Everyone else was adequate -- it was just a little difficult getting used to them after the perfect 1974 cast (though I'll admit everyone there was about 10 years too old -- but they captured the spirit of their roles perfectly.)
Mira S played Daisy like a dippy hippy. No air of upper class sophistication, contemptuousness, or aloofness. And what is with her hair? Daisy was a modern 1920s flapper, for god's sake.
Mira's performance aside, Daisy was not a flapper, so her hair would have not been short. The only girls in the 20s that cut their hair short were considered "slutty," so historically, it makes more sense for her to have longer hair. And you can't possibly blame her for her hair style, it obviously was not her choice.
Mira's acting was average but not awful.Also she did not do very well considering that she is an Academy Award winning actress.
shareThat's so funny, because it's exactly what I think! I wrote a post about my dream cast for the new remake, and some of my readers said the same thing... the versions in the past have been played by such old actors!
fantasycasting.blogspot.com
By the 1920s, just about every young woman with an interest in looking fashionable was bobbing her hair, whether she was a good girl or a slut--even little girls had this hairstyle. So yes, it was quite unrealistic that a fashionable rich girl like Daisy Buchanan would have long hair.
It looks like we're in for a new version of The Great Gatsby next year, but again with older actors--Leonardo di Caprio will be playing Jay Gatsby.
If you consider Mira Sorvino as awful,then how much more do you consider the performance of Mia Farrow?It was SEVERELY AWFUL. I think that Mira Sorvino did just okay but not enough effort to convey the personality and character of Daisy.
What about Carey Mulligan?Will she be able to top Sorvino and Farrow? I seriously doubt it.
I've just watched it and I was rather disappointed. I expected Mira Sorvino to show more depth, she was superb 5 years earlier in the BBC dramatisation of The Buccaneers in the vaguely similar role of a woman in a loveless marriage.
The film never really took off.
Hi mark-smith473,
I think Sorvino was simply miscast. She certainly is a competent enough actress but lacked the charisma for such a complex role and even in 2000, was too mature for Daisy. I agree with you that the film never took off and put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the director. The pacing was impossibly slow with non-existent production values. It was a wasted opportunity.