Fame

The original "Fame" (the 1980 movie), really affected me at the time it appeared. The reason is, I think, is that the coming of age of young people as artists is much grander than the ordinary sexual awakening. It is driven by deeper urges, and when you see the spectrum (drama, music, dance), some of them are unfulfilled by all of us.

It was extremely well made. It had fantastic songs, lots of interwoven stories with characters that we learned enough about to care (by film standards). What drove the whole enterprise was the open, free energy of these kids. Every one of them burst with connective energy, promiscuously taking risks that are noted several times in the script. The final number is one of the most rousing experiences in filmed song, this despite coming close to the then pervasive Coke "we are the world" meme.

(Folds)

Now this. It is equally amazing. I highly recommend it, especially if you are susceptible to the urge to connect and matter. It shares many of the same plot points, sometimes curiously morphed. It has kids, songs, dancing, performance, etc. But none of the things that worked in the original do here. It isn't a matter of a failed attempt; rather the filmmakers deliberately decided a different strategy.

What happened here, is that instead of investing in the kids, who they are and what they do, the film invests in the space between the movie and us. Its the camera that has energy. Its the images themselves that have character. Its the rhythm of the thing that inserts itself. The yearning is in your desire to enter the thing. It is pretty darn amazing, not just because of the effectiveness of the cinema, but because of the clear intent to transform the energy from the sender to the contract with the receiver.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Don't be fooled by the trailers, Fame is not as dazzling and inspiring as it may seem. Strip away the fancy lighting, music and camera work and you're left with nothing less than a cast of one dimensional, mundane, and unlikeable characters. The movie doesn't give enough time for any of the characters to develop and therefore, I ended up feeling like I barely knew the characters at all, even at the end of the film. I don't even think I could name all of them. The actual script and dialogue is not any better and the plot feels forced and irrelevant to what the movie claims to be about. From the looks of it, no one in the movie is cut out for actual "fame" with the exception of Payne's character who is portrayed as an arrogant and selfish dancer. The cast had a lot of potential to become very likable characters but because of the poor script, their performances fall flat and feel fake. I entered the movie with hopes of being entertained even if it was on a strictly "crowd pleaser" level. I left feeling like I had just wasted an hour and a half of my life learning that "success is love." There are no real resolutions to any of the character's trials and tribulations. Life must suck at this performing arts school because no one learns anything particularly profound or life changing. Don't waste your time with this movie, and if you still want to, at least wait for it to come out on DVD. The large screen, dark theater, and popcorn won't make this movie any better than the dud that it is.

I remember when I was younger I enjoyed the original Fame movie. Although I currently can't remember anything about the movie at all, save for the theme song. Tonight I got the chance to see the sneak peek of the 2009 version. Overall, I wasn't impressed. What was wrong with the movie? 1.) The plot…or lack thereof. There were so many "main" characters, that the scenes just jumped from one to another without any real cohesion. Sometimes there were even two scenes going on at the same time with the camera flashing back and forth between the two.

2.) The timeline. Before each "section" of the movie, you got a title like "Freshman Year", "Sophomore Year", "Junior Year", and "Senior Year". This would have been fine if they spent any time in these years. Instead, they went by so fast that the title just threw off the pace. For example, you get introduced to the characters and see "Freshman Year". Then you get to see their insecurities and character flaws all over the course of one day. The next day is "Sophomore Year" and the characters have made no forward progress since day one of freshman year. The movie could have been vastly improved by simply stripping out these time stamps.

3.) Character development. Tied to the first two problems with this movie is the character development. There is so much going on and time passes so fast that you don't really get to see much development of many of the characters. I understand there is only so much time in the movie, but that could have been resolved by reducing the number of "lead" characters. If you reduced the number of people we had to keep track of, we'd be able to see more how those characters evolve, and care more about them in the end.

4.) Lack of resolution. None of these characters really show any sign of improvement until the last scene in the movie, and then we still get no resolution on how things turned out. The last scene is graduation and we have no idea if any of these people amounted to anything after that. Very few even make mention to what they MIGHT be doing after the movie ends. Heck, I would have even settled for the lame freeze frame with written text explaining what people went on to do (which is a pretty cheesy cheat out of writing a resolution to your story as is).

5.) Predictability and memorable characters/scenes. I am going to lump these two issues together, because they go pretty much hand-in-hand. the movie from beginning to end was pretty predictable. There were absolutely zero surprises within. As a result, there was very little memorable about the movie. In fact, without looking at IMDb, I couldn't name a single character in the movie.

