अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंAn updated version of the musical Fame (1980), which centered on the students of the New York Academy of Performing Arts. The name of the school in 1980 was Fiorello Laguardia High School.An updated version of the musical Fame (1980), which centered on the students of the New York Academy of Performing Arts. The name of the school in 1980 was Fiorello Laguardia High School.An updated version of the musical Fame (1980), which centered on the students of the New York Academy of Performing Arts. The name of the school in 1980 was Fiorello Laguardia High School.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- 3 कुल नामांकन
- Marco
- (as Asher Book)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
Way too many characters. Dull musical numbers. Bland choreography. Uninteresting AND unnecessary romantic subplots.
The movie should have focused more on the professional growth of each student over the course of freshman year by really spotlighting the student/teacher dynamic.
Instead the movie flaunts the futile personal endeavors of each student over a four year span at a prestigious academy. So by the end, the high school backdrop felt completely pointless because the students learned absolutely nothing to separate their senior level experience from the original insecurity of their auditions.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाDebbie Allen, who plays Principal Angela Simms, is the only cast member to have made the transition from Alan Parker's original film Fame (1980). Her small part in Parker's version led to her being cast in one of the lead roles in Fame (1982), where she plays dance tutor Lydia Grant. In a 2011 interview with the Archive of American Television, Allen revealed that she considers the two characters to be the same. According to her, Lydia simply got married and uses her husband's name in the remake.
- गूफ़When Marco is playing the piano at his parent's restaurant, the song he is playing is filled with sustained chords and legato melodies; which would require the foot pedal to be used quite often in order to achieve the sound that is heard. However, when the camera pans back to show underneath the piano, the pedal is not moving.
- भाव
Jenny Garrison: There are some things success is not. It's not fame. It's not money or power. Success is waking up in the morning so excited about what you have to do that you literally fly out the door. It's getting to work with people you love. Success is connecting with the world and making people feel. It's finding a way to bind together people who have nothing in common but a dream. It's falling asleep at night knowing you did the best job you could. Success is joy and freedom and friendship. And success is love.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in The 81st Annual Academy Awards (2009)
टॉप पसंद
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Sân Khấu Muôn Màu
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $1,80,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $2,24,55,510
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $1,00,11,682
- 27 सित॰ 2009
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $7,72,11,836
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 47 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1