Not Fade Away (2012) User Reviews

A movie that insults the viewer.

[MosHr · 5/10 · 7 December 2012]

"Not Fade Away" is one of those movies that leaves you with a bad taste after you watch the movie; it's like watching a movie by the resident cool kid in town, straddling the prettiest girl in one hand and on the other hand, going on about how he overcame his meager upbringing, dysfunctional family, disloyal friends to become who he is. The story might be genuine and the tribulations might be authentic but it's just the way it is told that makes it so unlikeable.

The movie does not have an ending (just an absurd tacked on one), creates handfuls of subplots that it never bothers to resolve and indulges heavily in the writer/director's own world of self-references and pointless pettiness. After furiously producing subplots like it's a pilot of a TV show it just ends, giving that unresolved what-ever-happened-to feeling that as a moviegoer I hate. The young Italian-American protagonist who is probably the writer/director himself doesn't have a real story to tell or a point to make. The story just meanders on and on, the key tension points leading absolutely nowhere. Rather than create a compelling story, the movie demands some sort of adulation for what it presents and ultimately insults the viewer assuming the viewer should feel privileged to hear the story rather than earning its merits.

"Not Fade Away" is advertised as a movie about a band trying to make it big; however this movie is more of a bizarre bake of 60s set pieces. There is the vintage music equipment show - the Rickenbachers, the Gretchs, the vintage Fenders and others; the vintage car show and then the 60s records - primarily an obsession with the Rolling Stones that are displayed in their big, shiny and loud glory. While the audience who were teenagers in the 60s might appreciate the shiny items of desire, the rest will find these shiny objects do not fill up a movie or compensate for a story. It's like a glossy vintage advertising brochure - pretty girls, rebellious rock stars and shiny things but not a story to tell.

The other major problem in the movie is the absolute opacity of its sub-characters. The father, the mother, the girlfriend, the band mates, the girlfriend's sister, the families are completely and utterly opaque. They keep doing bizarre things without showing or being to infer why they are doing what they are doing. Perhaps it's some sort of a 60s thing, a band thing, an Italian-American thing or a 60s band thing but I wouldn't know. The movie doesn't bother to really explain or resolve anything and it just bubbles up here and there and then it's gone. The movie is just a sequence of these strung together and it just makes all the characters unlikeable and tiring.

I like rock and roll movies but in this movie rock music neither serves as a backdrop for a personal story nor tells a story about the rock and roll greatness. The 60s backdrop overpowers the movie and the story feels like it's about a bunch of teenagers so in love with themselves that they feel they are the privileged ones. One scene comes to mind; an aunt comments, "I hear rock and roll keeps you young" to which our protagonist churlishly replies, "rock and roll is an art form. Does Dostoyevsky keep you young?"

Gandolfini outshines

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 13 December 2013]

This is a movie about a band that DOESN'T make it. The movie starts around the assassination of JFK. Douglas (John Magaro) is a shy nerdy high school kid from New Jersey. He joins a neighborhood band to play the drums. With the encouragement of hot girl Grace (Bella Heathcote), he becomes the lead singer. He clashes with his father (James Gandolfini). The band members clash with each other as they keep trying to make it.

This is written and directed by David Chase which would explain how the movie got such a talent as Gandolfini playing the dad. And it's great to see him although he does overpower everybody in the movie. John Magaro has a good interesting look to him. But he doesn't have the screen presence to compete against Gandolfini.

The movie invokes all the historic touchstones of the era. It will give the people of that era a nostalgia overload. At times, it feels like a history test review. It gets a lot of the music of the era. It's impressive considering the probable costs.

As for the story, it gets very meandering. There isn't anything particularly original, but Gandolfini is able to elevate the material when he's on screen. John Magaro does struggle to maintain the attention that's require of a lead. Bella Heathcote gives a cold detached performance with her hot model looks. Although she handles her one big scene relatively well.

As for the ending, there is a more natural ending to this movie 15 minutes earlier. I would prefer the movie ended there. The actual ending added very little, and the surrealism at the end doesn't fit the rest of the movie. Overall, the movie has some good moments, but it's too uneven.

The New Jersey Sound

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 1 May 2013]

Not Fade Away takes me back to the Sixties when I would have been of the age that the young people of the film are in. Certainly the music was nostalgic enough and that will satisfy any number of fans.

James Gandolfini who starred as that other New Jersey legend of more recent vintage, Tony Soprano stars here as the father of aspiring musician John Magaro who wants more than anything else to succeed in Rock and Roll as those new groups from Great Britain are doing, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. He and friends from his suburban New Jersey want to become rock stars only there's a lot more work involved than originally thought.

As for dad, Gandolfini doesn't like the kid's views or the new mod style of dress that his son is now taking up. He's a typical blue collar guy who has some real concerns about the family business and some even bigger concerns for his health. The two clash and their clash is what drives Not Fade Away.

