A Complete Unknown

Just came back from the theatre this evening and and felt a bit deflated.

Timmy just didn't live up to the expectation.

His detached, semi broody sort of 'sexy timing' thing is alright I guess, for portaying an a#hole, but not at all the qualities I'd want to depict a complex and rounded human being and artist as I imagine Dylan is.

Thank god for every time Edward Norton appeared on screen. Almost like someone shook me up to pay attention to the movie. Mr Norton was able to make it interesting somehow, but I saw a lot of other talented actors just falling through the cracks of this thin story.

Because it just missed a substantial story. That's the real flaw.

I know the songs. Yes they are great. But I hoped for a little more to get my teeth in.

Left the theatre feeling like I saw 'the best off', without really getting any wiser.

And that T. C. needs to get a little more life experience.

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.

In the Bob Dylan biopic "A Complete Unknown," Director/Co-Writer James Mangold ignores many of the conventions associated with this genre, tropes he treated more respectfully in "Walk the Line" and "Ford v. Ferrari." Mangold's non-traditional approach gives him the flexibility to effectively address his decidedly non-traditional subject.

This film is a fascinating mix of fact, outright fabrication, fantasy and supposition. It's a chaotic mixture endorsed by Dylan, who has had his own on-again/off-again relationship with the truth. Dylan once said, "Truth was the last thing on my mind, and even if there was such a thing, I didn't want it in my house." This film is stronger because of the liberties it takes. It mashes together characters and events. It jumbles events with no regard for chronological order. It's as comfortable including events that "might have happened" or "should have happened" as it is faithfully retelling events that are well-documented. It's all in keeping with Dylan's penchant for "self-mythologizing."

"A Complete Unknown" explores the period from 1961-1965, when Dylan (Timothée Chalamet) moves to NYC from Minnesota, meets Woody Guthrie (Scoot McNairy) and Pete Seeger (Edward Norton), becomes part of the folk scene in Greenwich Village, encounters Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro) and has a relationship with Sylvie (Elle Fanning), an artist/activist whose beliefs motivate him to perform at the 1963 March on Washington and to pen "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall" during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This period culminates with Dylan and his band performing with electric, not acoustic, instruments at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965, a controversial event many heralded as the bridge between traditional folk and rock music. Along the way, we see how he deals with his sudden fame, a development as unwanted as it was unexpected.

What distinguishes this film is the acting. All the performers do their own singing. Chalamet is outstanding as Dylan. He does a reasonable depiction of Dylan on stage, but that's the least impressive part of his performance. An eggplant could impersonate Dylan because of his unique singing style. What makes Chalamet's performance so noteworthy is his ability to portray a man who is distant, aloof, driven, uncaring, enigmatic and determinedly self-absorbed - embracing all those negative traits while exuding a charisma that keeps the moviegoer fixated, despite his character being unlikeable in so many ways.

Edward Norton is excellent as stolid, workmanlike singer and banjo player Pete Seeger. Norton's performance demands that we acknowledge Seeger's sense of fundamental decency. Boyd Holbrook has too few appearances as Dylan pen pal and friend Johnny Cash. In the film, Cash encourages Dylan's rebellious instincts, telling him to "go track some mud on somebody's carpet. Make some noise, big D." But the most impressive performance is by Monica Barbaro (the female pilot in 2022's "Top Gun: Maverick) as Joan Baez. With no formal training as a singer or musician, Barbaro prepared for a year for this role. Here, she shows off her strong, clear soprano while portraying a singer whose voice has been described as "incomparable."

The content included in (and omitted from) "A Complete Unknown" is sure to inspire debate and disagreement. I'm confident Director Mangold and the subject of the film wouldn't have it any other way.

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.

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.