source: Not Fade Away

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 * 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.

As with most filmmakers who work in themes, you should watch this to see Chase's perspective on the material, not for the story itself. Its seemingly formless structure will throw off some viewers, but it's very much in line with his body of work, being less about the music and the era and more about the effects of the passage of time, specifically the tug of the past on the present and the evolution of character (or not) as the years go by. It's an autobiographical elaboration on the themes in the dark and sad final seasons of the Sopranos, though it does have plenty of the usual witty Chase touches as well, like the kids dancing away the JFK retrospective. There's a pervasive sense of nostalgia because the setting feels realistic, neither idealistic like a Spielberg/Lucas movie nor revisionist like the progressive Pleasantville-type movies whose intention is to show us all how the past wasn't as enlightened as today. The downside is that it's such a well-covered period and milieu (for my generation The Wonder Years is the reference point) that it's hard to find something original to say. But go in with the understanding that it's more complex than it appears and it'll give you plenty to chew on afterward. At one point the lead and his girlfriend are watching Blow-Up and he comments on how strange it is there's no music to tell you when someone's going to get killed, and she replies that the sound of the wind in the trees is the music, which sums up this movie pretty well.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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)