User reviews

"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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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)

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!!

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.

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.

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!