Billy-Crudup Movie Reviews
*SWEET~OLD FASHIONED~and a little wild too*
A rare love story with plot twistsAlthough Inventing the Abbotts is centered on two well-treaded themes - love across a class divide and bad blood between families - it takes enough of a new approach to avoid cliches. For one thing, the animosity between the rich Abbotts and the working-class Holts is selective, with varying degrees of friendship and respect between certain members of each family showing through alongside the bitterness between others. The exact cause of that bitterness, centered on a long-ago business deal between the two families' fathers, is a combination of mystery and misinformation to the main character, Doug (Joaquim Phoenix). The resolution of that mystery plays out alongside Doug's changing relationship with the Abbotts' youngest daughter, Pamela (Liv Tyler) throughout the film, thus preventing the forbidden-love motif from becoming overbearing.
But the movie does remain a love story at heart, and Phoenix and Tyler are remarkably well-suited to the task. (They apparently were a real-life item for some time after filming - and the sincerity shows.) Complicating the picture are Doug's bitter, jealous elder brother Jaycee (Billy Crudup), who sows discord among both families throughout the film; Pamela's troubled relationship with her sisters and parents; and the hazards of growing up in general. In keeping with the avoidance of stereotypes and cliches, character development is strong almost across the board. The Holts' relative poverty is neither romanticized nor used exploitatively; and if the Abbotts prove that money can't buy happiness, neither are they made out to be shallow or heartless.
The 1950s setting is painstakingly executed as well, featuring a Smithsonian-worthy collection of period appliances, furniture and other everyday items (not to mention an authentic Greyhound bus). The lack of any racial diversity or an overtly political message about that era's injustices might be of some concern to the sensitivities of the politically correct, but the film does in fact address some such concerns (particuarlry the oppression of women) in a subtle but effective fashion.
For my money, this is perhaps the most underrated movie of the 1990s. Buy it while it's available!
Inventing the Abbots
Just Entertaining Enough
Great Love Storyaward.
Inventing the AbbottsLetitia McManus
Set in medieval Japan, Miyazaki's original story envisions a struggle between nature and man. The march of technology, embodied in the dark iron forges of the ambitious Tatara clan, threatens the natural forces explicit in the benevolent Great God of the Forest and the wide-eyed, spectral spirits he protects. When Ashitaka, a young warrior from a remote, and endangered, village clan, kills a ravenous, boar-like monster, he discovers the beast is in fact an infectious "demon god," transformed by human anger. Ashitaka's quest to solve the beast's fatal curse brings him into the midst of human political intrigues as well as the more crucial battle between man and nature.
Miyazaki's convoluted fable is clearly not the stuff of kiddie matinees, nor is the often graphic violence depicted during the battles that ensue. If some younger viewers (or less attentive older ones) will wish for a diagram to sort out the players, Miyazaki's atmospheric world and its lush visual design are reasons enough to watch. For the English-language version, Miramax assembled an impressive vocal cast including Gillian Anderson, Billy Crudup (as Ashitaka), Claire Danes (as San), Minnie Driver (as Lady Eboshi), Billy Bob Thornton, and Jada Pinkett Smith. They bring added nuance to a very different kind of magic kingdom. Recommended for ages 12 and older. --Sam Sutherland
A Good and Complete Story
Not like any movie. A must see!
Mononoke a must for Fantasy Fans
It is worth watching but Prefontaine is the better buy
Without Limits vs PrefontainePrefontaine:
Acting
I thought the acting in this movie could have been much better. The principle actors were decent, but it was a long drop off to the secondaries as far as acting talent. I felt Leto was more brash, cocky and arrogant. In comparison to Crudup, it made me feel Pre was this way on many occasions more out of fear or a need to be arrogant, as opposed to true belief in himself. More like a prima donna.