I remember some kids on my block who were growing up including my next door neighbor in Brooklyn were doing exactly what Magaro and his friends were doing. None of them as I know stuck with music, but all apparently led successful lives, at least I've heard nothing different.

The music is wonderful if Sixties rock is your taste this is your film. The plot however is nothing that we haven't seen before. And Not Fade Away is hampered by a lack of character development other than Gandolfini and Magaro. But these two may be worth a look and a listen.

band movement

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 27 May 2013]

David Chase's "Not Fade Away" looks at what it was like to come of age in the '60s. The main focus is a New Jersey teenager who decides to join a band, but there are clear signs of everything that was going on: the Vietnam War, the generation gap, racial tensions, and Dean Martin's mean-spirited comment about the Beatles. Contrary to the previous reviewer, I would say that this movie is better than "Almost Famous". The latter was too fluffy and came across as a sanitized look at its era. This one is very upfront about what sorts of things happened (including some very tense scenes). And the final line poses a good question about how we as Americans want to be known to the world. Can we eventually look to our best qualities to do what's right?

Anyway, this is a good movie. It's got great music and brings up some important points. I recommend it.

Captures the Pretentiousness of Youth

[ligonlaw · 6/10 · 23 December 2012]

It's like watching gawky, awkward teens trying to read the manual on how to be cool. At times, these kids are so pedantic and serious about trying to find the formula for being hip that you wish they would not try so hard.

Four young men decide to form a band during the 1960s. Along the way, they discover sex and marijuana. The band isn't bad, but there are the usual conflicts, egos and fights over who will be lead and who will get the chick. We are instructed to have great respect for the rock idols of the time, and we are instructed on the blues.

The story is told in a painful way. The actors all have low affect and seem to be drained of enthusiasm as if they took their cues from scenes of Bob Dylan interviews from that period. Bob Dylan was cool in the early 1960s because he was famous and had a lot of hit songs. These kids,really, have no reason to act like Dylan.

The plot is sequential, but disjointed. There is the young-old conflict from the era. Pro and AntiVietnam arguments. A nod to the civil rights issues of that time. These kids are searching, but they are jerks.

In the end, the story drifts. The ending comes out of nowhere and applies to nothing we have seen as if the film-makers ran out of ideas and decided to paste a final thing onto the last part of the story.

In contrast to films that make us nostalgic for the sixties and send us back to those feel-good sounds of the time, this movie uses a lot of music, but fails to connect emotionally to the time.

Do you want to forget about me?

[StevePulaski · 6/10 · 6 May 2013]

David Chase's Not Fade Away is an exercise in nostalgia in a competent order, meaning that those who enjoy or, above all, relate to the events in the film will appreciate it the most. I'm stuck in the position where I often find my self; on the corner of admiration and disappointment.

Stylistically, David Chase (TV's The Soprano's) and cinematographer Eigil Bryld (Netflix's own TV series House of Cards) couldn't have made a more bleeding-gums representation of the 1960's if they tried. It looks marvelous in all its polished, minimalist glory. Thematically and applicably, there should've been so much more of a story to tell about a garage band that never made it despite determination to "not fade away." For this reason, the film can be viewed as one where talents embrace culture, chew scenery, and nothing more.

The story concerns Douglas (John Magaro), a young man in the 1960's during a time of The Vietnam War and inevitable social change. Family values and daintiness are becoming more lenient, and views on the war divide parents, who sat back and formed opinions on it, and teenagers who had to fight it. Douglas decides to round up a few pals and start a garage band with intent to "make it big" like the iconic Beatles and Rolling Stones. Faced with loud opposition from his demanding bigot of a father (James Gandolfini) and attachment to his girlfriend (Meg Guzulescu), Douglas must now keep a band together without alienating those close to him.

This is a story that through heatbreak, aspirations, and prolific failures could've made a gripping film and possibly an emotional one. The downside is through Chase's direction does the film feel sterile and ill-equipped. He doesn't seem to possess any form of relation or personal resonance with his characters, and this awkward coldness halts the film's ability to allow its audience to admire if even differentiate the teenagers the sixties was known to birth.

What we are left with, predominately, is an egg with a firm, ambitious, beautifully crisp shell, but sub-par, underwhelming contents. "Style over substance" would seem to be an appropriate term, but I hesitate to even call it that seeing as social order, parental discrepancies, and culture shock - all easy items to exclude or nudge out of bounds - are touched on and explored considerably. One of the tensest scenes, and arguably the best, is when Douglas is at dinner with many of his relatives, remaining silent while they discuss emerging culture and minorities in a wonderfully ethnocentric way. Douglas is ostracized and belittled for his optimism on his garage band project and his long, "hippie" hair before telling off his father and exiting the room.

