Life (2015)

Greetings again from the darkness. The film's title has multiple meanings: "Life" Magazine as the source for the famous photographs we have seen so many times; the crossroads in "Life" of both rising star James Dean and photographer Dennis Stock; and a philosophical look at "Life" - how quickly things can change, and how we should appreciate the moments.

Director Anton Corbijn (A Most Wanted Man, The American) and screenwriter Luke Davies offer up a snapshot of 1955 as the not-quite-yet-famous James Dean (Dane DeHaan) traveled cross-country with photographer Dennis Stock (Robert Pattinson) from Los Angeles to New York to Indiana. Each man was searching for their true self as Stock's professional ambition and personal stress are palpable, while 24 year old Dean's ambivalence about his pending superstardom borders on self-destructive.

DeHaan and Pattinson both underplay their roles, and it's certainly more than a little confusing to see Pattinson in a movie about James Dean where he is not the actor playing the icon. DeHaan captures the low key, soft-spoken side of Dean but only teases at the "rebel" studio head Jack Warner (Sir Ben Kingsley) wanted so badly to control. We get a feel for Dean's vision of challenging roles in quality productions Â… a commitment to the art of acting he no doubt sharpened in his time with acting guru Lee Strasberg. The story leans more heavily to the tale of photographer Stock, which is unfortunate, because he is significantly more awkward than interesting. Pattinson plays him as a social misfit who broods nearly as much as the "moody" young actor he is stalking through the streets.

The period look is well appointed, and we are privy to some of the moments of Dean's life just prior to the release of East of Eden and his being cast in Rebel Without a Cause. His relationship with Pier Angelli (Alessandra Mastronardi), friendship with Eartha Kitt (Kelly McCreary), and his bond to the family and farm of his childhood in Indiana are all captured. In fact, it's the clumsy relationship with Stock that comes across as the least realistic portion Â… though it may very well have happened this way. Even the manner in which the famous photographs were taken is underplayed Â… although it makes for a terrific tie-in with the closing credits where the real Stock/Life Magazine photographs are displayed.

It's now been 60 years that James Dean has exemplified Hollywood "cool", a label that can never be removed due to his tragic death in 1955 after making only three films. Capturing the essence of what made Dean cool is unnecessary because it's present in every scene of those three films, as well as the photographs taken by Dennis Stock. That's all the legacy either man needs.

Fmovies: Not that this necessarily pertains to the period of interaction between Dean and a photographer, but Dean was a race car driver. He was heavily involved in that during that year. So he wasn't just a restless spirit laying around. He had a daredevil spirit and lots of races. He was portrayed here as a bored farm boy. What I did like was showing how people get to know each other over time, and how life is actually fairly boring even for a burgeoning star during the inactive hours of a week. Even James Dean has to eat, sleep, visit family, and sign paperwork.

But there was not much reason shown for anyone to find Dean interesting. Even the photographer, who was initially captivated by some indescribable quality, scolded him for being a whiny self-interested nobody.

Having said that, and having read comments from Dean fans, I am willing to believe that the real Dean had charisma and a face that expressed pain and depth.

I liked the farm sequence. It showed you that Dean wasn't really a rebel, because he loved his family, his home town, and America. Everyone comes from somewhere. He's from a sleepy small town in the Midwest and his mother died when he was young. That should explain his sleepy demeanor tinged with sadness.

The nudity was great, because that girl was beautiful. But it was totally gratuitous. There is absolutely no reason to show boobs when two people are talking in bed.

You do get a sense that the country is on the brink of a new vibe, with the balance of old and new in the culture., and our characters' comfort in hanging out with black folks.

Look, there's not much to this story, but it is mildly interesting to see the life of a struggling early Hollywood photographer, and a fresh star. Plus I always enjoy depictions of male bonding, with all their ups and downs.

Unless those things interest you, avoid it. Because like life itself, this thing is dull.

James Dean does not look like James Dean - more like Leonardo di Caprio in What's eating Gilbert Grape.

