While this wasn't a terrible movie; I'd even give it 3.5 Stars if I could, however it certainly wasn't a great movie. My biggest reason was for the portrayal of the characters. I didn't mind the sound track with the rap, and pop as is the complaint of many poor reviews. It actually just made me chuckle a few times. In my opinion they butchered the character of Nick Caraway. His was the worst portrayed of them all. Maybe it was the actor, the Script, the director or a combination of all three, but they really failed F. Scott Fitzgerald in this adaptation of his Novel in this case. First of all: in the movie they portray Nick as this doe eyed boy coming from a low class family who acts like he has absolutely no idea what he's doing in any scene, like he's never had any kind of interaction with wealth in anyway before moving next door to Gatsby. When in the novel he may have not come from a filthy rich family like Daisy or Tom, or ever seen the kind of extravagant wealth displayed by Gatsby, but he did come from a higher middle class family, respectable and established. He was Daisy's cousin after all, he surely would have been exposed to the rich before, just not as over the top as Gatsby and the Buchanans. They also really failed to show that Nick had a life outside of the parties and misadventures. His relationship with Jordan was non existent in the movie, his job, his actual thoughts on what was going on with everyone was barely shown. I understand that this is an account of his memories of that summer as an observer of events, but in the novel he had way more to say and do. I also didn't like this films portrayal of Meyer Wolfsheim. I know he's supposed to be a man who deals with things outside the law, and has his fair share of shady schemes, but this movie really makes him out to be this despicable, horrible person and I really don't think Fitzgerald wanted him to be seen like that. The other Characters weren't that bad as they were portrayed. I think Tom was the most accurate out of all the Characters. Leonardo DiCaprio did a pretty good job of his portrayal of Gatsby, but honestly I think he would have done a better job as Nick if the script would have done Nick Justice anyway. I'm not sure who would have been better for Gatsby, maybe Daniel Craig or someone who could have been good at being an American trying to pretend to be an Oxford man. I really think Leonardo could have made Nick brilliant if the script wouldn't have killed Nick's character, but I still think he did a decent job as Gatsby. There were a few more things that annoyed me, but those are trivial. Overall it didn't miss the mark completely, but it could have been fantastic with a few little tweaks.

First of all, I Love the 1925 F. Scott Fitzgerald novel. The novel is regarded as the best reflection of The Roaring 20s/The Jazz Age (think Flapper culture). I read it in college and then many times since. But this is about the movie. But if you are a fan if the book and have not seen the movie then you are probably wondering, "How do the two compare?"

I am not going into the may comparisons and contrasts and if you have just read the book once, then you many not notice very many differences at all. Yes, there are some contradictions between the two, but not enough to be a deal killer. But on the other hand, YES, there are many close comparisons the movie makes to the novel, but keep in mind that this movie is mainly about the book's reflection of the times, and the themes, and symbolism that emerge between the society, setting and the well-defined characters.

Well, back to the movie itself. It is visual candy. The hard stuff and the ones that melt in your mouth. I love the cast selection, the cinematography, the music (I love the songs Young and Beautiful and the remake of U2's Love is Blindness), the pacing, the suspense and the love story. It was a crooked time that was lived through too much idleness, want, need,corruption, and liquid confusion. Not to mention some having too much money with a bankrupt soul and others having too little money and the want to sell their souls. And this is perfectly reflected throughout the movie.

I do not want to create any spoilers for those who have yet to see this picture, so I will just say that I do recommend it whole-heartedly. It is a masterpiece that needs to be studied.

As for the 3D, it is a bonus. I Love it! It is amazing in my opinion. Please keep in mind, I do not know about what is good vs. bad 3D. I just know what I like when I see it. Some may want to chime in on this, but don't. I like it and you will not convince me that it is bad 3D. I play it on my curved Samsung TV and crank it up and travel back to the 1920's and watch a beautifully sad story of misguided people in troubled times.

Additionally, this packaging came with a digital code, DVD disk, BluRay disk and a separate 3D Bluray disk all for $9.33 with 2 day Prime Shipping. Yes, $9.33! That was not a typo.

