Movie Reviews: "Fame" - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

JamesG · 09-26-2009, 04:13 AM

Movie Reviews: Fame

If audiences react the way critics have to the remake of the 1980 version of Fame, Leo the Lion will have to go back into hibernation at MGM.

The first movie to be released this year by the struggling studio is being pummeled in virtually every major review.

Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times comments that "the new Fame is a sad reflection of the new Hollywood, where material is sanitized and dumbed down for a hypothetical teen market that is way too sophisticated for it. It plays like a dinner theater version of the original."

Many of the critics observe that the movie looks more like a remake of High School Musical than the original movie.

Lou Lumenick in the New York Post suggests that it ought to have been titled "Lame" rather than "Fame" and describes it as "a desperate, cynical -- and most likely unsuccessful -- attempt by a dying studio to stave off oblivion by jumping on the High School Musical bandwagon, exploiting one of its legacy titles in ways that dishonor the original."

And Michael Sragow concludes in the Baltimore Sun: "The only unpredictable thing about this movie is the all-encompassing totality of its banality."

-IMDB News

waichingliu81 · 09-26-2009, 09:28 AM

so according to film goers and critics, fame is indeed LAME? i need to see this movie, although i was dreading the day this remake would come out. all the gritty realism and rawness of the original seems to have been replaced by disney- like, pappy cringworthy scenes of joy and living the life that one has always wanted. as i said in one of the other posts there is something about it that makes it so 'disney-fied'. that it may be related to the demographic this version was aimed at- the teens and kiddies, as opposed to the generation x-ers and y-ers like ourselves.

so far on IMDB, it has a user rating of 4.6 out of 10, which when you look at it is very poor.

09-26-2009, 04:13 AM	#1
JamesG Freakshow Moderator Forum Icon Join Date: Feb 01, 2008 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 57,127	Movie Reviews: "Fame" Movie Reviews: Fame If audiences react the way critics have to the remake of the 1980 version of Fame, Leo the Lion will have to go back into hibernation at MGM. The first movie to be released this year by the struggling studio is being pummeled in virtually every major review. Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times comments that "the new Fame is a sad reflection of the new Hollywood, where material is sanitized and dumbed down for a hypothetical teen market that is way too sophisticated for it. It plays like a dinner theater version of the original." Many of the critics observe that the movie looks more like a remake of High School Musical than the original movie. Lou Lumenick in the New York Post suggests that it ought to have been titled "Lame" rather than "Fame" and describes it as "a desperate, cynical -- and most likely unsuccessful -- attempt by a dying studio to stave off oblivion by jumping on the High School Musical bandwagon, exploiting one of its legacy titles in ways that dishonor the original." And Michael Sragow concludes in the Baltimore Sun: "The only unpredictable thing about this movie is the all-encompassing totality of its banality." -IMDB News

09-26-2009, 09:28 AM	#2
waichingliu81 debbie allen Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 28, 2006 Location: london, england, UK Posts: 4,347	so according to film goers and critics, fame is indeed LAME? i need to see this movie, although i was dreading the day this remake would come out. all the gritty realism and rawness of the original seems to have been replaced by disney- like, pappy cringworthy scenes of joy and living the life that one has always wanted. as i said in one of the other posts there is something about it that makes it so 'disney-fied'. that it may be related to the demographic this version was aimed at- the teens and kiddies, as opposed to the generation x-ers and y-ers like ourselves. so far on IMDB, it has a user rating of 4.6 out of 10, which when you look at it is very poor.