Life
- 2015
- Tous publics
- 1h 51m
IMDb RATING
6.0/10
9.2K
YOUR RATING
A photographer for LIFE Magazine is assigned to shoot pictures of James Dean.A photographer for LIFE Magazine is assigned to shoot pictures of James Dean.A photographer for LIFE Magazine is assigned to shoot pictures of James Dean.
Dane DeHaan
- James Dean
- (as Dane Dehaan)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Potentially this could have been the most interesting work from Anton Corbijn, as he is himself a well-known portrait photographer. The story is about Magnum photographer Dennis Stock (Pattison) convincing a reluctant upcoming James Dean (DeHaan) to follow him to make a series of portraits. As you might know, Magnum set new standards in photography and Stock in his famous series contributed to a completely different view on portrait photography of stars: natural setting, confrontational, honest and direct.
During the movie, a bond grows between the two, as Dean turns out to be an atypical Hollywood star ignoring the rules set out by his superiors resulting in several confrontations. Stock largely ignores his duties to his former wife and their child and becomes obsessed by Dean's idiosyncrasy. The second part is the most interesting as it almost deconstructs Dean's life and character: Dean comes from a farmland family of Quakers, likes local poets and is fond of his background and actually despises stardom. Stock is first able to shoot pictures in New York (you probably know the famous photograph) and in Indiana.
So what are the downsides: the pacing is too slow, the editing certainly not perfect and the most important trap: Corbijn as photographer is too much in love with the story, finding details relevant that are actually not that relevant. The question keeps popping up: Why does this matter? Life fails in a way as a mood piece, but is still a relatively good and stable character drama as the deconstruction works well.
Maybe both Pattison and DeHaan are too light to pull this off more convincing, but one role is certainly amazing: Ben Kingsley as Jack Warner is so spot-on you will be remembering the character despite the limited screen time.
During the movie, a bond grows between the two, as Dean turns out to be an atypical Hollywood star ignoring the rules set out by his superiors resulting in several confrontations. Stock largely ignores his duties to his former wife and their child and becomes obsessed by Dean's idiosyncrasy. The second part is the most interesting as it almost deconstructs Dean's life and character: Dean comes from a farmland family of Quakers, likes local poets and is fond of his background and actually despises stardom. Stock is first able to shoot pictures in New York (you probably know the famous photograph) and in Indiana.
So what are the downsides: the pacing is too slow, the editing certainly not perfect and the most important trap: Corbijn as photographer is too much in love with the story, finding details relevant that are actually not that relevant. The question keeps popping up: Why does this matter? Life fails in a way as a mood piece, but is still a relatively good and stable character drama as the deconstruction works well.
Maybe both Pattison and DeHaan are too light to pull this off more convincing, but one role is certainly amazing: Ben Kingsley as Jack Warner is so spot-on you will be remembering the character despite the limited screen time.
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.
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.
I just can't see Dean Dehaan as James Dean that's why I can't rate higher.
Not that this necessarily pertains to the period of interaction between Dean and a photographer, but Dean was a race car driver. He was heavily involved in that during that year. So he wasn't just a restless spirit laying around. He had a daredevil spirit and lots of races. He was portrayed here as a bored farm boy.
What I did like was showing how people get to know each other over time, and how life is actually fairly boring even for a burgeoning star during the inactive hours of a week. Even James Dean has to eat, sleep, visit family, and sign paperwork.
But there was not much reason shown for anyone to find Dean interesting. Even the photographer, who was initially captivated by some indescribable quality, scolded him for being a whiny self-interested nobody.
Having said that, and having read comments from Dean fans, I am willing to believe that the real Dean had charisma and a face that expressed pain and depth.
I liked the farm sequence. It showed you that Dean wasn't really a rebel, because he loved his family, his home town, and America. Everyone comes from somewhere. He's from a sleepy small town in the Midwest and his mother died when he was young. That should explain his sleepy demeanor tinged with sadness.
The nudity was great, because that girl was beautiful. But it was totally gratuitous. There is absolutely no reason to show boobs when two people are talking in bed.
You do get a sense that the country is on the brink of a new vibe, with the balance of old and new in the culture., and our characters' comfort in hanging out with black folks.
Look, there's not much to this story, but it is mildly interesting to see the life of a struggling early Hollywood photographer, and a fresh star. Plus I always enjoy depictions of male bonding, with all their ups and downs.
Unless those things interest you, avoid it. Because like life itself, this thing is dull.
But there was not much reason shown for anyone to find Dean interesting. Even the photographer, who was initially captivated by some indescribable quality, scolded him for being a whiny self-interested nobody.
Having said that, and having read comments from Dean fans, I am willing to believe that the real Dean had charisma and a face that expressed pain and depth.
I liked the farm sequence. It showed you that Dean wasn't really a rebel, because he loved his family, his home town, and America. Everyone comes from somewhere. He's from a sleepy small town in the Midwest and his mother died when he was young. That should explain his sleepy demeanor tinged with sadness.
The nudity was great, because that girl was beautiful. But it was totally gratuitous. There is absolutely no reason to show boobs when two people are talking in bed.
You do get a sense that the country is on the brink of a new vibe, with the balance of old and new in the culture., and our characters' comfort in hanging out with black folks.
Look, there's not much to this story, but it is mildly interesting to see the life of a struggling early Hollywood photographer, and a fresh star. Plus I always enjoy depictions of male bonding, with all their ups and downs.
Unless those things interest you, avoid it. Because like life itself, this thing is dull.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaJames Dean's article written for LIFE Magazine was not very popular at the time when it was first released.
- GoofsPay phones in 1955 did not have metal cords or the receivers shown in the film.
- Quotes
James Dean: One more orgasm behind you and one step closer to death.
- How long is Life?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- 叛逆年代
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $12,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $1,231,606
- Runtime1 hour 51 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content