Facts
Given that these are movies and not documentaries, I really don't care about the small ones such as how close a race was, etc. But would like to get the truth on the the bigger issues such as personal relationships, how he hurt his foot (there either were witnesses, or there were not), and how directly he was involved in the fight against the AAU. I liked the added details in Munich and his life after Munich, showing his continued successes. These details were great from an informational perspective, but it certainly made the direction seem choppy. Without input from Pre himself, so many aspects of his friendship and love life are skewed by the perspective of the person that is recounting it, and can be questioned in both movies. To observe it is to change it, as they say. I would certainly say if you asked for the story of my uneventful life from 2 different ex-girlfriends, you would probably get 2 completely different stories.
Racing
This movie seemed a little shallow in this area. It seemed like all it did to teach the audience about strategy and Pre's abilities was to say, "You are too slow to sprint, so you have to push the pace faster to make the kickers tired". Maybe that is as much detail as the common viewer wants, but I would have liked to have seen more. I thought the race sequences in both films were good.
The interviews mixed with tradional story telling might have worked better if the casting had been better. Production quality was not as good as WL.
Without Limits -
Acting
By FAR the superior movie. Crudup and Sutherland's relationship just felt so much more real. And a million times more mature. You have to question authenticity of course, but their philosophical conflicts truly drive this movie and make the overall product much more mature.
Facts
This is not meant to be a documentary, and I can understand having to summarize 3-4 events into 1 event to make an accurate point - whether you are talking about Pre's love life or his races - for the sake of drama or time. I still would have liked to seen at least a few minutes talking about Pre's races after Munich instead of leaving the new viewer to thinking that he only ran 1 meet after Munich, and he died later that night. To me this was a weakness in the film. It left a lot of places where you have to fill in the blanks - such as Bowerman's appointment as Olympic coach, the Pre graduated and was no longer a student, etc. Now that I've seen both films and have a stronger grip on the true facts, skipping these details aren't as big of a deal as they are merely background to what is happening to Pre - as long as you are already aware of them.
Racing
In addition to focusing on Pre's relationships, it spent more time on race strategy, introducing other athletes than just Viren, and seemed to engage the sport at a deeper level. As a former competitor, this interested me quite a bit. Prefontaince had more race sequences, but I thought the sound effects in WL were great to create the feel of the race. The tension felt of running in the pack was expertly done, and the acting of Crudup in these sequences was good. I would have liked to see a little more pain on their faces and a little less closed-mouth running. WL did a better job at showing exactly how fast a 63 second quarter is.
This movie went out of its way to focus on Pre, Mary, and Bowerman's relationships. This just felt more authentic and mature. I think it is a shame they had to sum up so many of Pre's races - before and after the Olympics - but this was a conscious decision made to embrace Pre's story by showing fewer of his races - which can be felt as redundant in this medium, and humanizing him more. Prefontaine did a great job showing Pre's drive and heart, but I thought WL was more rewarding by showing his struggles with himself and those close to him - which surely must have existed.
While both movies showed some sides of Pre that aren't always listed as 'good' characteristics, only in WL did it truly feel like reality. The dialogue in Prefontaine certainly felt more like a Disney movie and combined with delivery, it was all a little contrived.
Once again, I felt that Without Limits was more the thinking-man's version of the movie, while Prefontaine did an excellent job with the facts of Pre's racing career and had an emotionally high value throughout the movie. Both raw emotion and embracing a new philosophy can inspire someone, and they both succeed at this. I would probably choose Prefontaine to show to people that do not know Pre's story, but for my own viewing, I would probably watch Without Limits repeatedly to get to the heart of the human story and struggles with philosophy, passion, and desire.
One of the Best Sports FilmsBilly Crudup was superb as "Pre". Cool, cocky, with a running style that sent shivers through me. Donald Sutherland gives another first-rate performance as coach Bowerman. Compared to R. Lee Ermey's portrayal in the lesser movie "Prefontaine", watching Sutherland work was like eating filet mignon after beef jerky.
The highlight of the film for me was the '72 Munich race. Pure sustained tension. I've seen the film 4 times, I know the outcome, but I nevertheless hop out of my chair every time I see Pre/Crudup break from the pack. Excellent, too, how they deftly spliced in the actual footage.
Only two criticisms: the romance was hokey, and there was too much unnecessary fiction woven in (Pre gashed his foot running around a swimming pool, not while having sex upside down, for crying out loud).
