normally a fan of eastwood, but the story is lame and disjointed, the acting is sub par, the musical numbers are a major disappointment ( the frankie valli voice is horrid)
just nothing of value ing this production, except maybe the street dance over the credits
I actually enjoyed it but I sort of see what you are saying. It was a little "plain" almost like a tv movie. I was surprised at the end to see Eastwood directed. It didn't seem like his kind of movie. He wasn't first choice to direct, maybe this wasn't his cup of tea.
shareClint Eastwood LOVES music, witness his films Bird and Honkey-Tonk Man, wherein he covered Jazz and Country. This was his Pop movie, a cinematic version of a Broadway show. Was it his best work? No. Was the subject matter difficult? Yes, keeping in mind that The Four Seasons (aided by a lot of “encouragement” from interests in organized crime) were HUGE, and their story was known to a great many fans. My goodness, look at the controversy surrounding the recent movie about Queen: not enough about their sociopolitical effect, they don’t sound like the real band, the movie is great, the movie should be about their music and performances and not about their personal lives, and so on. You can’t make a movie about a cultural phenomenon and make EVERYBODY happy. I will take a mediocre Clint movie, warts and all, over 85 percent of the comic book, frat-boy humor and horror sludge seeping out of Hollywood these days. I liked this film.
shareCouldn't make it past an hour on this.
shareI liked it for the most part. The vocal performances were a bit weak but it's so hard reproducing such a unique and iconic voice that I can't fault the film too much.
shareI liked the movie, but I was going in fresh
shareI liked it. I like that they used their real voices instead of dubbing. It would have been challenging to cast someone with Frankie Valli's three-octave voice. It made sense why Eastwood cast the guy who had played Valli for 1,200 performances -- as Eastwood stated, "How much better could you know a character?"
It wasn't a super flashy film. No explosions, no Hollywood glitz, no special effects. Just a simple story about some guys from Jersey, and I was fine with the way it was told.
This was Clint's directorial debut in a musical, but he had sung in "Paint Your Wagon" and "Kelly's Heroes" and directed music-driven movies like "Honkytonk Man," "Bird," and others. I don't think he wanted the voices too perfect.
I haven't seen the film, but the show on Broadway was amazing. What the Broadway show had was the excitement of a live singing group backed up with a real orchestra/band, something that just doesn't come across in a film.
Musicals are always better live because of the live performances. Maybe with the film they should have tarted up the story with some exaggerated drama to better suit movie goers.
the acting is sub par, the musical numbers are a major disappointment ( the frankie valli voice is horrid)
I'm glad someone else feels this way, thought it was just me. I'm a big fan of Valli & the Four Seasons but this was turgid. The guy playing Valli had a dreadful voice, when Valli hit those high notes it sounded heavenly, when this guy did it it sounded like a cat with his balls caught in a trouser press. It would have been infinitely better if he'd just mimed over the original vocals. That said the story was underwhelming, some of the acting made me cringe and they could have cut a good 45 minutes out of the film, it was way too long.