The Velvet Underground Movie Review -Choose Your Own Adventure For Nostalgists-

The Velvet Underground Movie Review: A Choose Your Own Adventure For The Nostalgists

There’s a classic Velvets album that is near and dear to many rockers and musical music aficionados. It’s easy to see why, as their music is a collection of dreams and artistic sounds that hit the zeitgeist in 1969. They sang of love and alienation with such beauty and conviction. They were a band for change.

Their film The Velvet Underground has taken on a life of its own over the past couple of years, as a tribute to the group, the legacy that they left behind, and the power and importance of rock n’ roll in our society.

The following article contains spoilers about the movie.

Since the 1990s, their story has been made into a movie and a play and yet another band of indie filmmakers have decided to tell it. Along with James Franco, in the title role as Lou Reed, comes John C. Reilly as Andy Warhol and Cameron Crowe as their manager Albert Grossman, who was a force to be reckoned with in his own right.

This is a good attempt, but only because this is what it is – a movie – not a novel. However, the creators don’t appear to have considered all the elements necessary to properly tell this story. Their film struggles to find a rhythm in its storytelling because it’s so concerned with titling itself and being clever. Thus, the rest of the film is a constant battle to find its footing and appeal to an audience.

The film is played out on the nostalgia trail, where it seems to be wanting to tell its story while simultaneously visiting the various places where Lou Reed and Andy Warhol lived and worked. While this might be a good idea for someone with a bit more knowledge, it’s been done too many times in films to be effective. Lou Reed and Andy Warhol were not defined by their work, but the things that came along with it, so a lot of the story is lost.

The film is too concerned with the songs, and the famous lines and things that each of the men sang, so there’s a disconnect in the drama. Their actual story was a lot less narrative than what the film presents. And while the friendship between Lou Reed and John C. Reilly is cute and the chemistry between them is nice, it isn’t enough to carry the film. They’re not enough to carry the film.

You can’t play the music. You have to play the story.

David Rabinowitz

However, if you are someone who was drawn to the group, either by their music or by their personalities, this is a must-see film. The film is entertaining and original. If nothing else, it’s an exciting look at the best rock n’ roll band ever made. However, if you’re a Velvets diehard, you might be disappointed by the film.

Overall, the film is highly entertaining but is marred by a lack of attention to the details of the story, particularly in Lou Reed’s story.

In short, you have to have some sort of affinity for the Velvets to enjoy the film. If you are a fan of Lou Reed and the band, you will be more than satisfied with the film. It is fun and has a good story. However, if you were never a Velvets fan or a fan of any other music genre, this may not be for you.

The film is not a bad movie, it’s just not an experience worth having. For people who were, and still are, a part of that underground community, this film is a tale of a band that simply changed our lives. You are obligated to watch it.

3.5/5