Film Review: "Jersey Boys"---

[EasyAce]

OP.... fan boy much? It is a movie and not a documentary. Get over it.

Fan, not fanboi. Confession: The Four Seasons lost me with those mid-70s hits they had. Not even close to the standard they set in the 1960s. And, sorry, but history and facts have their rightful claims even in making a dramatisation of a true story. If I'd seen a film about, say, Kiss, that bowdlerised their story likewise, I'd have written just as critical a review of it.

They were okay in their time, but were eclipsed a thousandfold by the Beatles and many other groups of the late 60s. I would know as I was around during that timeframe.

So they weren't the Beatles? Who were?

They may have been eclipsed in record sales (you might care to note that, pre-Beatlemania, only the Beach Boys sold as many records, roughly speaking, as the Four Seasons), and they certainly didn't display many of the artistic ambitions the Beatles (and the Beach Boys, for awhile) came to display and execute, but the Four Seasons' music of the 1960s stands the test of time far better than a lot of the many other performers of the 60s who actually did out-sell them for various periods even if those performers, too, couldn't equal the Beatles' standard. The Four Seasons weren't anything close to flawless, and God only knows how much bloody filler went into most of their albums, but their best music does hold up.

 

[EasyAce]

Not to be a dick, but Who TFAreU to tell me what kind of music I like/liked/will like in the future?

Not to be a dick, but saying its your loss not liking it isn't even close to the same thing as saying you'll like it or else, you miserable pudknocker!

 

[EasyAce]

Wow that was a long ass post/review! Just saying it sucked would have sufficed .

And then I'd have had to write a few hundred (if not thousand) words justifying that simple expression.

 

[Bluesky]

=EasyAce;6255126]Fan, not fanboi. Confession: The Four Seasons lost me with those mid-70s hits they had. Not even close to the standard they set in the 1960s. And, sorry, but history and facts have their rightful claims even in making a dramatisation of a true story. If I'd seen a film about, say, Kiss, that bowdlerised their story likewise, I'd have written just as critical a review of it.

A movie is designed to get emotion out of the people watching it. The whole thing with Frankie singing to his daughter and the depression thing was designed to get emotion from the viewer. The facts were just represented out of Timeline for dramatic effect. Its a Liberty that filmmakers enjoy. Relax.

 

[cmerch]

Wasn't this movie directed by that old senile guy who talks to empty chairs? Talented guy like 30 years ago… time to ride off into the sunset Josie.

 

[76 ibanez 2619]

What a shame, I would have expected more from Clint but all the reviews sound/read like this one.

 

[EasyAce]

The facts were just represented out of Timeline for dramatic effect.

You'd think a movie with a $40 million budget could afford a spell of research to get the timeline facts right, a spell that wouldn't even require half a day's work if that much.

On the other hand, Jersey Boys isn't the first film to be that licentious with facts and timelines and, alas, it probably won't be the last. Handed the kind of story they were handed to make Jersey Boys, I can't help thinking of Sonny Barger's remark to Hunter Thompson when Thompson was hanging with Hell's Angels to write his famous book: "All that bullshit, hell, ain't the truth bad enough for 'em?"

 

[Frettter]

My wife and I went to see this movie last weekend. We liked it, thought it was very entertaining. Without dissecting it for accuracy or checking the facts as did the OP (great review) I did enjoy watching. I thought it did roughly tell the story of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. In order to be completely accurate and tell the whole story from all angles, it would have been a 3 day film.

Hey it was a music/mob story! What more could you want? Fuhget about it!

 

[Bluesky]

You'd think a movie with a $40 million budget could afford a spell of research to get the timeline facts right, a spell that wouldn't even require half a day's work if that much.

On the other hand, Jersey Boys isn't the first film to be that licentious with facts and timelines and, alas, it probably won't be the last. Handed the kind of story they were handed to make Jersey Boys, I can't help thinking of Sonny Barger's remark to Hunter Thompson when Thompson was hanging with Hell's Angels to write his famous book: "All that bullshit, hell, ain't the truth bad enough for 'em?"

Wasn't about the "timeline" ever. If Hollywood stuck to timelines we wouldn't have much dramatic "anything.". I know of Frankie and his music, but I never knew the story behind it. I never knew he had two daughters that died. And I never knew about Tommy . That was conveyed in a entertaining way to the masses. Whats the big deal that some of the info presented was 5 yrs ahead or less? Your hangup on facts is actually kinda weird...........All of it true , just presented in a way to present a better movie and slant it to get a reaction . The press does it all the Time as well.

Just saying...........

 

[Scooter2112]

Damn!! That review was actually longer than the movie..

Props for tenacity.

