FifteenOcelots
Joined Dec 2022
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4
FifteenOcelots's rating
My partner and I lost interest and turned this movie off before it ended.
Part of it was that this movie mostly concentrated on non-race training and then pit stops during the race. Unlike the superior "The Race That Eats It's Young" documentary, this movie didn't show any scenes of actually transversing the B. M. course, which one could say is the heart of what the movie is about.
Also, we found ourselves not caring about Gary Robbins, or seeing him as any sort hero worth investing ourselves in. He barked at his wife and crew in an off putting way, often seemed puffed up, and generally seemed inauthentic. He seemed like an accomplished athlete, but not an accomplished human.
Part of it was that this movie mostly concentrated on non-race training and then pit stops during the race. Unlike the superior "The Race That Eats It's Young" documentary, this movie didn't show any scenes of actually transversing the B. M. course, which one could say is the heart of what the movie is about.
Also, we found ourselves not caring about Gary Robbins, or seeing him as any sort hero worth investing ourselves in. He barked at his wife and crew in an off putting way, often seemed puffed up, and generally seemed inauthentic. He seemed like an accomplished athlete, but not an accomplished human.
This movie seemed to me less an attempt to represent the life of David Bowie, and more like the filmmaker wanting to make a statement. It presenting Bowie's career as - and was edited in a way that was - disorienting, transgressive, unfixed, trippy, and random. As others have said, the visual assault / sensory overload / irrational jumble aspect of the movie was difficult to take.
Bowie's career was so deep, rich, and full of output that one could have chosen any one of a hundred themes or textures to make a movie about it. But it also seemed to me that Bowie could be a pretty down to earth and coherent guy at least as often as he could be random.
I was glad that the movie focused on Bowie's philosophical side and his theories of aesthetics and creativity, since I think that that is one of the most interesting things about him. I think though that any movie about him that never touches on his songwriting, musical arrangements, and musical collaborations misses the biggest boat. His theories of performance - specially, integrating different styles of theater into rock concerts - is fascinating too.
It seemed that the movie only briefly touched on the first six or last thirty years of Bowie's career, focusing instead on 1973-1983. It would make sense that a movie would lose interest around the time the public masses lost interest, and also Bowie in the seventies may have set a record for how much vitality and aliveness a human has ever packed into a decade. But for a movie whose thesis seems to be that the man lived in a completely random and unfixed way, it seems dishonest to not include the years in which he had matured and lived in a more settled down way.
Bowie's career was so deep, rich, and full of output that one could have chosen any one of a hundred themes or textures to make a movie about it. But it also seemed to me that Bowie could be a pretty down to earth and coherent guy at least as often as he could be random.
I was glad that the movie focused on Bowie's philosophical side and his theories of aesthetics and creativity, since I think that that is one of the most interesting things about him. I think though that any movie about him that never touches on his songwriting, musical arrangements, and musical collaborations misses the biggest boat. His theories of performance - specially, integrating different styles of theater into rock concerts - is fascinating too.
It seemed that the movie only briefly touched on the first six or last thirty years of Bowie's career, focusing instead on 1973-1983. It would make sense that a movie would lose interest around the time the public masses lost interest, and also Bowie in the seventies may have set a record for how much vitality and aliveness a human has ever packed into a decade. But for a movie whose thesis seems to be that the man lived in a completely random and unfixed way, it seems dishonest to not include the years in which he had matured and lived in a more settled down way.