Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

marknjulie-73088 The summary is already told in other entries on this site. I just love these two movies.Some people are so critical. I don't get them. These two movies had great acting, great music, and a compelling story line. I've watched them both about 50 times!!! (I am a 67 year old female musician). My friends have watched these two movies and all love them, too!!! It captures a time that I can relate to, but it's for people of any age whole just like movies about musicians.I agree with Michael Pare's own analysis when he said this movie made him a movie actor.He has been in tons of B- movies and some television an after "The Cruisers" and apparently he always has work, so his style of acting obviously is in demand !!!!! He is not a big name star, but there is somethingvery intriguing about him. As Eddy Wilson, he was totally believable. Of course I developed aa crush on him with those beautiful blue eyes and sweet smile. But he played the lead singer part with perfection. I thought the lip-syncing was great. I don't understand how critical people can be about a movie like this!!! i am so glad they made this movie and I hope it continues to make money through the decades. It deserves a prominent place in the archives of movies about musicians.

SnoopyStyle TV reporter Maggie Foley (Ellen Barkin) want to find an infamous '60s rock band whose leader Eddie Wilson (Michael Paré) was presumed dead. Recent events indicate that he might still be alive. We follow old band mate Frank Ridgeway (Tom Berenger) as he tracks down old colleagues such as played by Joe Pantoliano.The structure of this film is where most of the interesting stuff is told in flashbacks. I wish that they did not keep going back and forth in time. And the final reveal wasn't quite satisfying. The best thing about this movie is the music and more specifically one song. It has immense energy. In fact, it infuses it into the movie itself which does get slow when it is in present day mode.

mkotler SPOILER ALERT I don't understand all the 10-star ratings. The movie is OK but the problem I have is with the music. First of all, Eddie is still stuck in the '50s, with his tough guy look, cut-off t-shirt, and music. The big problem I have is that the music from the 2nd (unreleased) album is so '80s! How do you make this story believable when it purports how ahead of his time Eddie was, going from horn-based frat rock to something considered "weird sounds" and progressive for the time. No way, I don't buy it. The writers of this film should have made that supposed transition of his music (they called it being "ahead of his time") something harder but still with a 60s mindset, lyrically and musically. Wow, what a stretch, Eddie has an 80s sound! The movie really portrays Eddie as a one-hit wonder, with that annoying "On The Dark Side" constantly popping up every 30 minutes or so. Lastly, the unreleased album was called "Seasons in Hell"? Come on, that is no 60s title! What's next, Eddie has long hair and bell bottoms too because "he was ahead of his time?" Why is everyone worshipping this one-hit wonder? They could have made these aspect of the movie a bit more believable.

Mike Kiker This movie is just kinda average. Not too bad, not great either. It's a compelling story, but it goes in 100 different directions: Eddie and the keyboard player in-fighting, the sax player dying of a heroin overdose, the sexual tension between Eddie and his girlfriend, etc.But that really isn't my major problem with this film. Coming from a purely music production standpoint, the filmmaker's were absolutely lazy! It's supposed to take place 1963, yet the music CLEARLY sounds like it was recorded in 1980's. Take a listen to some actual music released in 1963, (some fine examples: The Beach Boys, The Beatles, any Motown or Stax records, or since this movie is about a New Jersey band, The Four Seasons). You would notice that those recordings sound very raw compared to the supposed "music of 1963" they flaunt in this movie.I don't mean to nitpick, but there are some other films about musicians, to some degree, that at least tried to better represent the "sound" of the period that they're representing. "Almost Famous", "Still Crazy", "This Is Spinal Tap" are just a few examples of period pieces that actually do get it right when it came to making original music that actually sounds like that it could've been made in the late 60's to early 70's (depending on which movie you're watching). They could've at least had John Cafferty & The Beaver Brown Band record their songs with 1963 technology with 1963 instruments, most of which was still readily available at the time, or at least tried to get a sound on 1983 technology that could recreate how a record made in 1963 would've sounded. It really wouldn't have been difficult.It's absolutely appalling that the filmmaker's didn't even try. Besides the soundtrack, the sets and settings weren't done very well either. I guess they didn't have the budget to be authentic. They just threw some music together, not caring about if it's right, threw a guy into a leather jacket and slicked his hair back, and called it a movie about 1963.