Un completo desconocido

I was expecting a lot from this film and in some cases it delivered. The acting is great across the board with Chalamet portraying Dylan brilliantly and his singing is really on point.

The problem with the film is that the story reads like a greatest hits rather than a biopic. It's like the writers and director wanted to fit as many songs in as possible and forgot they were meant to be telling a story at the same time.

It's not a bad film in any way, I just was expecting it to be better than average. With the quality of acting and singing in the film it really deserved better story telling to go with it.

I loved A Complete Unknown. To me, it is a story of lost innocence-a modern fall from Eden. Dylan's relentless chase for what he thinks will make him happy only highlights his longing for what he has already lost. The problem is, he doesn't know who he is. His evolving relationships mirror the changes in his music, and by the end, he seems to realize that whatever he's become, he regrets some of his choices because there's no going back.

And the soundtrack? Absolutely killer-every track perfectly captures Dylan's transformation and inner conflict, making the film an unforgettable theater experience.

As a rock music lover since I was a child growing up in the MTV 80s, I am always interested in learning the backstories of rock history. I'll read books, articles, liner notes (remember those)- I'll watch documentaries (there's some bad ones, but quite a few great ones)- but I usually avoid biopics. There are so many out there, and far more often than not, I am underwhelmed.

I am a fan of Bob Dylan. I have seen him in concert several times. I celebrate the man's entire catalog. I had some trepidation about watching A Complete Unknown.

The movie starts with Dylan(Chalamet) arriving in New York in 1961 and ends with his 1965 performance at Newport. It mostly focuses on his romantic relationships with Sylvie (Fanning) and Joan Baez (Barbaro). Along the way, we see Dylan's relationship with Pete Seeger (Norton) and Woody Guthrie, as well as Albert Grossman.

What I liked: -pretty much all of the acting performances were good. Most notably, Barbaro as Baez. The screen seemed to come alive every time she was on it.

• The music performances. I think the filmmakers did a great job making new performances of well known songs (Like a Rolling Stone for example). This could have gone bad, but they pulled it off. Chalamet and Barbaro deserve praise for their work here.

What I didn't like: -the uninspired script. It felt very paint by numbers. I would have liked to see more depth as to what makes Dylan Dylan. Chalamet's portrayal only enhanced this. The irony of playing Dylan, is that because he comes off as aloof and arrogant, playing him that way means you're being accurate, but not interesting.

I mostly enjoyed Ed Nortons portrayal of Seeger, but at times he laid on the "hokey Folkie" a bit too much. Again, maybe an accurate portrayal but lacks depth.

****Not sure if I'll ever watch this again. I will say it had more pros than cons, but overall, it was kinda boring.

Honestly I had very low expectations for "a complete unknown". Making a biopic about a person that's still alive, and such a specific and unique person as Bob Dylan had to have looked like nothing other than a caricature. But somehow Timothee transformed and became Dylan so organically and so effortlessly. The period of time when Dylan was in his early twenties, when the world was getting acquainted with him as well as he was with his own self was done well. I appreciated the humor in the script, our audience got in a few genuine laughs throughout the 2 hour run.

Monica Barbaro playing Joan was a breath of fresh air! I hope she gets the praise she deserves for this and more opportunities in the future.

Elle Fanning was a slightly disappointing choice for a character based on Suze Rotolo who according to Bob was this breathtaking and striking woman. I didn't feel like Elle did her best work, she was too much Elle Fanning.

However my favorite part must have been Edward Norton as Pete Seeger. I am unfamiliar with the real Pete Seeger so I cannot compare but Edward Norton did a fantastic job in the film.

I will not likely see this film again, but walking out of the theater I had a nice aftertaste of the honor to legacy that Bob Dylan will leave (and already has) in this world. Timmy deserves an Oscar nomination and recognition for this role. I'm very curious to compare this to the Bruce Springsteen biopic with Jeremy Allen White when it comes out.

There was one weakness in this film that made inferior to Inside Llewyn Davis; it lacked authenticity. How odd that a completely fictional character like Llewyn Davis had the feel of the real Bob Dylan, and the Bob Dylan film did not.

I lived through this era personally. I loved this music as it started, and evolved from 1961 to the present day. I remember strolling through the Village feeling more alive than at any other time of my life. I went to the early shows of Bob Dylan, and thought he was a genius.

This film, however, does not match Inside Llewyn Davis for catching that sense of genius. It is very slick, and well done, but just not as authentic.

The writer-director, James Mangold, does a magnificent job of capturing the atmosphere of the 1960s with great authenticity. His inclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Kennedy Assassination mirror the anxiety of the times.

The lead actor, TImothee Chalamet, does an outstanding job as Dylan. He is amply supported by a powerhouse cast led by Edward Norton.

The story about Dylan's arrival in the Village in the early 60s was done well.

The cinematography and set designs are letter-perfect; but something was missing. Believability.