Chase definitely understands complex changes of norms and societal disconnect between parents and youths. However, his apparent lack of interest in his characters, giving them a shocking lack of depth and personality, undermines the power Not Fade Away could've head if it resonated with its target audience (those now in their forties or fifties). Yet, its characters are as vacant as clip-art pictures of teenagers from the time period. There's a powerful, life-affirming, deeply involving story in the material Not Fade Away provides and I anxiously await its telling by a director with more of an attitude and opinion on the subject.

Starring: John Magaro, Meg Guzulescu, and James Gandolfini. Directed by: David Chase.

The boys on the band

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 30 December 2012]

Music, especially that one heard in one's youth has a way of evoking happier times which lingers in one's mind forever. David Chase the creator of "Not Fade Away" is fond of the music of an era, in this case, the 1960s where he sets his film, which mixes a somewhat innocent time with the realities of events that marked most Americans who came of age during a difficult time of our history.

The story takes a look at a group of suburban youths in New Jersey. We meet Doug an aspiring musician whose sole ambition was to form a band. Doug came from a working class background, in contrast with some of the other youths he meets to create music. Their models were the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, which ruled the musical tastes of the early 60s. Doug's idea was not exactly innovative, but he, and his friends believe in imitating their idols instead.

Doug, who gets to go to Oberlin, is lucky in meeting Grace Dietz, a beautiful girl from a well-to-do family. Because of the music scene, popular in suburbia, Grace and her older sister, Joy, come in contact with Doug and his friends. It does not take long before Doug falls in love with a girl that was clearly out of his league. Their love will be put to a test, and eventually they separate. As in most of the groups of the era, the band Doug was hoping to take them out his somewhat sheltered life in the suburbs, ends up splitting and the members scattered to pursue different interests. A more experienced, and jaded Doug decides to go West, looking to realize his dream.

David Chase concentrates on Doug Damiano to illustrate his take on the narrative. The film offers a contrast between the reality of Doug's home life and the glamorous world he was after, something that his down to earth father, and a record producer want Doug to realize. Even with showing sings of some talent, this group, like many others were doomed from the start. Mr. Chase inserted popular tunes from the period to good effect.

John Magaro, a young new face to this viewer, has some good moments in the movie. He is an intense young actor with a promise. A good Bella Heathcote shows talent in her approach to Grace. Pat Damiano, the working father is played by James Gandolfini who has worked with Mr. Chase before. The actor makes an impression as a sensible man wanting to make his son consider his sacrifices he has made in his life. Meg Guzulescu, who plays Doug's sister Evelyn, serves as the narrator. She appears at the end in a deserted Los Angeles street addressing us in the audience about to consider two of America's inventions, nuclear weapons, and rock and roll.

Jumbled and Thin Characters with a side of Indulgence

[ClaytonDavis · 4/10 · 8 October 2012]

David Chase's anticipated Not Fade Away not only jumbles itself into an indulgent story, constantly keeping the audience at an arm's length but it's overly stretched and uneven not utilizing the strong talents in the film like James Gandolfini, Jack Huston, and John Magaro. A natural comparison to Almost Famous (2000), the film doesn't hold a candle to Cameron Crowe's homage to music. Showcasing outstanding music of the 1960′s and 1970′s, Chase manages to capture moments of the young adolescent mind longing to be more. Lead Magaro delivers a character transformation of mind and body, a turn that elevates the film considerably. The great Jack Huston, an actor that will likely be one of the biggest things in Hollywood any minute now, delivers an aggressive supporting turn reminiscent of Channing Tatum's work in A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006). Bella Heathcote shows tenderness and promise but undervalued and virtually unused. James Gandolfini, stands out with charisma and garners much of the big laughs. A great character actor like Gandolfini should be given room to move. The film ultimately fails because it never feels like Chase knows his film or where he wants it to go. The last twenty minutes feel unneeded, unearned, and thrown together for an "artistic" catalyst with no emotional or technical effect whatsoever. A large disappointment.

A blast from my past with the clothes and the music

[Ed-Shullivan · 7/10 · 23 July 2013]

Overall I really enjoyed this movie and I will most likely watch it again in the next few years since I did think enough to purchase a copy of it. The reason I will watch it again is the director did a great job in re-creating that 60's era feel that I grew up in as a teenager. I thought the band members clothes were spot on for the times and especially that one red paisley shirt that the character Wells (Will Brill) wore I actually owned two of them.

The family environment that the lead character Douglas (John Magaro) grew up in was also typical for the times. Teenagers who think they know more about the world issues based on what their fleeting friends and acquaintances tell them, rather than hearing what it was like living in the past few decades from what their parents could really tell them, is a reality many families live with and this underlying theme was brought out so well by the film. Watch for the line that Brad Garrett playing the part of a rock band agent extols on the boy band that was first stated by Douglas's dad that success consists of 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration.

