source: The Velvet Underground

I love VU. Massive fan. Really like Todd Haynes. When I heard he was making a doc about them I was excited. A proper analysis by an expert film maker. I was very very disappointed. The plus. Some nice footage of them playing live with Doug Yule, the last 30 mins is an interesting discussion and description of the band. But that's it. It is an hour and 25 mins before we get to the first album. Loads of time given to pre band years.. lamont young gets a lot of screen time, there is nothing here that you haven't seen or heard before (the lou reed doc rock and roll animal covers it), white light/white heat gets a passing mention. Nothing about the reunion, the hall of fame, cale rejoining VU, the 72 concert where reed tried to reform them, cale and reed reuniting for songs for drella (yes its relevant) or their legacy. And the worst bit was I said to myself before watching "I hope they don't do the obvious and open the film with Venus in Furs" and guess what.. I was right. Skip to 1 hr 30 mins for Best parts. Then watch other vu/reed docs. Nirvana in UK and the recent Lynyrd Skynyrd docs are an example how to retell a story and reveal new things to us. This a bad film. What a shame.

It was not the full three-sixty on the band, but centers on their sound in the Reed-Cale era and rather than spend much time on theory, it focuses on who Lou and John were as people in order to explain it, delving into the environment they lived and created in. It also eventually compares them to contemporaries, but again, here it prefers to compare who they were in attitude and emotion. When John and Lou split, when the band starts winding down, the movie also starts winding down. I'm fine with all that. Visually, I felt like it was interesting, but not mind blowing. Personally, I didn't need to it to be a visual masterpiece to be satisfying. I didn't need it to interview every former flat mate or girlfriend, I didn't need it to chase down every subplot in the band, I didn't need a happy ending. I wanted a piece on Lou and John and what made the band what they were. It's a two-hour piece on that.

Forget what old Grumbleweed said in his review. This movie sounds great and looks great. Granted, it's not perfect but with limited footage available it's def the best VU doc out there. I saw it at the Royal Festival hall, the songs sounded incredible I'm not sure why Grumbleweed is being so negative. I'm a massive fan and have read all the books too. John Cale did talk about John Cage quite a bit, Lou talked about the bands he was into to. I would like more on Nico if I'm honest. I guess if you're a casual fan you'll dig it. If you're hardcore you may be disappointed. For me I was just glad to hear those songs loud with images Go see it. You won't be disappointed For the record. I'm a PowerPoint Designer. That would have taken some work to produce a presentation like that.

As "The Velvet Underground" (2021 release; 115 min.) opens, we are introduced to young Lou Reed, whose family moved out to Long Island when he was 7, the start of a long journey that eventually sees him landing in Manhattan in the early 60s. We then shift to John Cale's background and early life in Wales, where he learns the viola. He ends up in New York in 1963. The movie reminds us what life in New Yok was like in the early 60s: "we are not counter-culture, we ARE the culture." At this point we are 10 min into the film. Couple of comments: this is the latest film from acclaimed director Todd Haynes ("I'm Not There", "Carol", "Dark Wates"). In other words: this pretty much guaranteed that this would not be your typical rock documentary . It's also not just about the Velvet Underground, but the whole New York arts scene in the 1960s including Andy Warhol's Factory. "It was Andy Warhol who made the first album possible", claims a talking head (implying that without the famous cover art and with Nico's presence, the debut album would've never seen the light of day). Ah yes, Nico. She gets her due as well, and then some. Along the way we get treated to a slew of rare if ever before seen film footage and photos from that era. The first hour of this documentary, which carries us up and through 1965, is a perfect 5 stars, and had me just watching in complete fascinations with it all. The second hour of the documentary is not nearly as good. Much of the talking heads' (including surviving members John Cale and Maureen Tucker) interviews was filmed in 2018. (Did you know that Jackson Browne regularly played with Nico during her early solo gigs?) "The Velvet Underground" premiered at this year's Cannes Film Festival to immediate critical acclaim, and Apple TV eagerly snapped it up. The movie was released in select theaters for a limited run, and thankfully my art-house theater here in Cincinnati had it in its lineup as from this weekend. The Saturday matinee show where I saw this at was attended so-so (7 people in total including myself). If you are a fan of the Velvet Underground or are simply interested in a slice of rock history. I'd readily suggest you check this out, be it in the theater (while you still can), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

This band and Lou Reed, are two of the most overrated bands and artists in the hisotry of recorded music. Period. Lou Reed had ONE HIT song. One. I don't know one band or artist who ever sighted either of these two as influences. I am a (touring) musician, have been for 50 years. I never understood how or why anyone cared about either of these two? Growing up, I obviously hung out with other musicians, none ever mentioned these two nor ever sighted one song by any of them.

I love Todd Haynes, I love Lou Reed, I love Andy Warhol... but this documentary about the Velvet Underground is dispassionate, dull and unengaging. Haynes has endless hours of Warhol footage of the band - and other footage as well... but he's compiled it in a way that is unenlightening and easy to dismiss. You walk away feeling a doc about Reed would be much more interesting... Maybe there is already a doc about Reed, I don't know. There's certainly a ton of docs about Warhol. Why was VU important? Beats me - this doc doesn't help answer that question. The only interesting thing in the film is Jonathan Richman discussing how he saw VU a lot when he was a teen... hell, even a doc about Richman would be better than this... As I said - I love Todd Haynes - but this amount to non-storytelling with masturbatory editing and no passion. Who cares? I've never been a huge VU fan - I came a little late to the party... so maybe this isn't for me... but I think I'm right when I say, this film isn't for anybody, fans or neophytes alike.

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised that a film released by Apple is a heavily sanitized look at the VU. I *am* surprised that Todd Haynes did this - I was expecting something with teeth. And why was Laurie Anderson completely left out? She was Reed's ultimate connection with that art world, even though she came along later. Not surprised but still disappointed at the elision of Doug Yule's attempt to keep the band going after Lou Reed left. SQUEEZE isn't even in the slideshow of later album covers. Then again, the film also ends on a 1972 performance with Reed, Cale, and Nico, and just ignores the later reunion tour and record. There's so much not even touched on. It's not awful, mind you...just, well, curiously corporate.

It's all blah blah blah....and nothing about the music. Like some weird acid trip. Waste of time. I wanted to hear more music...not listen to some weird theology.

As a VU fan, I was so excited to see this! But considering how many cool interviews, photos, and films, they had access to, the final product is disappointing. They spend the first 60 minutes with background material on avant-garde sound and film, on John Cale and Lou Reed's childhoods (focusing more on Cale). The spend only a few minutes of the documentary on the third and fourth albums. No mention of the Rock Hall Of Fame induction. No mention of their reunion shows in Paris (although a picture is flashed briefly). There are too many people on the periphery of the band talking, instead of the band members themselves. Many important insights about the band that we all have read about over the years were never mentioned. In the end, the film makers were more interested in making an cool avant-garde film for a cool avant-garde band, than they were in telling the true story of The Velvet Underground or giving any insights to their story. John Cale is way over represented with the screen time they give him, while Sterling Morrison and Doug Yule are under represented. The Velvet Underground were one of the most important bands in history and possibly the greatest American band of the 60's. They deserve better than this.