So was there anything good about the movie? I guess for what it was, it was an okay movie. No real surprises, and nothing you are going to remember any length of time from now (which is maybe why I don't remember the first movie). But I did enjoy the gratuitous completely unrealistic cafeteria jam session on day one of Freshman Year. And some of the cast music (which I assume was mostly original…at least nothing I've heard elsewhere) was good. Actually, I would have been okay if it was just one jam session after another, because I kinda dug that cheesy scene. Otherwise I say that if you are really interested in this movie, or perhaps a fan of the previous one, wait for the DVD. There are much better movies you could spend your money watching, especially since tickets are so high these days.

I had watched the original Fame movie when I was a kid, enough to know the theme song sung by Irene Cara, but little else. Fast forward to today, I'm pretty sure I still enjoyed the reworked theme song, but the film unfortunately is a disaster, with predictable story lines, cardboard characters, and while I'm quite OK that it may have tried to be more documentary like in its presentation, it just fell short on almost all accounts, save for some of the set musical pieces.

Despite its hip trailer aimed specifically at its demographic audience, the film just didn't work out, and tried too hard to resemble plenty of dance movies already out there, except that it did a lot more worse by injecting too many characters having everyone bear the brunt of the burden in carrying the film through its runtime, through supporting role appearances at best. Having cast a relative bunch of good looking unknowns also helped in providing the fresh-facedness required, but it's akin to watching a bad episode of American Idol, except that you don't get to choose who stays and who goes.

Granted it wanted to be more "School like" encompassing all the various subjects taught from dance to acting, in quite an elitist fashion in getting mere hundreds amongst thousands of applicants, and if quality control was so stringent, it provided critical flaws to the plausibility of the show. For one, these characters are talented folks, and it's just no good treating talented folks like toddlers in school, picking on every little thing they do wrong in hoping to polish those rough diamonds. Also, the screening of candidates, while provided some Audition hilarity, was mostly based on the whims of the various instructors, hence the kind of petty issues they dredge up for themselves, like the angry actor who thought the stage was his calling, throwing tantrums and in need for some serious counselling.

But the most critical flaw of them all, for a movie in its genre, is whence the buildup and character development? We're suppose to believe that after their graduation they're all "ready to make it" in the big, bad, unforgiving world of fine art performance. Unfortunately the output's pretty much the same as the input, save for a few characters who turned into perfect gems overnight, with nary any focus on their transformation. The best just coasted through school, while the worst (amongst the best) turned in much better performances through the sprinkle of magic dust or through the rubbing of shoulders. There must be something in the diet served by the school's canteen as well it seems.

Fame fell short and became plain, formula, predictable, and ultimately boring. The screenplay reeked laziness - who needs yet another teenage movie where it tells you that even the best amongst us suffer from trouble dished out by disapproving parents, romantic relationship roadblocks, yet another naive girl becoming bait for hot looking predatory guys, wanting to fulfill a deep desire and break out of routine, discrimination, trust and integrity. The list just goes on, no thanks to individual cardboard characters being assigned some thematic homework, and turning in the results in little episodes and scenes, without allowing the audience to build any emotional connection, or to even root for the underdogs.

It's ambitious too in its setting, taking on the entire school journey of these select group of youngsters, albeit without a real story, nor gelling them together in one coherent way. Technically, director Kevin Tancharoen (who had so far done music videos) and cinematographer Scott Kevan had opted for the shaky cam technique, for what reasons I do not fathom, and came off quite irritatingly. Someone should start preaching the virtues of mounting the camera of a tripod, versus making it a lame excuse to want to do it documentary style, or to allow for fluid motion in capturing the performances, not!

The only saving grace here, are some of the performances, be it group dance ensembles, or solo acts. I had preferred the former a lot more for their energy and choreography, and amongst all the disciplines, I personally enjoyed the dances a lot more, compared to the others like acting, or even singing, due to the rather lacklustre tunes and mediocre lyrics.

This is one film that I'd rather not remember its name, and could be called anything else other than a remake of Fame.

Apart from the fact that this movie looks slicker and more technically accomplished than the original 1980 "Fame" movie, this remake is inferior to the original in every way you can think of. Of all the problems in the movie, I think the worst is the fact that NONE of the characters - students or teachers - is fleshed out sufficiently. The movie crams in so many characters that it doesn't have time to follow any for a decent length. The lack of a human angle probably explains why the movie doesn't have any bite - I remember the original movie had more grit and drama. This even extends to the musical/dance numbers - the music is instantly forgettable and the dancing is at its best mediocre. What the movie ends up being is very boring, even if you choose to watch the theatrical cut over the extended cut. Stick with the original movie.