Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

laurajacksonnn It may be because they made Curt so similar to David Bowie, but the overall way the movie was done makes it seem so real. It literally had me searching for Venus in Furs like it was a real band (and then extremely sad that it wasn't). Other than that, if you enjoy movies about the rise and fall of rock stars (real or fake), this film is for you. Watch it even if you don't listen to Glam rock or David Bowie or any other pop culture thing related to this film, the movie in its own right is just that satisfying.As far as finding the music by Venus In Furs, you can find it on the Velvet Goldmine Soundtrack.

Mike Kiker This movie is just a mess. The plot and overall point of the entire film is just all over place. That being said, I thought the actors tried their best, the main problem there being Ewan MacGregor's attempt at an American accent being completely unconvincing. Some people have faulted Toni Collette's performance for the same thing, but if she's basing her character on Angie Bowie or Jerry Hall, both Americans who were well known for putting on an English affectation, then she was right on the money. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Christian Bale were both great in their roles, despite the lackluster writing, but as long as the movie is (just under 2 hours), I still feel like Brian Slade's character arc was a tad unresolved.I liked the re-appropriation of Brian Eno, Iggy Pop, T-Rex, New York Dolls & Roxy Music songs in the film. However, the original songs aren't great, probably because any observant David Bowie fan could tell that they really wanted to use his songs for those particular scenes, and the story goes that Bowie outright rejected the use of his songs for the movie, because he didn't like the script. Frankly, I don't blame him. The writing and the direction are the movie's biggest faults. The costuming and look of the film were a mixed bag, some parts great, some not. Overall, I was unconvinced that I was watching anything that remotely resembled anything that could have come out in the 70's, mostly when it came to the live performances or the "promo video" sections.From what I've read, it's a pretty polarizing movie, but I think I'm in the vast minority, because I really didn't love it or hate it. The flaws of the film keep it from being great, and the things the movie gets right keep it from being horrible. Overall, it was just eh. I do think there could be a better movie made at some point about the glam rock era, but this isn't it.

Reina Del Rastro A presumptuous movie that hasn't grown old well. It could have been more bold or daring, but it is just sentimental and nostalgic in a strange way: I got the impression that the movie doesn't fully respect it's characters or their actions, which is not a problem if it creates a feeling of objective distance, but such detachment is broken by the sentimentalism: should we miss glam rock or laugh at it? The movie is about glam rock as a musical and a social movement, as an attitude, but the general tone is closer to an elegy than to a defense without actually being neither.I liked the movie, though, specially Ewan McGregor and the performances by bands highly influenced by glam rock.

patrick powell This is the second review I've written, but it won't differ essentially from what I wrote in the first, which was that Velvet Goldmine seems to me more a film for gays and something of a gay manifesto more than anything else. That is not to criticise the film particularly or to denigrate it, just to suggest that in many ways I suspect homosexual men (and perhaps women) will gain more from it than heterosexuals. And I suspect what one takes from the film will, in general, be very different depending upon one's sexual orientation. Although it was made in 1998, by which time the situation gay men and women in the Western world was somewhat easier than it had been ever before (I gather it's still pretty dire in Africa and other parts of the world), Velvet Goldmine strikes me as being a document of gay liberation presented in a manner which likes to see itself as rebellious. Perhaps that has to do with the age of the film's writer/director Todd Haynes, who has made gay proselytising his life's mission and who will have grown up when being gay was not as easy as it might be today. I am not gay, which under the circumstances, is relevant, so I think that should be taken into account in the following comments. It is difficult what to make of the film. It has been said that the central character, Brian Slade, and his career were based on David Bowie in his various incarnations, and Haynes makes a good fist of evoking the whole early Seventies glam rock scene when sexual ambiguity became for some just another fashion and a release for others. And if it is based on Bowie, who had several different pop personae just as Brian Slade had Maxwell Demon, the appearance right at the start of the film and then later on of a 'spaceship' at least has context, however spurious. But over and above that, that spaceship makes no sense and in many ways demonstrates what doesn't really work in Velvet Goldmine. There is a cryptic reference to Oscar Wilde (who was not a foundling as is suggested by the film) and some of his poetry, and some play is made of a sapphire tie pin (or something) which is said once to have belonged to Wilde and is then passed from gay character to gay character as some kind of talisman. All of this is, at worst, pretentious and, at best (which I think is a little more the case), merely rather muddled. And muddle seems to sum up Velvet Goldmine. It is patently not a fictionalised bio pic of Bowie and it is patently not just an account of the 'glam rock years'. For many minutes, interminably long minutes for this non-gay viewer, it is almost akin to gay soft porn, great for gays, I suppose, not so interesting for non-gays. For Haynes those scenes are, presumably, important for the film he is making, but in the overall arc they drag a rather. There is rather less cohesion than one would like, and, it has to be said, whether or not this is a specific gay film or even one primarily intended for a gay audience, Haynes is obliged to make a film which is, at some level, accessible to all. My problem is that there is quite a lot about Velvet Goldmine which isn't half bad, especially the performances by Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Ewan McGregor (as a gay Iggy Pop type of character), Toni Collette, Eddie Izzard and Christian Bale. The pastiche glam rock songs are generally as good as the real thing, the era is evoked very well, and for stretches Velvet Goldmine is very entertaining. I should imagine it would be enjoyed especially by young lads who know they are gay but are battling with how to come out (my brother was one such, and as I love and like him a great deal, and my heart goes out to others like him who found and find themselves in that situation). In the Christian Bale character they will have a good role model. But on another level Velvet Goldmine is a confused mess, neither fish nor fowl, a film which meanders a great deal and doesn't quite make up it's mind what it is. On balance, however, I would recommend that it is worth watching, whether you are gay or straight, but don't necessarily expect to understand what the bloody hell is going on.