MovieChat Forums > Danny Collins (2015) Discussion > Nitpicks or Crippling Flaws (YMMV, But S...

Nitpicks or Crippling Flaws (YMMV, But Serious Music Fans Will Groan )


1) The least credible casting of any movie I've ever seen. Pacino is a great actor, but he does not and has never had rock star charisma. His best roles have always been as very intense, interesting guys that you have mixed feelings about.

And then there's the pair of characters who are supposed to be related, but it's laughable. Bobby Cannavale as Al Pacino's son is something I would expect to see in an SNL skit about bad casting directors. And brilliant songwriter types just don't have kids who are intellectually limited to construction work.

2) Nobody opens a concert with their biggest hit, as we see in the opening scene. (That it is his biggest hit is reinforced later on several occasions.) You close with the biggest hit, or even save it for the encore. In fact, none of the music stuff in this film rang true at all. Let me do one more that I don't think is much of a spoiler, although I'll tag it anyway --it's about a completely predictable, almost necessary plot point that happens pretty early -- before I explain why the scene that sets up the movie's last big plot turn is completely unbelievable.

It's not all that credible that a star who had stopped songwriting would start, and labor long and hard over a single song. What's more likely (and I'm speaking from experience as a rock critic of a local scene who has known many songwriters) is that, once you get back in the groove, the songs start coming quite easily.

That sounds like a nitpick, but it leads directly into the big, pivotal scene at the end of the second act, which is wrong from beginning to end; a classic instance of a screenwriter starting with the desired plot outcome, and working backwards from it, all truth and character logic be damned.

For the above reasons, I absolutely assumed Danny, after finishing that first song, would have had had three, four, or five new songs by the time of the small gig at the bar, the point of the gig being that he'd be sneak-previewing his new album. That he'd book the gig to get reaction to one new song is a stretch (I originally called it ludicrous, but that was overstating it) (and the whole bit where Mary's going to dinner with him depends on him playing the song is a hard-to-swallow invention that seems to be the best Fogelman could come up with, since neither he or any of his producers seems to know any of this basic music business 101 stuff).

Next, that he chooses to open the set with the new song is ludicrous. Aging acts who want to sneak in their new material do so in the middle of the set. This is not just well-known; it's notorious.

That the audience requests "Hey, Baby Doll" at the start of the gig is ludicrous. Nobody goes to a concert expecting to hear the star open with their biggest hit. It should be the song they expect at the end.

What's just crushing is that anyone who has ever been to an actual concert by an aging act could have rewritten this scene to be ten times as effective and infinitely more believable (I mean that literally, as in divided by zero).

Danny starts off as always, the crowd loves him. He announces that he's actually started writing a new album. Crowd goes half-crazy. He sits at the piano and starts to play a new song. Crowd starts attentive, but by mid-point, they're starting to chit-chat. Cut to him playing the big song that he's saving for last, the one that we saw him laboring over, and he has completely lost the audience, even though the stuff is great. Cut to him closing with "Hey, Baby, Doll" but Pacino lets us know that Danny is dying inside.

Re-write that scene (and tweak everything else involved with the music business*), cast it better, and you have a much better film. As it is, it barely sneaks into a B- for me.

* This is early and predictable, but I'll tag it anyway ... Cancelling a tour of the size that Danny is doing, in its middle, would be huge news, and he would have been hounded by paparazzi the entire time he was in NJ. You could have made the opening gig, whose only purpose is to establish him as a star for viewers, a special performance, in fact, the closing act at a big benefit concert. He's introduced, he does "Hey, Baby Doll" (hence fixing the first flaw I mentioned), and at the end of the song he's joined by cameos by actual rock stars. (Hey, that's better than the movie. You can work in his dissatisfaction with the aging of his audience in other ways; in the movie, it's introduced too quickly and obviously.) Then establish that his manager has almost finished booking his next big, tour, and they are about to go public with the news. When he gets the Lennon letter, Danny kills all that and goes underground.

Good Lord, how does a movie about the music biz get made by people so ignorant of it, that someone who knows it just a bit can punch it up and close its plot holes and incredulities with just an hour of thought?

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

reply

1. Pacino oozes aging movie star charisma, which easily translates to aging rock star charisma. His likable charisma has actually been a big talking point for most critics for this movie.

2. I've been to tons of concerts. While most artists don't play their biggest hit right away, most will play a big hit to kick things off. It's not likely Danny Collins would play his biggest, but I think this is a nitpick.

3. Haha. Have the artists in your local scene that you've interviewed been aging rock stars who have lived on poppy hits for 30 years and are just now trying to write good stuff again for the first time in three decades after becoming a different person? No? Okay then.

reply

1. See my reply below for why this is only a small quibble.

2. You always play a big hit to start the show, but never the biggest. Never. I freely admit, one man's nitpick is another man's moment where all belief in the movie flies out the window for at least a moment.