 

[Barcham]

Wasn't about the "timeline" ever. If Hollywood stuck to timelines we wouldn't have much dramatic "anything.". I know of Frankie and his music, but I never knew the story behind it. I never knew he had two daughters that died. And I never knew about Tommy . That was conveyed in a entertaining way to the masses. Whats the big deal that some of the info presented was 5 yrs ahead or less? Your hangup on facts is actually kinda weird...........All of it true , just presented in a way to present a better movie and slant it to get a reaction . The press does it all the Time as well.

Just saying...........

Just think how much more interesting we could make the history books if we changed them to fit what we thought would go over better to the reader?

 

[EasyAce]

In order to be completely accurate and tell the whole story from all angles, it would have been a 3 day film.

Not necessarily. Considering the music that was omitted from the main body of the film---I mentioned some of it in the review, but there could also have been room for the like of "Bye, Bye, Baby (Baby Goodbye)," "Opus 17," "Tell It to the Rain," "C'mon Marianne" (in which they sort-of resurrected the classic Bo Diddley beat a year before the Who took a crack at it with "Magic Bus"), "Living Just for You" (a track on Working My Way Back to You that harked back to their partial doo-wop root and was the only song known to have been written by Nick Massi), or "And That Reminds Me" (the last chart single from the quartet-era Seasons, 1970) among others---and the need for getting the timelines right, it probably could have turned out a film short of three hours. As it is, it's about two hours in its current form.

Hey it was a music/mob story! What more could you want? Fuhget about it!

And that reminds me (no pun intended)---I've picked up on speculation that Tommy James's memoir, Me and the Mob and the Music, which speaks quite extensively on the mobbed-up Morris Levy who ruled Roulette Records (James's label), may be turned into a film. I read the book and it's quite a fascinating read. (Among other things: one of the paradoxes of Morris Levy's strong-arming style was that he actually gave Tommy James and the Shondells all the creative freedom they could have wanted in the studio.) Perhaps it could work as a movie so long as it doesn't get into Clint Eastwood's hands . . .

 

[EasyAce]

Wasn't about the "timeline" ever. If Hollywood stuck to timelines we wouldn't have much dramatic "anything."

Horseshit, the man said.

I know of Frankie and his music, but I never knew the story behind it. I never knew he had two daughters that died. And I never knew about Tommy.

If I'm not mistaken, the true story of how Tommy DeVito was forced out of the Four Seasons came out about a decade before Jersey Boys was in the planning stage as a stage musical.

Your hangup on facts is actually kinda weird...........

Oh. Asking that the facts be presented properly (never mind that it is possible to do so entertainingly or artistically, it takes a little something called effort) is a "hangup," and a "kinda weird" hangup at that.

You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen.

All of it true , just presented in a way to present a better movie and slant it to get a reaction. The press does it all the time as well.

And who says the press is any more right than the Hollywood bowdlerisers when they do it?

 

[Kashmir]

I can't imagine anyone not understanding how important it is to not distort the facts in a documentation about a man and a band that actually existed. Why change what is there to be known and falsify the past with untruths? It's the difference between a story being fiction or non-fiction.

 

[Barcham]

I fail to see how putting events in the correct order takes more time than having the exact same events portrayed in the wrong order. If anything, it should take less time as things would flow more naturally into each other than they would by having to figure out how to connect things in the wrong order.

 

[LtDave32]

Your hangup on facts is actually kinda weird...........

I don't think so.

He has a keen interest on the subject. Many have a similar intensity of interests on bands like the Beatles or the Stones. I have a high intensity of interest in 60's bands as well. It was an era and an industry, and a culture, that was changing rapidly. I find the backstory on a lot of groups fascinating.

 

[KP]

Just think how much more interesting we could make the history books if we changed them to fit what we thought would go over better to the reader?

Depending on who writes the books, that has happened multiple times.

 

[LtDave32]

OP.... fan boy much? It is a movie and not a documentary. Get over it. They were okay in their time, but were eclipsed a thousandfold by the Beatles and many other groups of the late 60s. I would know as I was around during that timeframe.

Cantankerous much?

At least it's about music, or rather a film about a music group. If you don't care for it, check out the SH thread. It's my understanding that he's just washed the dishes. Riveting, I assure you.

 

[LtDave32]

Ace, kudos on your original post. I learned a lot about the band that I didn't know.

As far as Tommy James, that would be a story I'd like to see turned into a film as well. That guy had been buzzing around the music industry for years.

It's my understanding that his hit "Hanky Panky" was actually recorded in 1963, but not released until 1965. ..odd.

 

[KP]

Cantankerous much?

At least it's about music, or rather a film about a music group. If you don't care for it, check out the SH thread. It's my understanding that he's just washed the dishes. Riveting, I assure you.

Cantankerous? No. The "review" just seemed to be very contentious and obsessive. Hence, my remarks. Simple really. It also appears that he has something against Clint. YMMV