Studio 54 misrepresented in bad film...

Rating: Null/10 (5 March 1999)

FIFTY-FOUR does not know whether it wants to capture the late 70's, the impact the club had on it, Steve Rubell, or the lives of the fictional characters, who are about as memorable as most people's memory of 54 parties. They rarely have any. It does not focus on any of the latter, but instead, tries to wrap it it all into a cohesive whole. No go. This is a very ambitious undertaking by the filmmakers, but it seems like they could not or would not let loose. How can you really recreate Studio 54 unless you shoot inside the actual club ? (it still stands in New York) I also feel that Miramax was afraid of backlash and box-office so they set strict productional values. No real big stars, and, most importantly, no representatives of the world famous celebrities who attended 54 on a steady basis.
We do see some of the obvious in and outs of the club, like the drug-swapping at the bars, and the guidelines for getting in at the infamous velvet ropes that kept so many people out. We never get a real sense that we are back in that period. I would recommend seeing the current documentaries on the club being shown on cable TV. The film is so short, the documentaries are longer and much more entertaining.
Mike Myers gives a half-decent performance, but never-mind the fact that Steve Rubell's partner in the club is nowhere to be found. And the director makes a half-hearted stab at taking us into the highly private "basement" where all the stars hung out. Myers' lines seem forced and I'm sure people who were close to the real Rubell were gnawing their teeth. What could've been an important statement about the me-decade and its excesses is wasted. Instead, we get a Tony Manero-type story the viewer could really care less about.