Saw this film in 2D and liked it, but in 3D - WOW (LG OLED65E6P). Tons of depth and popouts! Great music, crystal-clear picture and bright vivid colors. This one was definitly directed with 3D in mind. Had never really considered getting this one, but price dropped below 10 bucks, so I took a chance, and glad I did. The scenes with vintage cars racing through 1920's towns, parties, confetti, fireworks and flythroughs of mansions and city streets are pretty jaw-dropping.

Movie starts with an old black and white newsreel-type opening credit, then slowly turns color and 3D. It's a great effect that really shows the spectacular 3D that awaits. There are a couple of ghosting issues, but they’re early on in the film and few. Other reviews will discuss the plot and characters (which I thought were great), but if you're looking for spectacular 3D, it doesn't get much better than this. Five big 3D stars.

This movie is such a poor adaptation of Fitzgerald's classic novel, which is a contender for the title of THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL, that it is virtually unwatchable. The changes in the characters, particularly, are highly objectionable and not one of the characters is at all likeable. Sure, it's pretty, but it's almost too gaudy, even for a film about Jazz Age excess. One of the worst aspects is the use of modern music. What is the point of adhering to the architectural styles and fashions of the 1920s and then use horrible modern music? It's jarring and distracting. The acting is atrocious, and even Leonardo DiCaprio, whose work I generally enjoy, turns in a lackluster performance.

Like many of the remakes of movies from the mid to late 20th Century, this is a very poor imitation. The 1974 film is much truer to this great American classic novel, and instead of overwhelming the audience with too much gaudy sensory input, the look is sleek, sophisticated, and in keeping with the Art Deco of the Jazz Age. Luhrmann and everyone else associated with this ludicrous interpretation of one of the great pieces of Western literature should hang their heads in shame.

I teach "The Great Gatsby" in my 11th grade English classes, and this is the best version to truly capture the energy, decadence, debauchery, and tragedy of this novel and its time period. The music always seems to be a complaint of "Gatsby slobs," but I understand why Baz did this -- the energy of the new age music assists the viewer in connecting with and feeling the enthusiasm of that time period. Also, the fact that it's mainly rap and R&B (produced by Jay-Z) is a nod to jazz -- rap and R&B are children to Jazz -- a variant that connects our time periods.

Totally underrated, IMHO. Yes, the Redford/Farrow was a more serious, "scholarly" interpretation. This is a huge, gorgeous, Technicolor comic book rendering of the story that puts all writers to shame (since we know we can never top it)! Baz Luhrmann was born to bring Gatsby to life. He "gets out of the way" of the prose by not taking it (or himself) too seriously, and by doing so, the weight of the words speak for themselves. The "Rhapsody in Blue" sequence is nothing short of breathtaking. YES it's over the top -- exactly how Gatsby would have wanted it. Fitzgerald is smiling somewhere, I'm sure of it!

There was so much hype about this movie I expected it to be good. Wow was I wrong. It's like it was written by a 16 year old who read the Gatsby cliff notes, listened to 2 jazz albums (in between Jay Z albums) then boldly made a movie. Also not sure how many times they thought they could milk the Lana Del Rey song, but they thought wrong.

This movie is absolutely fantastic. I have read the book many times, and even studied it in my AP English class, and I have seen the other versions of the film, but none add up to the book as well as this adaption. The new contemporary soundtrack, with jazz undertones adds a more illuminating and jarring tone to the movie, while the stellar acting brings the emotions that the Robert Redford version greatly lacked. The costumes were fantastic. Though everything was over the top, this was an artistic interpretation that I feel reflected the Jazz Age as a whole, very realistically, as well as adds to the mystery and hugeness of Gatsby himself. The point is Gatsby is over the top. The Jazz age is over the top. In both bad and good ways, this is how people became disillusioned with the Jazz Age as a whole, how they became sick of the people, and the sounds, and the money. Gatsby is a reflection on that through love and the American Dream. Honestly this adaption showcased that so well, as other have failed to do.