The members of the band had their own singular reason(s) for wanting a record contract and emulating their 60's rock heroes, the Rolling Stones and The Beatles. I think the boy bands individual reasons for aspirations of success were more than just the whole Beatlemania craze and the desire of beautiful women throwing themselves at them if they became rock stars. Douglas for example was spoiled in my opinion at home by both his mom who continued to iron his clothes and his dad who secretly handed Douglas wads of cash. Douglas was a star in his own mind, which many teenagers are then, and still are today.

As Bob Dylan has sung the 'Times They Are A Changing', well Not Fade Away gives all of us including those born after George Bush became president a glimpse in to the family and teenage life of the 1960's with over seas wars, the influence of England on rock music and the blues. It is a bit ironic that Douglas's dad, Pat, (played by James Gandolfini) who was diagnosed with cancer in the movie, would actually pass away from an unrelated heart attack in real life on June 19, 2013, a month before this movie was released in the U.S..

Yes, the times have changed, and this movie reminds us quite subtly of where we once were within the confines of a family, a rock band, and their friends. This movie is well worth a watch if you enjoy reminiscing and seeing the hip fashions of the 1960's.

The Crutch of Nostalgia

[Cyniphile · 3/10 · 21 December 2012]

Reading some of the other reviews I can somewhat see positive interpretations of this movie: life as a young person in the 60s was not cohesive or predictable thus it is fitting for this film to be "confused". The problem is that the more or less random snapshots of the particular life we are witnessing illustrate the decade in ways we already understand: I like the Beatles, I am sad and mad when MLK is shot, I don't want to go to 'Nam.

Without the support of a plot or structured character development, one can anticipate the emptiness of it all. Too many threads are planted at once and they all die in strangled, choppy mess. Finally, individual scenes are executed in a way that is flowery, verbose, and predictable, which leaves each self-indulgent attempt at emotion-evoking very obvious.

Nostalgia is strong, and a few shivers-down-the-spine moments will no doubt come, which makes it easy to overrate this film. However those moments happen *despite* the film: cool history and good music are powerful things.

Rock is Rooted in the Blues

[benjkramer · 8/10 · 6 October 2012]

The Sopranos' creator David Chase's directorial debut, "Not Fade Away", is, at its core, a sad movie, masked by the comedy and music that barricade my empathy. The fictional story of a 1960s teenage drummer (John Magaro) who creates a rock band with a few of his friends, "Not Fade Away" is a very character driven film, focusing primarily on the social life of the protagonist, specifically his relationship with his girlfriend (Bella Heathcorte), his band mates, and his family. I won't spoil the plot, but it is a coming-of-age tale, not as much about learning and growing as it is about doing and living. James Gandolfini is an on screen pleasure as the main character's father, while the rest of the cast, mostly lesser known actors, gratifyingly embody the 1960s rock and roll personality.

Gloriously filmed by Chase's cinematographer Eigil Bryld, the film succeeds in emitting a rock and roll cluttered vibe when the music is playing, contrasted by a dark, Godfatheresque undertone that is signature of David Chase during more dramatic scenes. While the art direction and costume design were spot on, in the end it was the music that was transporting me through time. Repeatedly watching, with the characters, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and Buddy Holly perform on a small black and white TV, I was sent back into the age of drugs, sex, and rock and roll. The band's original songs were probably the highlight of the film. Under the supervision of Steve Van Zandt, the music department took advantage of the actors' talented musical backgrounds and were able to conjure up some extremely enjoyable tracks that very well could've been written during the era.

My main problem with the film is the fact that it is littered with unnecessary scenes, scenes that are probably meant to indicate character development, but ultimately convey little to nothing. It also fails to establish Heathcote, the supporting actress, as an interesting or particularly likable character. Not much is ever learned about her through the course of the film while notably less significant characters remain better developed and ultimately more interesting.

When walking into the theater at the New York Film Festival, I thought I was in for another "Almost Famous". What I got was a very different movie. "Not Fade Away" is a simple picture. With a basic plot structure and relatable characters, the film is practically spoon-fed to its audiences. It is the end of the film, the final scenes, that sum up not only the movie, but the era. You must think before you proclaim a lack of closure, consider the times and the lifestyle. Rock spawned from the blues and, in the sad actuality of this movie, can't ever separate from its source. Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration and in the end we often can't keep up. I recommend this vicarious joyride to all music, drama, and comedy movie lovers, as well as anyone who is looking for a party, a party that is shut down by reality. 8/10 stars.

60's Drop-In With A Killer Soundtrack

[AudioFileZ · 6/10 · 30 January 2013]

Seeing "Not Fade Away" leaves one wanting more. More of something, a resolution to be sure...but more of a fleshed out insight into the main characters. There's plenty to ponder and little to grab hold off. The question of why make the film was easier. Because Steven Van Zant loves music and film and he has the means, and friends, to make a movie revolving around the art forms he cherishes.

