Reviews

I never read the book, but even if I had I don't believe in looking at a film as if it has to be the exact adaptation of the book. It simply isn't fair to expect one to mirror the other. If you do then why bother making the film at all. It has to have a general plot, but other than that if it is well filmed and well directed and well acted then that's all it needs. This was a truly different type of Sci-Fi, This film stands on its own very sturdy feet. It was excellent and very different from anything I've ever seen. I didn't expect a whole lot as it never made it to the big screen, but perhaps that was because it was 3D as all films seem to have to be these day, which is ridiculous. And, about all the ending is TRULY amazing, so please watch or buy it and judge for yourself.

I don't wish to do the usual review of the movie as many do, but would rather then just repeat the story once again. I can not imagine for a moment 2/3's of the Broadway stars being in the role. Richard Burton is so opposite Richard Harris. Burton didn't have the unassuming side that Harris did, thus it is difficult to believe that despite the words he says and sings that he is at all surprised that he is king, where as Harris always seems in awe of all that has happened to him. When Julie Andrews played Guinevere granted she could sing, but not at all an actress I could accept, at that age, as having a physical relationship with Lancelot. And, the director, or she, saw fit not to put on a hair extension to allow her to have long hair. No woman in that day would have hair as short as hers other than Joan of Arc perhaps. Robert Goulet was the only actor that past muster and even his appearance was a bit too perfect, but his voice was amazing.

Richard Harris had the vulnerability to be a realistic Arthur. Granted his singing isn't superb, but it also has the same vulnerability. Vanessa Redgrave was an amazing Guinevere and a far superior actress to Julie Andrews. The nuances of her acting are amazing. And, contrary to what most believe, she did sing the role. Finally, what Franco Nero lacked in singing ability, which was dubbed, he made up for in looks. At that age he was truly a beautiful man. He played the arrogant and humble sides of his role with finesse. Even today, in his 70s, he's a very good looking man.

I would most certainly take the film actors over the stage ones anytime, but that is just my opinion.

This version of The Great Gatsby was perfect. Robert Redford was perfect and oh so handsome in the role. Mia Farrow was a suitable and perfect ditsy Daisy. Bruce Dern played his part with a nasty nature that was true to the book. The sets, the clothing and all else already seemed superior to the latest film. Just from the previews one can see Leonado Decaprio is far too angry, Cary Mulligan is every bit as ditsy as Mia Farrow and her acting isn't as good. However, by far Sam Waterson portrayal of Nick Carroway makes sense where as Toby McGuire's immature voice simple doesn't carry the weight it needs. This version is so like the book written by Hemingway that it is amazing down to every visual. This new version is just a mismashed of what the older version was. I don't believe perfection should be remade.