fiction or fact? i dunno, i just dunno

Rating: 5/10 (13 September 2003)

I'm pretty much half and half on this movie. While I did enjoy it to some extent, it wasn't because it's a good movie (which it isn't). I enjoyed it because it reminded me of my teenage years, though I was a teenager in the 90's, I was into 'glam' via Suede and the Manics, though obviously in no way as extreme as people were in the 70's. I also enjoyed the films visual flair, its bright chirpiness-it's a rare thing for Britain to be represented in this way, I guess only an American could do it. And it kinda passed by quickly with no boring parts. It's very similar to, but not as good as, Almost Famous. What I didn't like about this film is that I didn't give two hoots about any of the characters. It was also too 'in-yer-face' at times and some subtlety would have been nice. And I'm not sure if Ewan Mcgregor acted really badly in this or if his lines were so crap he didn't have much choice. Bale does a good job though. I think the film fails most of all by not knowing what it wants to be, fiction or fact. while the characters and some situations are obviously based on Bowie/Pop, the rest of the film is quite extreme in it's fictionalisation and this doesn't do it any favours. This means the film has no target audience - Anyone that lived in the 70's might want to watch it to be 'taken back' and to reminisce, but will be (and have been) disappointed by it's lack of factual foundation. Anyone not from the 70's might have an interest in watching it if they are a fan of 70's glam, and would like to see a film that represents those times (kinda like how The Doors film chronicles 'The Doors') but again, the fact that the facts are obscured, and that this really isn't a masterpiece, means there's no real point in watching it.