Life

"Life (2015)" is the fourth film directed by notorious Dutch photographer and director Anton Corbijn, in which we get a look into the life of James Dean. Corbijn proves to be an accomplished director since the release of his debut and gritty masterpiece "Control (2007)". A film that set the bar so high it became hard to satisfy his newly found fan-base. After his escapades with the thriller genre he returns to the genre he became known for, a biopic. And this time our favorite "Rebel" gets the "Corbijn- treatment", or so we hope.

As the title suggests the story revolves around Dennis Stock, a photographer for the magazine "Life", who gets the assignment to shoot rising and rebellious Hollywood actor James Dean, before the release of his first headlining film "East of Eden (1955)". A friendship develops between both gentleman and the pair travel to L.A., New York and Indiana to get those precious shots Stock is longing for.

DeHaan rather gives us his own interpretation of James Dean. The resemblance between portraying and portrayed actor is marginal. Stock on the other hand is portrayed by Pattison who gives a dull performance although the concept of his role feels dull on its own, something we can't blame Pattinson for directly. Stock's assignment and private life should feel like a struggle though this is poorly translated into the script.

Throughout the movie there are sparks of chemistry between both but in the end it's sad to see that this chemistry is absent for most of the film. It's because of these aspects this period drama sometimes feels like it's sleepwalking throughout its own story, which is a shame considering the fact that "Life" can be considered as almost a personal film for Corbijn. You might expect that a photographer making a film about photography would create something more lively than the overall boring "Life".

Maybe Corbijn made us spoiled little brats, we expect too much from the director that gave us "Control", while you can't blame an audience for expecting something more daring than "Life". James Dean was not only a fascinating character, he also possessed a complexity towards his sexual identity, something the film largely ignores. In conclusion there are some pleasing touches, such as the beautiful cinematography or a refreshing cameo by Ben Kingsley, but in the end this film becomes a frustrating experience for Corbijn fans.

This review is going to mainly going to be about the Portrayal of James Dean and not the other elements of the movie so I'll get right to it. To put it frankly, I didn't buy Dane Dehaan as James Dean. The resemblance just isn't there. This is a role where looks matter and Dane Dehaan can't really fill the James Dean 'silhoutte' or bring the stature and good looks needed to pull off James Dean. The characters James Dean played in his movies were all studs because James Dean was in fact a total stud. No offense to Dane Dehaan but we've never seen him play a stud before. Most of his roles are teenaged characters who are troubled, quiet and kind of physically unintimidating and prone to getting bullied . Not exactly James Dean material.

We didn't really get James Dean here. It was basically just watching Dane Dehaan play an aloof young guy who sounds kind of like Kermit the frog and acts like a stoner burnout. You can't really get edgy and charismatic James Dean from Dane Dehaan. As good as an actor the guy is he just couldn't really pull it off for this role.

The rest of the movie isn't worth saying much about even though good efforts were made all around. With the right actor playing James Dean this could have been a good movie maybe even a great one depending on the performance. If you stuck around till the end they show the pictures of the real James Dean which was the real pay off of the movie for me.

What motivated the filmmakers to cast a boy with a boy voice for James Dean??? That actor is ALL wrong and watching that boy play Dean for two hours is torture. The Life photographer is an ineffectual bore and "Life" as a title is just a really bad idea in part because the script is pretty lifeless.

The problem with this movie is that neither DeHaan, nor Pattinson hold the attention of the audience. The script is nondescript, and the directing cannot make up for the lack of a compelling story and characterization.

DeHaan looks like a childish version of Dean with his unlined face, rounded cheeks, feathered, rubbable hair and those full, pink lips.

Dean was young, but had an old soul reflected in his lined face, sunken eyes, and impossibly attractive visage. Even James Franco -- much as I detest that actor -- was better than DeHaan. The story had no real climax... its twin journeys (of the co-protagonists) made shallow and dull via the absence of any real conflict or urgency of mission.

I'm sure Corbijn had good intentions.

I gave this one a four.

A movie about James Dean stands or falls by the portrayal of the man. Everything else is secondary to capturing that unique mesmerizing person.

I am a straight male, yet I remember the first time I googled that name and started browsing his photos. There was something there completely out of the ordinary. Strength with fragility, sadness with mischievousness, rebellion resting in the moment. Its like watching young Marlon Brando or Ryan Gosling in a movie like Drive, there is something extraordinary there your brain cant define but can understand.

Dane DeHaan, who I don't know outside of this movie, could probably portray Justin Bieber just fine, but playing James Dean requires a different beast of an actor all together.