Robert Pattinson's acting skills were not up to the task either - the photographer did not come alive in this movie.

I found it very hard to build any empathy for any of the persons on the screen. The only interesting scene is the Ben Kingsley scene.

There is no action - at all. At the same time, the movie takes itself extremely serious - pretentious is what I would say. Melodramatic Jazz instrumentals accompany boring monologues of the James Dean-not-look-alike.

I walked out after an hour, stumbled on this in a sneak - definitely not amusing. Maybe only for die-hard James Dean fans, if you can tolerate the miscast main character. Or if you are a fan of the "iconic" James Dean shots (which I am not - hype is not my thing.)

Life fmovies. The problem with this movie is that neither DeHaan, nor Pattinson hold the attention of the audience. The script is nondescript, and the directing cannot make up for the lack of a compelling story and characterization.

DeHaan looks like a childish version of Dean with his unlined face, rounded cheeks, feathered, rubbable hair and those full, pink lips.

Dean was young, but had an old soul reflected in his lined face, sunken eyes, and impossibly attractive visage. Even James Franco -- much as I detest that actor -- was better than DeHaan. The story had no real climax... its twin journeys (of the co-protagonists) made shallow and dull via the absence of any real conflict or urgency of mission.

I'm sure Corbijn had good intentions.

I gave this one a four.

I wanted to like this movie, in fact I would have liked this movie but for one very important thing: To watch this portrayal of James Dean by someone with such little charisma and animal magnetism and sorry Dane Dehaan "sex appeal" play someone like James Dean was just painful to watch, and utterly disappointing. I am not saying he is not a fine actor - IN ANOTHER ROLE - but let's get real, James Dean would have never been THE James Dean had he not been swoon-worthy, on screen and off, and I'm sorry but that simply does not apply to Dane Dehaan, at least in this role. (I haven't seen him in anything else that I can recall so I can't say he isn't fine in another role.) Unbelievable and unrealistic that any studio or the masses would have been pursuing THIS James Dean. The movie had so much potential but this unfortunate casting choice for the single most important part in the film killed it for me.

"Life (2015)" is the fourth film directed by notorious Dutch photographer and director Anton Corbijn, in which we get a look into the life of James Dean. Corbijn proves to be an accomplished director since the release of his debut and gritty masterpiece "Control (2007)". A film that set the bar so high it became hard to satisfy his newly found fan-base. After his escapades with the thriller genre he returns to the genre he became known for, a biopic. And this time our favorite "Rebel" gets the "Corbijn- treatment", or so we hope.

As the title suggests the story revolves around Dennis Stock, a photographer for the magazine "Life", who gets the assignment to shoot rising and rebellious Hollywood actor James Dean, before the release of his first headlining film "East of Eden (1955)". A friendship develops between both gentleman and the pair travel to L.A., New York and Indiana to get those precious shots Stock is longing for.

DeHaan rather gives us his own interpretation of James Dean. The resemblance between portraying and portrayed actor is marginal. Stock on the other hand is portrayed by Pattison who gives a dull performance although the concept of his role feels dull on its own, something we can't blame Pattinson for directly. Stock's assignment and private life should feel like a struggle though this is poorly translated into the script.

Throughout the movie there are sparks of chemistry between both but in the end it's sad to see that this chemistry is absent for most of the film. It's because of these aspects this period drama sometimes feels like it's sleepwalking throughout its own story, which is a shame considering the fact that "Life" can be considered as almost a personal film for Corbijn. You might expect that a photographer making a film about photography would create something more lively than the overall boring "Life".

Maybe Corbijn made us spoiled little brats, we expect too much from the director that gave us "Control", while you can't blame an audience for expecting something more daring than "Life". James Dean was not only a fascinating character, he also possessed a complexity towards his sexual identity, something the film largely ignores. In conclusion there are some pleasing touches, such as the beautiful cinematography or a refreshing cameo by Ben Kingsley, but in the end this film becomes a frustrating experience for Corbijn fans.