But because of this movie, I learned that Pre wasn't just a flashy jock who died young. He was a true working class hero in a sport where there weren't many. He had his own running code, which he also applied in life: run all-out, ahead of the pack, all the time.
As a runner, "Without Limits" actually inspired me to actually chop seconds off my running times, which is not a bad testament. But I don't think one has to be a runner to like this movie.
It is worth watching but Prefontaine is the better buy
Without Limits vs PrefontainePrefontaine:
Acting
I thought the acting in this movie could have been much better. The principle actors were decent, but it was a long drop off to the secondaries as far as acting talent. I felt Leto was more brash, cocky and arrogant. In comparison to Crudup, it made me feel Pre was this way on many occasions more out of fear or a need to be arrogant, as opposed to true belief in himself. More like a prima donna.
Facts
Given that these are movies and not documentaries, I really don't care about the small ones such as how close a race was, etc. But would like to get the truth on the the bigger issues such as personal relationships, how he hurt his foot (there either were witnesses, or there were not), and how directly he was involved in the fight against the AAU. I liked the added details in Munich and his life after Munich, showing his continued successes. These details were great from an informational perspective, but it certainly made the direction seem choppy. Without input from Pre himself, so many aspects of his friendship and love life are skewed by the perspective of the person that is recounting it, and can be questioned in both movies. To observe it is to change it, as they say. I would certainly say if you asked for the story of my uneventful life from 2 different ex-girlfriends, you would probably get 2 completely different stories.
Racing
This movie seemed a little shallow in this area. It seemed like all it did to teach the audience about strategy and Pre's abilities was to say, "You are too slow to sprint, so you have to push the pace faster to make the kickers tired". Maybe that is as much detail as the common viewer wants, but I would have liked to have seen more. I thought the race sequences in both films were good.
The interviews mixed with tradional story telling might have worked better if the casting had been better. Production quality was not as good as WL.
Without Limits -
Acting
By FAR the superior movie. Crudup and Sutherland's relationship just felt so much more real. And a million times more mature. You have to question authenticity of course, but their philosophical conflicts truly drive this movie and make the overall product much more mature.
Facts
This is not meant to be a documentary, and I can understand having to summarize 3-4 events into 1 event to make an accurate point - whether you are talking about Pre's love life or his races - for the sake of drama or time. I still would have liked to seen at least a few minutes talking about Pre's races after Munich instead of leaving the new viewer to thinking that he only ran 1 meet after Munich, and he died later that night. To me this was a weakness in the film. It left a lot of places where you have to fill in the blanks - such as Bowerman's appointment as Olympic coach, the Pre graduated and was no longer a student, etc. Now that I've seen both films and have a stronger grip on the true facts, skipping these details aren't as big of a deal as they are merely background to what is happening to Pre - as long as you are already aware of them.
Racing
In addition to focusing on Pre's relationships, it spent more time on race strategy, introducing other athletes than just Viren, and seemed to engage the sport at a deeper level. As a former competitor, this interested me quite a bit. Prefontaince had more race sequences, but I thought the sound effects in WL were great to create the feel of the race. The tension felt of running in the pack was expertly done, and the acting of Crudup in these sequences was good. I would have liked to see a little more pain on their faces and a little less closed-mouth running. WL did a better job at showing exactly how fast a 63 second quarter is.
This movie went out of its way to focus on Pre, Mary, and Bowerman's relationships. This just felt more authentic and mature. I think it is a shame they had to sum up so many of Pre's races - before and after the Olympics - but this was a conscious decision made to embrace Pre's story by showing fewer of his races - which can be felt as redundant in this medium, and humanizing him more. Prefontaine did a great job showing Pre's drive and heart, but I thought WL was more rewarding by showing his struggles with himself and those close to him - which surely must have existed.
While both movies showed some sides of Pre that aren't always listed as 'good' characteristics, only in WL did it truly feel like reality. The dialogue in Prefontaine certainly felt more like a Disney movie and combined with delivery, it was all a little contrived.