There is quite a lot to love however thin the story itself may be. First, there's the depiction of an era where rock and roll became the voice of a generation. The 60's are realistically brought to the screen in sight through spot-on wardrobes, scenery, automobiles...as well as some of the best rock music ever recorded no less. The cast looks as if they are truly imported from 1965 too. The cast is a mix of known and unknowns who all perform well, yet no one is used to their fullest potential. The overall feel is accomplished by showcasing the turmoil as a constant background: changing moires, a war in a foreign land dividing a population, the taking hold of the so-called "generation-gap" between those coming of age and their elders, and finally the widening gap between the lower middle-class and upper-class. The cinematography is bright even while the feel is decidedly darker.

The story revolves around the aspiring rocker Douglas choosing to follow his muse instead of college with the division at home it causes. As a geek becoming his own person he finds new confidence, even getting the girl who he never had a chance with in high school. Things are not all rosy though. Besides the gap between his parents, Douglas faces differences within the band which constantly threaten to splinter the group even while they enjoy a small degree of success. Also, he has to face his father being diagnosed with cancer. Douglas wears his concerns facially as he rarely smiles, or laughs, except in the company of his girl friend the striking Grace played by Bella Heathcote. Douglas seems somewhat oblivious to the couple's wide gap in looks (she's Paris runway ready, he's a miniature young Howard Stern) or social class, apparently he believes their love of the arts bridges what once kept them at length when they were adolescents. Douglas may style himself as a free-thinker, but at heart he still believes in true love and faithfulness.

Douglas experiences some disappointing obstacles in the road to musical glory. As a result decides upon leaving it all with a new goal of moving to L.A. where his girlfriend can attend UC Berkeley and he can dive into his love of music and film at it's epicenter. Things seem to take a bad turn immediately at a Hollywood party on his first night. He looses the girl (to Mick Jagger?) and abruptly the movie ends. It's a strange open ending which in a way that implies as a rocker Douglas may still...survive?...Because rock and roll will never die and to prove it there's a lovely girl in go-go attire dancing in the middle of a deserted Sunset Boulevard as the quite possibly homeless Douglass is seen in the distance walking away?

O.K., I admit this is "arty" end, but whatever class I'm from for the life of me I'm not sure the hell it is the director/writers is telling me? Not Fade Away seems to be a meandering unfocused movie yet it isn't a failure. It's quite entertaining in spite of itself. For someone who experienced some of the sixties myself (younger than the characters in the film) I enjoyed revisiting a time of profound change, with a wonderful soundtrack and a great original song that fit too! Well worth a look if you keep your expectations guarded.

Rave Off

[tillzen · 3/10 · 13 December 2013]

As a fan of Mr. Chase I ached for this work to take off but it never does. The film fails primarily upon the page.It says little about the character of those heady times that were the 1960's. This failure is no easy task as rock music, suburban angst and the decade itself remain fertile with enough substance to fill 100 movies let alone 1. Where Chase fails first is in using the 60's as mere fashionable short hand. A news flash or a film clip without worthy exposition turns tempest to teapot. That the 60's and its artifacts are presented as mere fetish objects devalues that currency. It purchases clothes, cars and music rights without story ever rising above being a disposable trifle. The art direction is terrific and while accurate, it never connects actors to actions and exposition to plot. Too often anecdotes and pithy quotes substitute for genuine emotion, motivation or character.

Luckily, the acting is fine. The best moments occur between James Gandolfini (the working class Dad) and John Magaro as his rock musician son.Their scenes crackled as no others did leaving the underwhelm pronounced. The female character's (clearly Mr. Chase's Achilles)are broadly drawn hysterical caricatures seemingly created mostly to advance the story of men. This was exemplified by Magaro professing to believing in a girlfriend whom we know nothing about. Equally inelegant were the fore-shadowed dramatic twists of staged fights, staged accidents and cancer as dramatic license. "Not Fade Away" was continuously so Hollywood soft that I found myself wishing that a Don Corleone type had read the script, met with David Chase and slapped his face yelling "Write like a man!"

Ultimately this film seems unable to decide if it is a John Sayles' time capsule told within simple salt of the earth fables or is instead a history lesson told in the sound bites and cliff notes of genuine deep thinkers.It never chooses and it ends as it began; an exercise in excess signifying little. What a waste of a green light and 20 million dollars.

Good Story of How/Why a Band Doesn't Quite Make It

[doug_park2001 · 7/10 · 24 May 2013]

It's no great spoiler to say that NOT FADE AWAY shows, in terms that are both cynical and sentimental but above all, simply convincing, why the group formed by Douglas, Eugene, and company DID fade away--and, like many would-be successes, it wasn't due to lack of drive or talent.

