Where to start? Oh, yes. The 45rpm record was introduced by RCA in April 1949, yet we see them in a scene set in 1948. Chess records releasing in that format. In 1941, there is a 1949 Mercury. In 1948 a 1952 Ford. In 1952, a 1955 Cadillac. In 1955 we see someone perusing a 1958 Cadillac brochure, then proudly pulling up in a 1956 model. In a 1955 Chuck Berry concert, there are mid-60's Go-Go girls up on the stage, dancing alone as only 60's girls did. The now-common slang "sweet" was never uttered in the 1950s. Did the word "m----- f-----" exist as the most commonly used expression of African-American males back then? I doubt it. We see a scene of The Rolling Stones circa 1962 followed by a scene of Etta James recording her immortal "At Last"--which she did in 1961. The narrative is jumpy and disjointed, and I am reliably informed, inaccurate in many spots. But the music is great.

Many of (Beyoncé Knowles)'s crazy fans don't know that this movie of her does exist. "Why is that ?" has a lot to do with the movie itself.It's about a phase in the history of music. Back when the power of blues and rock 'n' roll was between the black hands. But while having a lot of drama, there wasn't much of psychoanalysis for its characters.Let's clear something up : There is a difference between a newscast on one side, and a movie on the other. In the first kind there is information, and at the second there is the explanation of it. One is about what, and the other is about why. Nevertheless, in this movie, the stars of singing along with their producers are presented as psychos, addicts, and loose adulterers, for no reasons. Otherwise, the rule is to be psycho, addict, and loose adulterer to work in the art business !!So, why not relating the bohemian life style with the privation of those characters ? Consequently living in excess may be the answer for a first living in indigence. Why nearly all of them lacked the stability or the desire to it ? Is it for hating their grandfathers for it, the same grandfathers who left their lives for the white man to control and humiliate ? The thing is this movie doesn't explain or even try to !So with the exception of (Etta James), all the shown men were having emotional problems for what exactly ? (Adrien Brody)'s character (Leonard Chess) was happily married then a cheater ? Here's where the movie gets weird. Hence I felt for most of the time that I turn over an album of old photos, more than watching a movie that deals finely with the inner of its leads. Then, how come that the movie forgets putting boards for the years where the events are taking place, until it's too late ? How come the theater where (Chuck Berry) always sings looks like a dark narrow room ? And how come (Adrien Brody) throughout the whole movie doesn't age at all unlike the rest of characters ?(Brody) is (Brody) in every movie I watch for him. Obviously, I do not like the guy, and for a damn objective reason : he doesn't convince me much with whatever he plays. Look at the scene of dying; truly pathetic. However this time I blame the script too. On the contrary, (Jeffrey Wright) was very good. (Eamonn Walker) seemed like anyone but himself. (Beyoncé) enjoyed us utterly, being to great extent the best of this movie and not due to her great body only, but of course for the effective portrayal and the incredible singing. The moment of burying the harmonica player, with (Elvis Presley) singing in the background, embodied perfectly the death of the company. Then mixing old track with rap music was so bright; since it says that this modern phase is another step of development which may lead to another revolution ahead. It put beautifully and softly the rap music at a respectful place in the staircase of progress, assuring that it's the voice of its age, just like the blues and rock 'n' roll were for their ages.It's insightful and sad movie. However missed being more profound and dense; a quality I find and love in most of (Martin Scorsese) and (Oliver Stone)'s historical movies. So that's why, with not that big budget too, it looked like TV movie, not winning a good publicity either. Know now the answer of my first question !

If you ever watch a movie that has a movie or video scene being part of that movie, you will always see a fairly accurate set decoration: lighting, rigging, boom operator, monitors, sound guy, costuming, props, etc- all the needed technical things that lend to the credibility of the scene. But 99 times out of a hundred if it has anything to do with music- be it in a club, concert hall, or the studio, those details get glossed over, ignored or forgotten by the director:(1) Electric Instruments, mixing consoles, and mic's have no cables,(2) sound timbre does not match the instrument- examples:Fender Rhodes sounds like an acoustic piano, real strings and horns from a synthesizer, vocalist voice is doubled- even thought there is only one of her,(3) instrumentation does not match the recorded music- big orchestral sound from a trio, harmony vocals by absent singers, single sax is now a horn section, chords being played on monophonic synthesizer, (4) ambiance is all wrong- reverb, echos, big crowd sounds in a small club, perfectly blended and mixed sound.(5) Hands and mouth don't sync up with the music- my personal favorite is the piano glissando that looks going up but we hear it going down, music that fades out. (6) artist who dress up in the studio- they never do that (7) full band recording in the same room with the vocalist- NEVER HAPPENS! (8) vocalist holding the mic in hand in the studio- NEVER HAPPENS!(9) All musicians wear leather and have long hair (10) A record exec walks in the scene and gives the act a record deal- NEVER HAPPENS. Common Hollywood get your act together already.

Wow, I've never seen a biopic take such liberties with facts... to the point that the film even invents a murder that never happened. But in all fairness, so did "Amadeus".The point of the film, however, is not to present facts but to foster interest. That much is said in the director's commentary: she says that if people become interested to learn more about these (and other) classic artists, then the film has done its job.Then by all means, it succeeded. The names of Muddy Waters, Etta James, Little Walter & Howlin Wolf have always been a footnote to the general public (including myself). But now I'll definitely take notice.If you're already a blues aficianado, then I doubt you'll care much for this film. But if you're part of the target audience--those who are not familiar with the origin of rock'n'roll or who think erroneously (as I did) that Elvis was the one who started it all--then this movie is worth a watch.I'll give you one warning. It gets ugly. This is NOT a film to be showcased during Black History Month! It portrays many of these artists at their worst: drug-addicted, alcoholic, violent, sex-crazed, uneducated, selfish and perpetually angry. The film has a very cynical, malicious vibe. But I think this was done with a specific intent; the director seemed to be making a strong metaphor to today's gangsta rap, probably with the hopes of reaching a young generation that never appreciated blues & rock'n'roll. I thought that was an interesting angle, though it must offend many blues purists.So there you have it... Don't expect facts. Don't expect history. Don't expect many feel-good moments. Instead expect a very stylish drama about the Chicago 'hood with a lot of sex, drugs & rock'n'roll. I know it sounds like I'm disparaging the movie, but I'm not. I really thought it was an interesting presentation.