Nick's actor is spot on. Daisy on the other hand...every Daisy that I've seen so far has matched only a small aspect of the book Daisy. As shallow a personality as she has, she has so many layers. She's realistic only a third of the time, and the rest it seems like she's floating in her own dreamy little fantasy. A book can describe that feeling perfectly, but it's much harder for a movie. I haven't seen the 2013 version, so I hope Baz's eccentric style will capture Daisy's dreaming-reality.
I loved this! I saw this when it was on in 2000! I was impressed with Paul back then. I enjoyed this version. I imagine the new one will be more Grande and Musical. Thank you for posting these! ❤
Paul Rudd made a very good Nick. In fact, he could have been Nick in Luhrmann's version. It would have been amusing to see Luhrmann's Romeo and Paris back together again. Then again, Tobey Maguire was fantastic as well.
***** No, it's the truth. The Luhrmann's version felt truly too fastly paced, so it felt, that they just brushed over the story. Although, the visuals were extraordinary.
This is more realistic, and more faithful to the book; tells its story more fully, circumspectly. The acting is superb. Here we get a sense of the youth, sensitiveness and vulnerability of Nick and Daisy. The actor playing Tom is less spectacularly believable as a "big hulking brute" of an ex- star football player than Bruce Dern in the 1974 film. Mira Sorvino's Daisy is realistically nuanced, less daffily fey than Mia Farrow's, more down to earth--yet not so earthy as Betty Field's 1949 Daisy.
that is how i pictured daisy when i read TGG when i was 15, not like daisy in the new film. however, paul rudd seriously challenges tobey maguire to play nick. can't decide who played him better
Yeah, i think that too. The new movie had characters that were too exagerated. Tom was too much of a bastard, Gatsby was too much shy with daisy and furious with tom and nick was too much neard. I think this version is more reasonable in the situations/relations. I did like both though. The new version was more impressive and the mistress more interesting.
Oh sure the new one is great, but this one is visually more convincing to me. Acting not so much but more true to life. The new one seemed very on the verge of a dreamlike state/fantasy. Extemely polished up. I gotta admit, the book doesnt grab me and intrest me nowhere near as much as on film.
Rule number one for tv movies never spoil the movie in the first minute. Daisy's hair is inaccurate for the time era, everyone had bobs. Its weird to see Paul Rudd in a serious role.
Not quite everyone in 1922. By the time the books was written, 1925, yes. But in 1922, the bob was still controversial. Some "nice girls" did not bob their hair right away. I think they had her hair this way to portray her sheltered life and old wealth. But I agree it does not look right -- way too Edwardian.
guess this version follows the book storyline pretty much. The new one has some divine esthetic beauty it its own sort of way, also not deviating from the storyline, but making it fun to watch. Thus, 2013 Gatsby could be one of the best movies i've seen.
Daisy's hair should be shorn short like the gilrs of the era, and the houses are not as big as they should be for the wealth of the Buchanans. But I am thrilled you put up this version!!!
Brutal. I always thought Paul Rudd would be a good Nick Carraway but this version with its omissions insults Fitzgerald's prose. Cringe worthy: "foul dust poisoned his dreams". Ugggh.
I haven't seen this version, but it has a weird film noir feeling to it that wasn't any any other version's I've seen... Watching it all I can think of is the actor that plays Tom Buchanan, and how he was in The Walking Dead...Mira's great, but she pronounces Louisville wrong...
Daisy is gorgeous! Jordan has a Colleen Moore type straight-bangs Dutch Bob, though in 1922, Colleen herself was not yet sporting this look yet, Would be another year, and even then quite a bit different. The style had already been used by Mary Thurman in the movies briefly, and in EAST AS WEST (1922) by Constance Talmadge for the only time. But it was not yet popularized in America.
I appreciate this version being true to the book, but good grief is the acting horrible, there is a reason books are better than the movie, I enjoyed Baz Luhrman's version though.
so apparently f scott fitzgerald exaggerated tom buchannan's size and how lovely daisy's voice was. lol don't get the casting but thanks a bunch for the upload.
This version of the book is the worst thus far... but I did love the music. Anyone know the name of the reaccuring sad theme song in this movie? I can't find it anywhere...
She says hair is like her daughter's -- "yellowy" -- in the scene where they have ;uch with Gatsby at the Buchanans. But yes, in the flashback to 1917 "he kissed her dark shining hair." So, either it was a mistake on Fitzgerald's part or by 1933 she dies it and collars and cuffs don't match anymore!
I cant believe it shows Gatsby dying in the first couple mins...i remember when reading this a while back it was a shock when carroway cries out Gatsby's Dead!
this is a lot like the 70's version,but the girl who plays daysy sounds a lot like the actress from the origina movie,and the mirtle sounds like a little kid
Wait, so she just hops in and takes off to the city, in their car in front of the shop and the husband suspects nothing? He's truly a fool in this version.
and they probably were wishing to live in an earlier era its human nature to desire what we cant have which ultimately marks our futile attempts at living in the now maybe some kid will want to have your position one day dont sell yourself short.
It's better that way. It sets up the movie as like a murder thriller whodunit kinda movie. Unlike eluding to some Great character we don't see until 45 mins into the 2012 movie & when we meet him, he seems glamourous but it's all a ruse that's just to get a girl.
For your purist attitude, you are missing out on a decent Leo performance, a pretty good soundtrack, and stunning 3D visuals and colors. It's not perfect, but you shouldn't be so stubborn as to hang onto to this. I mean, really? The title sequence? the cast? the tone? you REALLY prefer this?
i have to watch this for my English class. meeehhh : // this seems so boring so far compared to the 2013 version that ee just finished watching but will have to do dis... yaahh. $unggyu is swag
That old mechanic sure was miscast! He's like, 30 something. In the book, he's a man in advanced middle age and slipping into a sort of fuzzy dotage (and really didn't start with much in the first place).
Watching Paul Rudd play Nick Carraway is like watching a high school jock read lines for the lead role in drama. And getting it. That surreal.
i love paul rudd as nick, him and leo would be great chemistry
Nick's actor is spot on. Daisy on the other hand...every Daisy that I've seen so far has matched only a small aspect of the book Daisy. As shallow a personality as she has, she has so many layers. She's realistic only a third of the time, and the rest it seems like she's floating in her own dreamy little fantasy. A book can describe that feeling perfectly, but it's much harder for a movie. I haven't seen the 2013 version, so I hope Baz's eccentric style will capture Daisy's dreaming-reality.
I loved this! I saw this when it was on in 2000! I was impressed with Paul back then. I enjoyed this version. I imagine the new one will be more Grande and Musical.
Thank you for posting these! ❤
finally i found somewhere i can watch this online!
Paul Rudd makes an intriguing Nick. Perfect casting right there.
i actually love this version
Elle Blythe yeah... me too.
Best looking Gatsby! Liked this version.
holy shit!!!! my fav character nick is played by my fav actor paul rudd!!!!!!!
Paul Rudd made a very good Nick. In fact, he could have been Nick in Luhrmann's version. It would have been amusing to see Luhrmann's Romeo and Paris back together again. Then again, Tobey Maguire was fantastic as well.
I loved this! I saw this when it was on in 2000! Thank you for posting these! ❤
Carey Mulligan probably interpreted the best version of Daisy Buchanan so far.
I love Paul Rudd.
I love this one much more than the 2013 version. Who puts dubstep and techno soundtracks in a movie set in the 20's? Great job on this film.
I love how your problem with the 2013 version is the soundtrack rather than something to do with the plot.
this looks so dull after watching 2013 version
I have this movie on DVD.
I like this video. It makes the 2013 movie even better. :)
Luhrmann's version certainly does feel magical. This one is ok... I wish there was more feeling.
I actually think this is better...
***** No, it's the truth. The Luhrmann's version felt truly too fastly paced, so it felt, that they just brushed over the story. Although, the visuals were extraordinary.
This is more realistic, and more faithful to the book; tells its story more fully, circumspectly. The acting is superb. Here we get a sense of the youth, sensitiveness and vulnerability of Nick and Daisy. The actor playing Tom is less spectacularly believable as a "big hulking brute" of an ex- star football player than Bruce Dern in the 1974 film. Mira Sorvino's Daisy is realistically nuanced, less daffily fey than Mia Farrow's, more down to earth--yet not so earthy as Betty Field's 1949 Daisy.
Thanks Sooooooo Much For Uploading This, This Is One Of My Favorite Movies
I like the T.J. Eckleburg sign looking so washed out and blending in with the backggtoknf
thank you for uploading,you gained a subscriber!!!!
that is how i pictured daisy when i read TGG when i was 15, not like daisy in the new film. however, paul rudd seriously challenges tobey maguire to play nick. can't decide who played him better
I love this series and it is more in depth.
Yeah, i think that too. The new movie had characters that were too exagerated. Tom was too much of a bastard, Gatsby was too much shy with daisy and furious with tom and nick was too much neard. I think this version is more reasonable in the situations/relations. I did like both though. The new version was more impressive and the mistress more interesting.
Oh sure the new one is great, but this one is visually more convincing to me. Acting not so much but more true to life. The new one seemed very on the verge of a dreamlike state/fantasy. Extemely polished up. I gotta admit, the book doesnt grab me and intrest me nowhere near as much as on film.
Rule number one for tv movies never spoil the movie in the first minute. Daisy's hair is inaccurate for the time era, everyone had bobs. Its weird to see Paul Rudd in a serious role.
Not quite everyone in 1922. By the time the books was written, 1925, yes. But in 1922, the bob was still controversial. Some "nice girls" did not bob their hair right away. I think they had her hair this way to portray her sheltered life and old wealth. But I agree it does not look right -- way too Edwardian.
The Not So Great Gatsby
Not so great as in not loud and colorful, but watching this felt much more like reading the book.
i really want to know the name of the song from 0:00 to 2:30
+Elvin argueta same here
Love it! Awesome content! Can't wait to see what else you guys come out with.
This is the most accurate movie as far as I know. If not all, the script is largely taken from the novel.
Yet its so underrated! Ridiculous!
guess this version follows the book storyline pretty much. The new one has some divine esthetic beauty it its own sort of way, also not deviating from the storyline, but making it fun to watch. Thus, 2013 Gatsby could be one of the best movies i've seen.
Martin Donovan as Tom Buchanan was perect casting.He was perfect for the role.
i remember seeing this version in my english class(hey miss elliott)thanks for posting i hope the leo dicaprio version is just as good
yeah! i love that guy!
I believe it did...I really love the 2013.s Daisy
Daisy's hair should be shorn short like the gilrs of the era, and the houses are not as big as they should be for the wealth of the Buchanans. But I am thrilled you put up this version!!!
Brutal. I always thought Paul Rudd would be a good Nick Carraway but this version with its omissions insults Fitzgerald's prose. Cringe worthy: "foul dust poisoned his dreams". Ugggh.
The acting is terrible in this movie compared to the 1974 version, that one is my favorite.
The 2013 one is good too. :)
I haven't seen this version, but it has a weird film noir feeling to it that wasn't any any other version's I've seen... Watching it all I can think of is the actor that plays Tom Buchanan, and how he was in The Walking Dead...Mira's great, but she pronounces Louisville wrong...
Daisy is gorgeous! Jordan has a Colleen Moore type straight-bangs Dutch Bob, though in 1922, Colleen herself was not yet sporting this look yet, Would be another year, and even then quite a bit different. The style had already been used by Mary Thurman in the movies briefly, and in EAST AS WEST (1922) by Constance Talmadge for the only time. But it was not yet popularized in America.
theres no movie better than the 2013 gatsby movie because it shows you a theatrical version
@MiotaLee That's because there are fanfics for the book.
I loved the 1974 version of this move and I can't wait for the 2012 one.
I just can't belive there are no fanfictions from this movie..
the strings at the start sound like: On a theme of Thomas Tallis by Vaughan Williams or the Great Escape
Does anyone know the soundtrack for the beginning trumpet song
1:30-2:30
Sorvino's Daisy Buchanan does not sound as if she comes from Louisville.
this version pretty poor compared with 2013, i think 2013 version has the right performers ;)
I've been looking EVERYWHERE!! for the songs and I still can't find it. Did you get any luck?? :((
Ive been looking all over the internet for the trumpet peice that you say is composed by carl davis but i cant find it may you please help me Sir ?