Once again, I felt that Without Limits was more the thinking-man's version of the movie, while Prefontaine did an excellent job with the facts of Pre's racing career and had an emotionally high value throughout the movie. Both raw emotion and embracing a new philosophy can inspire someone, and they both succeed at this. I would probably choose Prefontaine to show to people that do not know Pre's story, but for my own viewing, I would probably watch Without Limits repeatedly to get to the heart of the human story and struggles with philosophy, passion, and desire.
One of the Best Sports FilmsBilly Crudup was superb as "Pre". Cool, cocky, with a running style that sent shivers through me. Donald Sutherland gives another first-rate performance as coach Bowerman. Compared to R. Lee Ermey's portrayal in the lesser movie "Prefontaine", watching Sutherland work was like eating filet mignon after beef jerky.
The highlight of the film for me was the '72 Munich race. Pure sustained tension. I've seen the film 4 times, I know the outcome, but I nevertheless hop out of my chair every time I see Pre/Crudup break from the pack. Excellent, too, how they deftly spliced in the actual footage.
Only two criticisms: the romance was hokey, and there was too much unnecessary fiction woven in (Pre gashed his foot running around a swimming pool, not while having sex upside down, for crying out loud).
But because of this movie, I learned that Pre wasn't just a flashy jock who died young. He was a true working class hero in a sport where there weren't many. He had his own running code, which he also applied in life: run all-out, ahead of the pack, all the time.
As a runner, "Without Limits" actually inspired me to actually chop seconds off my running times, which is not a bad testament. But I don't think one has to be a runner to like this movie.
dynamite performance by Denis Leary
Denis Leary shines!
One of the Great Gangster Movie Performances
Billy Crudup (Without Limits) plays Harrelson's best pal, just returned to New Mexico from service in World War II with hopes of starting a cattle ranch free from the greedy clutches of a local rancher (Sam Elliott) who dominates the town of Hi-Lo like a bootclad kingpin. Harrelson joins in the effort, but tensions rise when he connects with the sultry seductress (Patricia Arquette) with whom Crudup has fallen inexplicably in love. Harrelson has provoked others as well, and he seems primed for a fall, but The Hi-Lo Country is a film out of balance. Memorable moments are found in abundance, and the film's period detail is impeccable, but Crudup's character is so underwritten and underplayed that his role as narrator and ostensible hero has minimal dramatic impact. By the time fate deals its inevitable blow, it's too late to care. Frears has suffered from similar missteps before (remember Mary Reilly?), and The Hi-Lo Country leaves you wondering what Peckinpah might have done with the novel he so dearly admired. --Jeff Shannon
Harrelson's Best PerformanceFrears does a good job of capturing the essence of another time and place that seems so near and yet so far away. The world was changing around them, but in the Hi-Lo country there were still cowboys who punched cattle and drove the herd to market on horseback. Theirs is a fairly self-contained world, far removed from anything that is happening elsewhere; if a butterfly flaps it's wings in New York, it isn't going to affect Pete or Big Boy. Frears takes a look at the difference between the two men, Big Boy, who lives primarily for the moment (or so it would seem), and Pete, who is more apt to consider the consequences of his decisions, except, that is, when it comes to Mona. But even in that respect, it's Pete who ultimately shows some restraint. And Frears maintains the tension by keeping the situation between the men and Mona precariously balanced on the fence. You know that someone is bound to fall, but you don't know who it will be, where or when.
Crudup is convincing as Pete, bringing him to life with a reserved, understated performance. He brings an intelligent and introspective quality to the character that leads you to believe that Pete is always cognizant of what is going on around him, and where it's all heading. With Big boy, on the other hand, you never know if he's ever really aware of his situation, or if he just doesn't care. As Big Boy, Harrelson gives what may be his best performance ever. His portrayal is that of a true, rugged individual who keeps his deepest feelings to himself, but just may be a bit more savvy than he lets on. Initially, it appears that Big Boy and Pete are opposite sides of the same coin, but in the end you realize that they are not so different from one another after all.
As Mona, Arquette gives a somewhat subdued performance. Though attractive, she doesn't exactly exude the kind of sensuality that would seemingly elicit the obsessiveness of the men that is called for by the story, especially in Pete's case. Knowing what you know about the characters involved, it is hard to believe that Pete would look past the lovely and more alluring Josepha for even a second glance at Mona.
