Because of the story's notoriety, I'm not going to bother writing a plot synopsis. Instead, I'm just going to throw my thoughts out there.

I was heinously unimpressed.

I love the book (I first read it in English at school, but have since read it twice again), which is why I found the film to be as disappointing as I did.

Or, maybe it's just because - as I feared - the book is unfilmable. Our protagonist, Carraway (Maguire), is the most boring character in the story. He does nothing. He's just there. In a book, that's fine, because the story is told through his eyes. In a film, it makes for a boooooooring protag. Daisy (Mulligan) is also a very shallow character. But that is a criticism of the book, so not the fault of the film.

The film was also painfully long. There is no way a book that is only 180 pages long should be stretched to a two and-a-half hour long film. I could have read the bloody book in less time! I'm pretty certain that damn near every scene in the book is in the film. There were so many scenes which could have either been trimmed, or lost completely.

The overly long running time definitely stems from Baz Luhrman being a really turd director. Sure, some scenes looked really good, the music was superb and, dare I say it, some scenes were actually well directed (SPOILERS: the scene where Myrtle is run over; the scene where Gatsby gets shot), but Luhrman drags every scene out for so damn long. Scenes overstay their welcome for far too long. And the scene where we first meet Daisy (Mulligan) was laughably bad.

And what was up with the weird bookending of the story? The film starts with Carraway in a mental institution relaying the story of Gatsby to a shrink and end, SORT OF SPOILER with him finishing writing a book of the story, entitled The Great Gatsby...

"Hang on!" I hear you ask; "but the book is a work of fiction, it's not based on Fitzgerald's life!" And you are completely correct. God knows why they put this lame plot device in. It added nothing to the film, apart from an extra 10 minutes of pointless film.

So overall, I give this 4/10.

If it wasn't for the music, the party scene, and the fleeting moments of brilliance, this would have scored a lot, lot lower.

I liked it. I agree with almost all of the criticisms above but the moments of genius were enough to string me along. Definitely felt that it would have been considerably worse without having read the book -- there was a sense of depth to some of the scenes that I'm certain was only there because I remembered reading them.

If Gatsby had to be made, this was the right way to make it, I think. But yes, certainly too long and often too dull. I actually thought the Daisy intro was excellent, but the Gatsby/Daisy sequence in Gatsby's mansion was horribly boring, for me. Also not sure the third act had to be so prolonged -- it's nice and quick in the book and it should have been in the film too.

Well worth watching to see someone actually try something different, and with some A-list talent to back him up...far, far, far from great, though. And yes, the bookending was stupid.

When I think of The Great Gatsby, I think of the old Redford version. When I think of that version, I think of Chinatown. Chinatown is superior in every aspect.

Chinatown is superior to a lot of things     

As for the Great Gatsby, I really wanna see it.

Gotta get around to it.  

Read the book yesterday, watched the film today. I don't blame Luhrmann, it was just a hard book to adapt to screen, mostly because of Nick's character, there was a strange little moment in the film when he confronts Gatsby towards the end, just didn't feel right since he was so bland and supporting throughout the film. They did a similar thing with City of God where we see the story unfold from another character's point of view, which worked surprisingly nicely.

The film tried a little too hard but it wasn't too bad at all. Enjoyable and stayed mostly true to the novel, like with Australia, the direction was way over the top sometimes. I'm still not sure why it's not as good as the novel though, it's hard to compare the two even though they're similar story-wise.

Saw this last weekend with the girlfriend. It wasn't my choice for sure, but after seeing a trailer on another semi-ne flick, she said she thought it looked good, so, me being the Hell of a guy that I am, said, "Sure thing, babe".

Well, surprisingly, I enjoyed it.  In fact, we both really enjoyed it.  It had a fantastic (but odd) look to it...almost to every single shot. It had a wild, hyper feel to it.  And, it had just enough of of just about everything to make it a fun ride.

I don't think I've read the novel or seen any of the earlier versions, and in fact, I didn't really even know the story, so maybe that helped.  For me, it was quite the wild ride, and I didn't see the end playing out anywhere enar how it did.

The acting was top notch and DiCaprio completely looked the part...most of the time, and I only say that because when he acted the star crossed lover, he seemed very out of place.

The sets and staging were all quite amazing and the party scenes were a highlight for me.  I laughed out loud numerous times at the zany antics of the party goers.

Bottom line is that the film was entertaining and that's what always counts to me.  Definitely not my genre of choice, but a fine way to spend 2 1/2 hours.

Grade - B+