I appreciate this version being true to the book, but good grief is the acting horrible, there is a reason books are better than the movie, I enjoyed Baz Luhrman's version though.
every body looks so dead compared to the new movie much bigger personalities
whats the song called at 1:32 ?
D:
I wonder which gatsby will be mote popular
oh god, this is awful. i love paul rudd, but this is an awful adaptation. mina sorvino's "acting" makes me cringe.
What was so different from de book? I didn't read the book yet.
you have to go read the book
so apparently f scott fitzgerald exaggerated tom buchannan's size and how lovely daisy's voice was. lol don't get the casting but thanks a bunch for the upload.
This version of the book is the worst thus far... but I did love the music. Anyone know the name of the reaccuring sad theme song in this movie? I can't find it anywhere...
this version is pretty much the original with different characters.
Daisy had dark brown hair..Why the hell did they make her blonde(ever since the first movie)..
To better represent her "purity" i guess, thats the only explanation i could come up with
She says hair is like her daughter's -- "yellowy" -- in the scene where they have ;uch with Gatsby at the Buchanans. But yes, in the flashback to 1917 "he kissed her dark shining hair." So, either it was a mistake on Fitzgerald's part or by 1933 she dies it and collars and cuffs don't match anymore!
I cant believe it shows Gatsby dying in the first couple mins...i remember when reading this a while back it was a shock when carroway cries out Gatsby's Dead!
is that supposed to be a large sofa
also these characters are nothing like characters in the book...just saying
I think it did.
defo luhrman's version!!!! the man is genius!!! and people who may not ordinarily watch this film will watch it because he is a genius!!!
this is a lot like the 70's version,but the girl who plays daysy sounds a lot like the actress from the origina movie,and the mirtle sounds like a little kid
2013...
the clothes in this version are so boring compared to Luhrmans version! wheres the colour?!
Antman?????
I agree, what a stupid start...
it's not bad. Quite decent! better than the 1974 version anyway!
Wait, so she just hops in and takes off to the city, in their car in front of the shop and the husband suspects nothing? He's truly a fool in this version.
I really enjoyed this adaptation; much better than the vapid 2013 version
I always liked Robert Redford, but Toby is better!
I really don't like this Daisy, doesn't seem to fit at all. Although on the other hand, Paul Rudd seems perfect for Nick
I dunno, Rudd seems spot-on so far.
false a song does not have to have words
damn watermark...
LOL!
and they probably were wishing to live in an earlier era its human nature to desire what we cant have which ultimately marks our futile attempts at living in the now maybe some kid will want to have your position one day dont sell yourself short.
i dont want spiderman to play nick in the next one -.-
Toby has pretty legs
It's better that way. It sets up the movie as like a murder thriller whodunit kinda movie. Unlike eluding to some Great character we don't see until 45 mins into the 2012 movie & when we meet him, he seems glamourous but it's all a ruse that's just to get a girl.
For your purist attitude, you are missing out on a decent Leo performance, a pretty good soundtrack, and stunning 3D visuals and colors. It's not perfect, but you shouldn't be so stubborn as to hang onto to this. I mean, really? The title sequence? the cast? the tone? you REALLY prefer this?
I much prefer this version than its successor.
i have to watch this for my English class. meeehhh : // this seems so boring so far compared to the 2013 version that ee just finished watching but will have to do dis... yaahh. $unggyu is swag
Use the Paul Rudd Nick with the Leonardo Dicaprio Gatsby and it would be perfect. I wish.
the 1974 version is better than this one
This gatsby is so white. Gatsby was a gangster with a tan.
He looked like Ben Affleck in the beginning lol wtf
shame it's pretty much an updated version of the terrible 1974 movie, although, for a TV movie it's not that bad.
the actress who plays daisy just isnt up to the cut!
The 2013 version is better than this one.
I love paul rudd, but his acting in this movie seems so forced and not believable at all. Its like watching a play at school or something..
It's better than the 1974 version.
I don't lol
I think Daisy was better in the new one
That old mechanic sure was miscast! He's like, 30 something. In the book, he's a man in advanced middle age and slipping into a sort of fuzzy dotage (and really didn't start with much in the first place).