The supporting cast includes James Gammon (Hoover), Darren E. Burrows (Billy), Lane Smith (Steve) and Jacob Vargas (Delfino). A good, solid drama, "The Hi-Lo Country" may not be entirely original, but Frears has a nice touch and gives it a sense of realism that will get you emotionally involved with the characters and their story. And, upon reflection, it's a glimpse of a world that not that long ago was so much bigger than it is today.
A Blank Spot on the Map
A Barbed-Wire Love Triangle in the New WestThis is the New West, where small ranches are being gobbled up by larger ones such as that run by Sam Elliott, whom the other cowboys hate and fear. The work is hard and dangerous and the rewards few. But the Old West lurks not far beneath the surface, and bullets still fly.
Director Stephen Frears did a magnificent job with this film. It made we wish that more Westerns were made, even if by "furriners" like Frears. Billy Crudup is a young actor whose career I will follow with interest: His restrained role of a man who cannot do what he most wants sticks in the memory. It was good also to see Katy Jurado of HIGH NOON fame in a small scene-stealing walk-on as a Mexican witch, or bruja, who tells fortunes.
Almost a documentary..During a wild 3 weeks on the road he (and we) sees the inside of rock n' roll of that era. All the elements are there. The 70's looks and attires, the drugs, the music (original songs written among others by P.Frampton and Cameron Crowe), the teeny "rebellions", the inner band strifes,the groupies and the developing rock industry, the then societal pulse, and the overall atmosphere set by the film's main characters, most notably the teen-reporter, star-groupie Penny Lane and of course the band members and last but not least the boy's "crypto-conservative" desperately-trying-to-be-progressive mother.
"Almost famous" is a brilliant film. Before you can even begin to care whether what the film depicts is accurate, you find yourself laughing endlessly, and being "sucked-in" by a story that at times has semi-documentary touches (makes sense, as the story is a semi-biographical account of Cameron Crowe's) and loving the main characters (all charismatic in their own sense).
The film's main "weapon" is its superb humor. I dont merely mean one-liners but the overall feeling it has, you dont only laugh but this movie tends to have a feel-good sense all over it as well. It's supposed to, right? After all, this is the 70s when everything still had a "purpose" or when things seemed to be more upbeat (compare with the prozac ridden 90s and their "nowhere to go from here" sentiment).
All the actors do a terrific job to make the time machine work here. The mother is great in portaying a representative of the mothers generation that first perceived music as an "enemy" and as a gateway to drugs and (oh my god) wild sex. The band members are going from cool to uncool all the time (as real band members very often do) as they try to act like rock stars ("make us look cool, man") and at the same time try to maintain their human nature (...). The teeny reporter (in my opinion the least convincing of the lot) is decent too while the show is stolen by the enigmatic and pivotal character of groupie Penny Lane. She's is the one character that the others actually revolve around like satellites whether they realise it or not and also serves as a solid reminder of that period as well ( or maybe, not only of that period, in fact, why is rock music being mostly made if not to be "cool and get chicks")..
The dialogue is great, the directing is great, the actors do a great job. Anything missing from Almost Famous to keep it from being a classic?? I would think not, but: because of the way this film works and of its very nature ppl will tend to see it as somewhat of a documentary. Is it? Tough question that one.
The rock era of the 70s wasnt a monodimensional one. It wasn't only about bands that were Led Zepellin lookalikes and people who were constantly professing "it's all happening man", and above all things were not always that lighthearted. In fact, a lot of people back then thought that there was a musical revolution going on which was going to -in turn- bring about an overall change of things. Ask anyone who's over 45 whether the music of that era did bring about a revolution and get prepared for some really long discussions with very differing conclusions. Inotherwords, there were very many people around back then who took the whole thing very VERY seriously. Perhaps that is -epidermically- depicted by the rock critic in the film.
It would be unfair though to criticize the film on that premise. After all you cant expect a film to fit in all that in 2 hours. And even if it somehow had done that it could've very easily been boring albeit more accurate.