Very good filming, script, and acting/characterization. A large cast for a film of this sort--it sometimes becomes difficult to remember who's who. NOT FADE AWAY captures the 60s quite well, showing how the decade of phonograph records and the Vietnam War was different but still quite the same as our own era. A lot of realistically interesting things happen even though there is very little in the way of serious tension and surprises. The way the whole story is framed as a collegiate essay by the lead singer's younger sister is an interesting device. Fine ending that left me with an initial "Huh?" feeling but after taking a few seconds to sink in, could not have made the story's point more clearly.

Reality is too much what it looks like

[dierregi · 7/10 · 3 November 2017]

This movie received terrible reviews from the audience, but it is not that bad. Its main problems are too many sub-plots and a silly open ending. Apart from that, it is a classic "coming of age" tale. Main character Douglas loves rock'n'roll and joins a band as drum player. The band leader is handsome Eugene, who cannot sing as "soulfully" as Douglas. Therefore, Douglas plans to replace Eugene as front man. Trouble ensues, as it always does and dreams are crushed....

The bitter twist of the story is that we follow Douglas's sister narration and we know from the start that his band is not bound for glory. Maybe this was also what put off the audience: is there a point following the story of a rock band that won't make it?

Considering they must be the majority, I guess there is. Besides, the music is good and you can spend a couple of hours feeling nostalgic for a bygone era.

As already mentioned, too many characters mean that none is developed properly (Douglas's girlfriend Grace and her family, including her nutty sister; Douglas's dad Pat and his cancer, etc...). Even Douglas and Eugene, the two closest to a lead role are very sketchy characters.

Pat is played by Gandolfini, who early in the movies delivers one of the best one-liner ever: while Douglas gushes about Twilight Zone and "Reality not being what it looks like", the tired man answers "Reality is too much what it looks like".

Terrible

[easlayton · 1/10 · 6 January 2014]

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. And it's sad because James Gandolfini does a great job, as he always does, with his performance. The problem is not the actors. The problem is the script and the direction. I liked the beginning of this film. It had real promise and direction. As the movie breaks into the hour and thirty minute mark it begins to wander aimlessly to the point of having no point, no direction and nothing to say. Until, at the very last moment, the meaning of the film is told to us by a break of the fourth wall. This practice, breaking the fourth wall-having one of the characters in the film talk directly to the audience-is tricky business. It's done far better in other films but not in this one. Especially not when one of the characters walks up to you and tells you what the movie is all about in a few words. That's not art. That's gutless. In regards to the length of this film; that's beating a dead horse. When you do something that blatant in film or story or any other kind of medium, the only thing you are doing is being lazy. It's telling me and the other members of the audience that you couldn't let the rest of the movie stand on its own. It's telling me you're a chicken. This movie would've been fine if it had wrapped up it's point by using metaphor. It was almost there. And then the end lines happened and if I didn't love my TV so much, my foot would've gone right through it. I write this as a warning to people who enjoy good movies; don't waste your time. The people who made this movie don't deserve it.

Bye and bye

[iamstephenbourne-568-171804 · 2/10 · 6 January 2013]

Rising talent John Magaro stars in TV director David Chase's debut big screen feature as New Jersey middle class teen Doug caught up in the fervor of Rock & Roll during the 1960s, fueled by the British Invasion to drum and then sing for his high school pals' five-man American R&B cover band and pursue their dreams of fame against the snarky disappointment of Doug's stoic father Pat (wonderfully played by James Gandolfini).

It's fairly clear early-on that Not Fade Away is a true labor of love bordering on cinematic autobiography for director and screenwriter Chase. It captures specific moments in American history from a baby boomer music-lover's very personal level, and Magaro impressively takes his character through this journey of awkward self-discovery and hero worship of The Rolling Stones to Bob Dylan. His performance is often stunningly underplayed, making Doug completely believable here as a kid just trying to make his life worth something. Kudos also go to Bella Heathcote (previously seen in Dark Shadows), stepping in as Doug's upper class hometown love interest Grace.

Unfortunately, all of the great acting seen in this 112-minute picture really isn't enough to distract you from how undercooked and uneventful Chase's screenplay is. Sure, there's some interesting dialog sprinkled throughout. Doug wondering aloud about the Brits knowing the Blues and bringing it to the States - where the Blues came from - is a priceless moment. Yes, the soundtrack is amazing. Leadbelly. Bo Diddley. The Stones. Awesome. Paying moviegoers will likely want to love it, but probably won't because nothing particularly memorable happens to any of these characters. It doesn't even matter if you accept Not Fade Away as Chase's take on his early years as a wannabe rock star or not. Aside from the peripheral high points already mentioned, this is an unnecessarily boring small movie over-all.

