This movie is so bad, it makes Reefer Madness look like Citizen Kane.
It was probably directed my some member of the primate family but it's hard to tell.
Shot in two days? Totally believable.
The redeeming feature is the music.
Anything that features Chuck Berry, Cochran, Valens, etc. is worth watching, no matter how cheesy they look.
How did you see it? I want to for Chuck Berry alone.
R.I.P. Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett
It is on TCM once in a while. It was just on. There is another old rock and roll movie on now with ... get this... Julius Larosa. But there are other teenage singers on too.
Don't know if CB is in this one though. I had a bunch of his 45's.
Brad...Whatcha gonna do? What are you gonna do?
BTW one of the premiers was in my hometown and Jimmy Clanton was there. I was a young kid and I thought it was so cool.
There are so many bad things about the film, chief among them is the terribly static shots where the camera is locked down showing the singing artist from one angle, one wide shot, and the editing was very conservative, where there would be shots of the artist on stage followed by those in the audience, and repeat. It's clear they were not on stage, and in a few cases, not performing in front of an audience at all. Even the night club scenes felt very weird. Ritchie Valens was never with Alan Freed, and more than likely filmed his number on another day, maybe another set for all we know. Another glaringly odd thing to see was the make-up plastered on poor Chuck Berry which made him look deathly pale, if such a thing were possible. It's as though they wanted his beautiful dark complexion equalized with the white actors so they would not look alabaster white. It looks ridiculous! And the screenplay was silly beyond belief!
shareSomeday, maybe, they will make a movie with '50's music in it with the sound in sync! Maybe. I'm not holding my breath. I love '50's music. But watching out of sync video is painful to my brain.
share