The fact of the matter is that "Almost Famous" is a wonderful film in very many respects. It goes from hilariously funny to touching with its dripping nostalgia. And yes it does have this "things were better and purer back then" feeling to it, but in the end the way people perceive the times they live in depend on very many different factors.
I've seen this movie twice already and loved it both times and i hardly see how anyone could not love it actually no matter what other thoughts are to be had on the side.
Almost famous is almost perfect
Very Inspiring: Talented People, Regardless of Age¿ExcelThe movie also provides an aspiring message to those who aspire to reach the heights of their career--whatever it may be: if you truly have the talent, it really has nothing to do with age or experience. In America, the story tells us, merit is what is important. Who cares if the boy is 15? He's able to carry out the duties of someone twice his age. Yet in our society we typically would choose the more experienced or older person. That is the wrong approach . . . instead, choose the best person for the job. An aspiring movie.
Michael Gordon
Los Angeles
Even more to love!And the extras ... simply the best on a DVD I've ever come across. The commentary with Crowe and his mother is at turns insightful, touching and hilarious. The part where they discuss whether Crowe lost his virginity the same way his alter ego on screen did is worth the price of admission alone. The deleted scenes include one that invites the viewer to cue up "Stairway to Heaven" since that was supposed to be the soundtrack for the scene, but the rights was unavailable. The satisfaction of seeing the characters on screen react to your dubbing is incredible. And there's a bonus CD of songs by "Stillwater," the faux band in the film. The songs are a great pastiche of 70s rock that heighten the believability of the film. You really think you're listening to a great undiscovered band from the time.
As for the movie itself, the original film deservedly won an Oscar for best original screenplay and should have won more. Had more of Kate Hudson's performance as "band aid" Penny Lane been in the movie, she would have an Oscar today. Billy Crudup perfectly personifies both the innocence and the arrogance '70s rockers exuded, while Patrick Fugit's performance captures the uncool kid yearning to be cool we all were at that age.
Put simply, if you even just mildly enjoyed "Almost Famous," you owe it to yourself to give this a spin. It's everything about the movie you liked, raised to a higher level.
Almost a documentary..During a wild 3 weeks on the road he (and we) sees the inside of rock n' roll of that era. All the elements are there. The 70's looks and attires, the drugs, the music (original songs written among others by P.Frampton and Cameron Crowe), the teeny "rebellions", the inner band strifes,the groupies and the developing rock industry, the then societal pulse, and the overall atmosphere set by the film's main characters, most notably the teen-reporter, star-groupie Penny Lane and of course the band members and last but not least the boy's "crypto-conservative" desperately-trying-to-be-progressive mother.
"Almost famous" is a brilliant film. Before you can even begin to care whether what the film depicts is accurate, you find yourself laughing endlessly, and being "sucked-in" by a story that at times has semi-documentary touches (makes sense, as the story is a semi-biographical account of Cameron Crowe's) and loving the main characters (all charismatic in their own sense).
The film's main "weapon" is its superb humor. I dont merely mean one-liners but the overall feeling it has, you dont only laugh but this movie tends to have a feel-good sense all over it as well. It's supposed to, right? After all, this is the 70s when everything still had a "purpose" or when things seemed to be more upbeat (compare with the prozac ridden 90s and their "nowhere to go from here" sentiment).
All the actors do a terrific job to make the time machine work here. The mother is great in portaying a representative of the mothers generation that first perceived music as an "enemy" and as a gateway to drugs and (oh my god) wild sex. The band members are going from cool to uncool all the time (as real band members very often do) as they try to act like rock stars ("make us look cool, man") and at the same time try to maintain their human nature (...). The teeny reporter (in my opinion the least convincing of the lot) is decent too while the show is stolen by the enigmatic and pivotal character of groupie Penny Lane. She's is the one character that the others actually revolve around like satellites whether they realise it or not and also serves as a solid reminder of that period as well ( or maybe, not only of that period, in fact, why is rock music being mostly made if not to be "cool and get chicks")..
The dialogue is great, the directing is great, the actors do a great job. Anything missing from Almost Famous to keep it from being a classic?? I would think not, but: because of the way this film works and of its very nature ppl will tend to see it as somewhat of a documentary. Is it? Tough question that one.