There's not much served up at this flick's official website (notfadeawaymovie.com) either: A gallery of photos, a videos section, story and cast info, links to Facebook etc, and the soundtrack available on iTunes. Forgettable.

While it's easy to predict big things from John Magaro in the near future after seeing this movie, the same can't be said for the movie itself. Wait a couple of minutes for Not Fade Away to appear on the IFC channel, if you're interested in taking a mildly novel wander through this tumultuous decade in US music history. Otherwise, you're better off saving your time and cash letting Not Fade Away do just that: Fade away. Yawn. Reviewed 01/13, (c) Stephen Bourne.

Not Fade Away is rated 14A by the Ontario Film Review Board for coarse language, slurs, sexual references, partial or full nudity in a brief sexual situation, illustrated or verbal references to drugs, alcohol or tobacco, crude content, substance abuse, embracing and kissing, fondling, implied sexual activity, tobacco use, and restrained portrayals of non-graphic violence, and is rated G by la Regie du Cinema in Quebec.

More reviews: moviequips.ca Follow: @moviequips

Baby Boomers, this is a love letter to Us

[Indyrod · 8/10 · 19 May 2013]

just finished up watching this growing up in the sixties, and rock and roll movie. for the earliest of the Baby Boomers, this is the movie for you, and the music will rock your soul. A teenage band, with inspirations maybe a little too optimistic. With a top notch cast, and great story telling, this was indeed entertaining and very realistic, since I was in a little band back then too. James Gandolfini is great as a pretty typical sixties Father, coping with everyday problems and a pretty wacky Wife. The teenagers are very realistic, and you could tell it was written pretty much biographical. It works for me. Highly recommended especially to us Boomers.

Unlikable

[bix171 · 4/10 · 11 July 2014]

David Chase's earnest mix of rock 'n roll, young love and family drama is overlong and sloppy, aspiring to be a defining examination of the Sixties but rendered trite by trudging out references to every historic moment (in this, it's similar to "Lee Daniels' The Butler") and wallowing in misguided pronouncements about the Vietnam War, capitalism and rock's purity; the intent is to advance the father-son conflict between lead John Magaro and a wasted James Gandolfini. (In fact, Chase unintentionally portrays rock music as a negative force, divisive enough to destroy families.) Chase's strength as the creator of "The Sopranos" was in his carefully plotted backstory that forced the viewer to pay close attention upfront; here, he employs a similar approach, but without the expanse a mini-series affords the result is disjointed and incomplete: all of the stories he introduces are either left unsatisfactorily unresolved or spontaneously concluded. It doesn't help that his characters are inherently unlikable (Magaro is a good example), mere caricatures (co-stars Jack Huston and Will Brill) or blanks (love interest Bella Heathcote). The film's sole asset is Steven Van Zandt's musical curation, though he eschews the deeper tracks in favor of songs even the casual fan will recognize.

Awful

[jmillerdp · 2/10 · 15 September 2013]

Oh my gosh, that was awful! Definitely one of those two-hours-I'll-never-get-back movies. David Chase trashed his own "The Sopranos" at its end, and seems to be in the same, no-idea-what-to-do fog here.

The film has very good production values, but that's it. It's just a meandering, aimless, pointless two hours. There is no focus. Just random coming-of-age moments, trying to run a band moments, family strife moments, etc. And, that irritating narrator chick and WTF ending. Man!

I know that far too many movies aren't good, and only a tiny percentage are great, maybe 1/10 of 1%. But, someone, for some reason, financed the $20 million to make this, and I can't imagine why. I'm guessing it's because of David Chase and his success with "The Sopranos." But, the disjointed, uninspired work he showed at the end of that show continues here, stranding all working for him along with the film.

** (2 Out of 10 Stars)

Not fade away, just go away OK

[dgefroh · 4/10 · 20 June 2013]

Boy what huge disappointment this movie was, especially since the recent news of James Gandolfini passing. What a shame that this miserable movie is his swan song. Don't get wrong, James Gandolfini is excellent in this movie, he is definitely one of the bright spots in what I view as a very dim movie.

David Chase wrote, directed, and produced this waste of time. David Chase is the creator and writer of the HBO hit series "The Sopranos". I'm not sure what David Chase was thinking or smoking when he came up with this fine piece of rubbish, but whatever creditability he had built up should hopefully now be completely behind him, as he has proved to be a one trick pony in my book.

There are many many problems with this movie, but the main mistakes are there is absolutely no story here. Could there have been a story? Yes, but trust me when I say in this instance there is none. Second, there is no character development. You won't give a darn about anyone in this movie, so combined with no story and no viewer connection to the characters this is a disaster.

The good news is the musical soundtrack is excellent, especially if you like the great 60's rock hits. The acting by everyone concerned is decent, once again James Gandolfini is excellent but at the same time a clone of his role on the Sopranos, which tends to make me think David Chase has him type cast.

So here's the take-away....no story, no character development, no connection for the viewers, no good!!

I guess you had to be there

[missybusty · 10/10 · 3 May 2013]

Everyone has heard about the '60's but only a few of us actually grew up during that decade. David Chase evidently did grow up during that time. Music was very important then. Before there were CDs there were vinyl records & every time The Beatles or The Stones or Dylan came out with a new record it was a major event. David Chase captures that time perfectly. He favors The Stones. Jagger and crew are still performing today and part of the secret of their longevity is the fact that they are blues based. Chase knows that & even tho he occasionally throws a bone to that other art form - film - he concentrates almost exclusively on the role of the blues in the formation of rock and roll. The cast of young unknowns are refreshing - especially the 2 leads & the soundtrack as has been noted is killer. I particularly enjoyed hearing Tracy Nelson's "Down So Low" which was used almost in it's entirety.

Worst Movie 2013

[schusterbu · 1/10 · 18 September 2013]

I am not exaggerating, when i say this movie disappointed even my lowest expectations. And fair enough they were really low, having read some reviews, since the movie came out earlier in the US (I'm from Germany). During the whole film there's not tje slightest bit of tension, not even a real story... I sat through the whole "film" and don't even remember the protagonists name. I neither see what the film was trying to tell, nor do i know how i lasted till the end. This weird row of pictures let me regret every cent i spend on this movie. I write this in the immediate disappointment after the movie but, seriously, save your money on this.'Nuff said.

Could've been great with a few tweaks, but as-is, it's an absolute mess

[MikeK1987 · 2/10 · 20 July 2014]

I really had high hopes for this movie. I wanted it to be a great rock film on par with "Almost Famous" or "That Thing You Do", and in a few ways it does get close. The period detail (cars, clothing and instruments) is really convincing, but the clichéd and messy plot, the writing, the acting, and the direction are the movie's downfall. I felt ZERO sympathy or empathy for any single character in this movie. The only time I actually cared for any character, was the girl who was committed by her parents because she tried LSD. I want to know what happened to her! That was a huge mistake leaving that sub-plot unresolved. I couldn't even bother to remember any of the characters' names for the sake of this review, that's how little I got emotionally invested.

Speaking of unresolved, the whole movie is essentially unresolved. The ending is the absolute worst. It doesn't even really end. It just stops on a cliffhanger and pans over to the drummer/singer kid's sister, who by the way, her acting throughout the film was absolutely horrendous, and it was a complete slap-in-the-face to end the movie with her staring blankly at the camera, clearly reading her lines from a cue card and then dancing in the middle of the road (poorly I might add). I guess David Chase was trying to sum up the overall point of the story with this ending, but he chose to do it in the absolute worst way.

As with any period piece, it's always strength to include great songs in the soundtrack, and the songs that they used here are absolutely some of the best of the era. Unfortunately, that's not the case with any of the cover versions or the original songs written and recorded for the film. They just don't sit well with the old songs, which is hard to do for most films. Some pull it off amazingly (again see "Almost Famous" or "That Thing You Do") and some fail miserably (besides this film, "Velvet Goldmine" & "Eddie & The Cruisers" also fail to deliver original music that could be thought of as representing the era in which their respective films are set).

So, if you're looking for a great nostalgic piece of work, I would steer clear of this movie entirely, unless you're an absolute David Chase or James Gandolfini die-hard, which I'm not. Speaking of unresolved sub-plots, Gandolfini, although he's got top billing, is barely in the film, and he also has not 1, but 2 unresolved sub-plots, about possible infidelity and terminal cancer, both of which, had they been resolved could have made this movie so much better! So, in a way, that describes the film as a whole... Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Nostalgic movie that cannot stand on its own.

[plasm-1 · 3/10 · 2 October 2013]

This is a movie that does not follow an exact straight line for the plot. It is not exactly sure what it is all about. In my opinion it stays fuzzy in that aspect until the end.

The idea behind the movie seems to be to transport the look and feel of the time the movie takes place in. Doing so it follows the adolescent years of a boy, his family and his struggle to make it in the music world. You will find many reviews that are very much in favor of this picture. I cannot share this view, which leads me to believe it needs for the viewer to have some experience with or interest in the decade it plays in (the 60's). Being born in 70's and having no interest whatsoever in the 60's historically or for the music, the movie had nothing to offer to me. That is bad storytelling in my opinion and lead to my low vote.

The plot remains fuzzy and stretched too far to make sense. I guess the acting was not too bad on some supporting roles, but i did not like the main characters too much. Seriously everything remained too shallow for me to care.

If you have fond memories of the time then by all means try it. Your personal experience will probably fill in the gaps and you will have a good time. Otherwise the good reviews are all inexplicable. If you are not interested in the era then keep your distance or you *WILL* regret it!