camp conveys that very touchingly. Heather Gooldenhersh is suitably conniving and selfish as Myrtle(on par with Shelley Winters in the 1949 film but Myrtle's role here is much more expansive) and Francine Swift lights up the screen whenever she appears, playing Jordan with entrancing wit.

    Unfortunately the other three big roles aside from Nick don't fare so well. Toby Stephens actually is a mixed bag in the title role, he is dashing, refined and enigmatic with generally convincing line delivery and doesn't play him too restrained, but the overused grimacing gets creepy after a while and he comes across as somewhat too arrogant for Gatsby, not showing enough his redeeming qualities. Mira Sorvino is miscast as Daisy, then again neither of the three Daisys have worked, Mia Farrow being too shrill and strident and Betty Field being too vacuous. Sorvino is the most beautiful and youthful of the three and she has in a way the most ideal speaking voice, but her presence is bland and rather airy-fairy. Of the three Toms, only Bruce Dern in the 1974 film nailed his attitude and mannerisms despite not quite being right physically. Martin Donovan- once we forget that he is the complete opposite physically to how Tom is described- fares the least of the three, not oily or brutish enough instead coming across as too soft and respectful(like when Tom actually apologises for causing Myrtle's nose to bleed, some men causing domestic violence might do that in manipulation but it's out of character for Tom).

    But this adaptation does have other problems other than three problematic performances. While it is faithful to the plot-line, the mood isn't there(like it wasn't in the 1974 film as a result of the over-languid pacing and the dry and skim-the-surface script-writing), the dream-like quality the story adopts at times is absent. The Jazz Age depiction is not extravagant enough and feels somewhat too modern(a lot of it is reminiscent of drawing room drama too). And while I am not a "purist"(or don't try to be), revealing Gatsby's background and who he is too early was a mistake, you actually know the ending from the beginning. As was said in my review for the 1949 film, part of the allure of the book and the whole point of it is that Gatsby is mysterious and like an enigma, which is completely lost. The direction is rather pedestrian is too conventional, and the pacing is dull, making much of the drama lifeless and without passion- though with some exceptions like with the hit-and-run scene. There are scenes also that are clipped and have a glossed-over and incomplete feel. Considering the role of the narrator and how the beginning played out, I completely understand why flashbacks were used. Sadly not all of them worked with some rather stiffly staged and some transitions not as smooth as they ought to be. The characters are very vivid when done right, and they seemed too one-dimensional and with not enough depth here.

    Overall, not as bad as some have said but a very mixed bag and admittedly it left me disappointed. Now onto Baz Luhrmann's film, while it sounds as though it could go either way maybe there is a chance of The Great Gatsby being served well. 5/10 Bethany Cox
  • ifh14 January 2001
    i don't know how the director did this, but he somehow made F. Scott Fitzgerald's timeless classic into a dull, insipid TV movie. i could hardly bear though this massacre. many of the important symbols dealing with the loss of morals, hopes and dreams were dimmed to nothing or omitted while others like the eyes of god dominated the show.

    Look-wise, i really like the casting of Mira Sorvino[Daisy Fay Buchannan] and Paul Rudd [Nick Carraway]; however Tony Stephens counterbalances their beauty as he tackles the role of Jay Gatsby. Stephens' priggish smile made me want to laugh when the emotions of Daisy Fay (should have) made me want to cry.

    Emotionally, many of the scenes were also dumbed down. Granted this was a made for TV movie, i probably shouldn't have expected a follow-up performance by Mira Sorvino. her performace, amongst everyone else's, was terrible. where were her emotions when she reunited with gatsby? where were her emotions after she ran over Myrtle? More importantly, where were everyone's emotions when all the characters are juxtaposed in that New York apartment?

    Please, Robert Markowitz, next time you try adapting a classic, spend more time on the ideas that the writer spent long nights up trying to put into words. if i were fitzgerald, i would be insulted.
  • The problem, other than the casting the script and the music, is that

    A&E doesn't have the budget to support their appetite, so this film ends

    up looking like a bus and truck company of "The Boyfriend". Costumes

    don't fit, the sets look cheap, and whole scenes plod by without a

    closeup. Poorly shot, stiffly acted, read the book instead. The one

    exception- Francie Swift as Jordan, who somehow rises above the murk to

    spice up every scene she's in.
  • Okay, I'm sorry, but no. This movie left out half of the most important details that is in the book. No Daisy and Jay throwing his clothes around his house. That is one of the most signifant parts of the whole story. And the right song wasn't even being played during that screen. The guy wasn't even playing the piano. In the book and the other versions of this movie i have seen, I remember something about two girls dancing at Gatsby's parties. I don't remember any sign of them. And then there's Nick and Jordan. In the book they flirted a little, but I remember nothing of them kissing and such. And did they even mention Daisy's breakdown a day or two before she married Tom? And I don't remember it going into that much detail about Daisy's and Jay's early relationship in the book. Oh, and another thing, this story takes place in the 1920's, if i recall right. Daisy's hair looked like it came from some other decade. Hair in the 20's were usualy cut very short, and not long like how Daisy's hair was. A wig would have worked better.

    Overrall, this story leaves out some of the most important parts of the story, some important details, and lets not even go into the acting. Either read the book or watch the Robert Redford version if you want the full story. Fitzerald should be rolling over in his grave right now. Complete disgrace to one of the best books of the 20th century.
  • If one is going to re-make Gatsby, then for God's sake aim to out class the 1970's version (if that is possible). Paul Rudd and Martin Donovan were fine, but who directed Mira Sorvino to play Daisy ala Marilyn Monroe? AND better yet - who bothered to direct Toby Stephens as Jay Gatsby? Did he receive ANY direction?? I felt like I was watching a junior college production of a classic play. I had high expectations for this production, but those expectations were dashed away 5 minutes into this mess. The department heads of Wardrobe, Make-up, Hair and Set Decoration should all have their union cards revoked. (It doesn't take a lot of effort to re-block a vintage hat or steam out a reproduction suit.) Why can't filmmakers, producers and networks strive for quality productions (even if they are shot in Canada)?
  • pghmoe15 January 2001
    I've always thought Robert Redfords' Gatsby was a little wooden, but I could deal with it, because Mia Farrows Daisy was not. My opinion of Coppolas' adaptation has been dramatically elevated after "watching" A&E's snooze-fest last night. The acting was tepid, even by performers whom I usually like very much. (Paul Rudd, Mira Sorvino, Martin Donovan - although he never seems to change much). The flash-backs were un-needed, and at times insufferable. . (I don't need to actually see Gatsby & Daisy "doing it" to get the idea they were once linked.) And the pacing was an even keeled blur, building all the tension of watching spaghetti cook. And I have a big problem with the Gatsby who would build an empire to win over Mira Sorvinos drab Daisy Buchanan. No wonder Tom sought his pleasure elsewhere. I will too, in Coppolas tense and watchable piece of art.
An error has occured. Please try again.