The rock era of the 70s wasnt a monodimensional one. It wasn't only about bands that were Led Zepellin lookalikes and people who were constantly professing "it's all happening man", and above all things were not always that lighthearted. In fact, a lot of people back then thought that there was a musical revolution going on which was going to -in turn- bring about an overall change of things. Ask anyone who's over 45 whether the music of that era did bring about a revolution and get prepared for some really long discussions with very differing conclusions. Inotherwords, there were very many people around back then who took the whole thing very VERY seriously. Perhaps that is -epidermically- depicted by the rock critic in the film.
It would be unfair though to criticize the film on that premise. After all you cant expect a film to fit in all that in 2 hours. And even if it somehow had done that it could've very easily been boring albeit more accurate.
The fact of the matter is that "Almost Famous" is a wonderful film in very many respects. It goes from hilariously funny to touching with its dripping nostalgia. And yes it does have this "things were better and purer back then" feeling to it, but in the end the way people perceive the times they live in depend on very many different factors.
I've seen this movie twice already and loved it both times and i hardly see how anyone could not love it actually no matter what other thoughts are to be had on the side.
Almost famous is almost perfect
Very Inspiring: Talented People, Regardless of Age¿ExcelThe movie also provides an aspiring message to those who aspire to reach the heights of their career--whatever it may be: if you truly have the talent, it really has nothing to do with age or experience. In America, the story tells us, merit is what is important. Who cares if the boy is 15? He's able to carry out the duties of someone twice his age. Yet in our society we typically would choose the more experienced or older person. That is the wrong approach . . . instead, choose the best person for the job. An aspiring movie.
Michael Gordon
Los Angeles
Even more to love!And the extras ... simply the best on a DVD I've ever come across. The commentary with Crowe and his mother is at turns insightful, touching and hilarious. The part where they discuss whether Crowe lost his virginity the same way his alter ego on screen did is worth the price of admission alone. The deleted scenes include one that invites the viewer to cue up "Stairway to Heaven" since that was supposed to be the soundtrack for the scene, but the rights was unavailable. The satisfaction of seeing the characters on screen react to your dubbing is incredible. And there's a bonus CD of songs by "Stillwater," the faux band in the film. The songs are a great pastiche of 70s rock that heighten the believability of the film. You really think you're listening to a great undiscovered band from the time.
As for the movie itself, the original film deservedly won an Oscar for best original screenplay and should have won more. Had more of Kate Hudson's performance as "band aid" Penny Lane been in the movie, she would have an Oscar today. Billy Crudup perfectly personifies both the innocence and the arrogance '70s rockers exuded, while Patrick Fugit's performance captures the uncool kid yearning to be cool we all were at that age.
Put simply, if you even just mildly enjoyed "Almost Famous," you owe it to yourself to give this a spin. It's everything about the movie you liked, raised to a higher level.
Crudup at his absolute bestCrudup would have been the finest of actors in the days of silent movies because his facial expressions are exquisite. He need never speak a word and yet you would swear that you felt every emotion that his character felt right along with him. In my mind there is no one comparable to him in this regard. Perhaps it is just that he has this truly remarkable presence. You want to watch him no matter what subject he is dealing with on screen because he somehow makes you care.
Aside from his acting, or perhaps more aptly *because* of it, this movie is painfully, beautifully, intimate. At times it felt like I was witnessing things I had no right to. And because of that atmosphere I knew I had to own it within twenty-four hours of viewing it.
Connelly and Crudup Deliver
Touching movieWhen Sarah dies, Fielding continues his dream, but not exactly as he wanted in first place...he'll be a senator, but not "the senator" he wanted to be...and he knows. Sarah's memory appears to make him change back and take up again the correct road.
Even when you'll never know if Sarah is really alive or not, she is there for him and only for making him do things exactly as he wanted in the past, when he was a dreamer....the reason for why she falled in love with him.
If you've never been in love, you wont notest how much love is implied in the last scene (don't have enough words to describe it), but you surely will say that is a kind of love that will last forever.