Thoughts on the 'Fame' remake

September 24, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

One of the refreshing elements in the remake/rethinking of "Fame" (which IBJ ticket winners sneak previewed on Sept. 23) is that success doesn't come to everyone who dreams. Even those who work hard don't always get the payoff.

I won't reveal any of the film's minor surprises, but I will say that it exceeded my expectations, despite losing some of its energy and interest in the last quarter. The film makes a rare case to its core teen audience that a career in the performing arts is serious business.

I was impressed that the film spent so much time on the school auditions (even though the sequence contained failed efforts at cheap laughs) and appreciated the smart nods throughout to the previous film (including a key performance of "Out Here on My Own"). Well-played performances by the grown-ups, particulary Charles S. Dutton and Megan Mullally, and an overall sense of grubbiness helped keep this from seeming like a "High School Musical" cash-in.

So were you there? Your thoughts?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • JeremySeptember 24, 2009 1:29 PM
    Having never seen the original, I feel as though I was not biased towards it.

    I thought the movie did an excellent job showing the journey through highschool and ultimately the desire for FAME. The ups and downs in the movie made it more real. I hate nothing more than watching a movie that is happy, happy, happy. Overall the movie is good and I highly recommend it.

    P.S. I was highly amused by your daughter and her group of friends before the film! Ah, to be young :)
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT