Many of (Beyoncé Knowles)'s crazy fans don't know that this movie of her does exist. "Why is that?" has a lot to do with the movie itself.
It's about a phase in the history of music. Back when the power of blues and rock 'n' roll was between the black hands. But while having a lot of drama, there wasn't much of psychoanalysis for its characters.
Let's clear something up: There is a difference between a newscast on one side, and a movie on the other. In the first kind, there is information. And in the second there is the explanation of it. One is about what, and the other is about why. Nevertheless, in this movie, the stars of singing, along with their producers, are presented as psychos, addicts, and loose adulterers, for no reasons. Otherwise, the rule is to be psycho, addict, and loose adulterer to work in the art business!
So, why not relating the bohemian life style with the privation of those characters? Consequently living in excess may be the answer for a first living in indigence. Why nearly all of them lacked the stability, or the desire to it? Is it for hating their grandfathers for it, the same grandfathers who left their lives for the white man to control and humiliate? The thing is this movie doesn't explain, or even try to!
So with the exception of (Etta James), all the shown men were having emotional problems for what exactly? (Adrien Brody)'s character (Leonard Chess) was happily married then a cheater? Here's where the movie gets weird. Hence, I felt for most of the time that I turn over an album of old photos, more than watching a movie that deals finely with the inner of its leads.
Then, how come that the movie forgets putting boards for the years where the events are taking place, until it's too late? How come the theater, where (Chuck Berry) always sings, looks like a dark narrow room? And how come that (Adrien Brody) doesn't age at all, throughout the whole movie, unlike the rest of characters?
(Brody) is (Brody) in every movie I watch for him. Obviously, I do not like the guy, and for one objective reason: he doesn't convince me much with whatever he plays. Look at the scene of dying; truly pathetic. However, this time, I blame the script too.
On the contrary, (Jeffrey Wright) was very good. (Eamonn Walker) seemed like anyone but himself. (Beyoncé) was - to great extent - the best of this movie, with her effective portrayal, and incredible singing. The moment of burying the harmonica player, with (Elvis Presley) singing in the background, embodied perfectly the death of the company. Then mixing an old track with a rap music was so bright; since it says that this modern phase is another step of development which may lead to another revolution ahead. It put beautifully and softly the rap music at a respectful place in the staircase of progress, assuring that it's the voice of its age, just like the blues and rock 'n' roll were for their ages.
It's insightful and sad movie. However, it misses being more profound and dense; a quality which I find, and love, in most of (Martin Scorsese) and (Oliver Stone)'s historical movies. So that's why, with not that big budget too, it looked like a TV movie, not winning a good publicity either. Well, I believe by now that you know the answer of my first question!
It's about a phase in the history of music. Back when the power of blues and rock 'n' roll was between the black hands. But while having a lot of drama, there wasn't much of psychoanalysis for its characters.
Let's clear something up: There is a difference between a newscast on one side, and a movie on the other. In the first kind, there is information. And in the second there is the explanation of it. One is about what, and the other is about why. Nevertheless, in this movie, the stars of singing, along with their producers, are presented as psychos, addicts, and loose adulterers, for no reasons. Otherwise, the rule is to be psycho, addict, and loose adulterer to work in the art business!
So, why not relating the bohemian life style with the privation of those characters? Consequently living in excess may be the answer for a first living in indigence. Why nearly all of them lacked the stability, or the desire to it? Is it for hating their grandfathers for it, the same grandfathers who left their lives for the white man to control and humiliate? The thing is this movie doesn't explain, or even try to!
So with the exception of (Etta James), all the shown men were having emotional problems for what exactly? (Adrien Brody)'s character (Leonard Chess) was happily married then a cheater? Here's where the movie gets weird. Hence, I felt for most of the time that I turn over an album of old photos, more than watching a movie that deals finely with the inner of its leads.
Then, how come that the movie forgets putting boards for the years where the events are taking place, until it's too late? How come the theater, where (Chuck Berry) always sings, looks like a dark narrow room? And how come that (Adrien Brody) doesn't age at all, throughout the whole movie, unlike the rest of characters?
(Brody) is (Brody) in every movie I watch for him. Obviously, I do not like the guy, and for one objective reason: he doesn't convince me much with whatever he plays. Look at the scene of dying; truly pathetic. However, this time, I blame the script too.
On the contrary, (Jeffrey Wright) was very good. (Eamonn Walker) seemed like anyone but himself. (Beyoncé) was - to great extent - the best of this movie, with her effective portrayal, and incredible singing. The moment of burying the harmonica player, with (Elvis Presley) singing in the background, embodied perfectly the death of the company. Then mixing an old track with a rap music was so bright; since it says that this modern phase is another step of development which may lead to another revolution ahead. It put beautifully and softly the rap music at a respectful place in the staircase of progress, assuring that it's the voice of its age, just like the blues and rock 'n' roll were for their ages.
It's insightful and sad movie. However, it misses being more profound and dense; a quality which I find, and love, in most of (Martin Scorsese) and (Oliver Stone)'s historical movies. So that's why, with not that big budget too, it looked like a TV movie, not winning a good publicity either. Well, I believe by now that you know the answer of my first question!