3. That's a fair point. My point is not that his writing just one song was hard to believe (it's not), but that booking a gig just to play that one song is a bit of a stretch that would have been considerably more credible if he'd written at least a few, and that would be as credible as having written one.

Here's an idea: you have him pull out a ragged notebook full of notes for unfinished songs he'd abandoned 30 years ago. He's been carrying it with him, but never looked at it. (You can show it earlier, making the audience wonder what it's about.) He finds a song that almost embarrasses him with the youthful naivete of its lyrics; he cringes. And then he changes the lyrics, maybe one word here, another there, to make it a song about heartbreak rather than hope. (This is easier to write than you'd think, e.g., by changing "always" to "never" or inserting a "not" to reverse a line's meaning.) But the song is still good and still true.

(Who wouldn't want to see Pacino play that scene? In fact, he doesn't get enough of that in this movie, scenes where what he's become is confronted by what he hoped to be.)

And now he has two songs to play to the crowd. By the time you cut to the gig, it's credible that he has finished one or two more of the old ones.

4. I notice you don't try to justify starting with the new song, rather than putting it in the middle. There's no rescuing that.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

reply

"1) The least credible casting of any movie I've ever seen. Pacino is a great actor, but he does not and has never had rock star charisma. His best roles have always been as very intense, interesting guys that you have mixed feelings about."

I haven't seen it but just on the surface I can think of a billion worse ones just on paper. John Wayne as Genghis Khan!!! 

I mean Pacino is maybe the most charismatic movie star we have - he's a Rock star in acting, so how doesn't that translate to music? I mean are you saying he's less charismatic than Barry Manilow and Neil Diamond who are clearly influences for this character.

I agree he doesn't seem like a Rock and Roll singer, but a schmaltzy kind of cheesy has been........? Seems ok to me (but again, I haven't actually seen it, just going by the trailers and scenes).

reply

Pacino is only slightly miscast; it's Cannavale (once you've cast Pacino) that's wacko.

You're right, he does work fine as a Barry Manilow figure. The problem is, he's supposed to be more like Neil Diamond in terms of career path -- had great credibility at the start, ended up as just a favorite of elderly women (women his age) -- and I thought he wasn't very convincing as someone who once had that gravitas. Which becomes important right away in the plot, as he decides to discover what he may have been. A guy like that should command the stage more than he does, have more of a presence, rather than be an unthreatening puppy dog -- which is how I would describe Diamond vs. Manilow.

Short version, to use your distinction, is that he's supposed to be a schmaltzy kind of cheesy has-been, who used to be rock and roll singer. He does do a very good job of the former, but really doesn't suggest the latter that much.

Still, that's the least of this movie's problems. Which, I should stress, will matter only to people who insist that music biz flicks get it right. I was a pretty big Motown fan and have listened to very little rap, but I thought that Dreamgirls was half dreck and Hustle and Flow was brilliant. Crazy Heart nailed all the music stuff, and I liked it a ton despite having little use for country.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

reply

it's Cannavale (once you've cast Pacino) that's wacko.


I thought Cannavale was great. Plus you have no idea what the mother looked like. He played the blue collar dad to perfection.

It's perfectly okay to dislike this film, but you listed a lot of things that were very minor......almost nitpicky. I feel like you think you are a writer. You probably have a whole shelf full of screenplays, but I'd be willing to bet those screenplays haven't led to any IMDB credits for you.

reply

Al Pacino is 5'7", and Bobby Cannavale is 6'2 1/2". We can be pretty sure that the Mom was not 6'8".

OK, it doesn't work quite that way, but how many families do you know where the father is 5'7" and the kid is 6'3"? It just doesn't happen. This bothers some people and not others. (Cannavale is always great, BTW.)

If you spent ten years of your life out 4 nights a week listening to (and writing about) live music, as I did once, and a film gets literally everything about live music performance wrong, you're going to think those flaws are more than "very minor." If you have no expertise in the way live music actually goes down, you don't even notice.

IOW, some people will consider these nitpicks, and others will consider them .... oh wait, that was the thread title. So you're agreeing with me!

(No, I'm not a screenwriter.)

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

reply

OK, it doesn't work quite that way, but how many families do you know where the father is 5'7" and the kid is 6'3"?


Look up any 7 footer in the NBA. While you are researching that feel free to look up "little people" (which I think is way more offensive than midget, but that is a whole other discussion). And again, we don't know anything about the mom or her family history, so that is half the equation that just isn't there.....and that's HUGE! Hopefully you know more about live music than you do genetics.

If you have no expertise in the way live music actually goes down, you don't even notice.


Get off your high horse. It was noticeable, but it certainly isn't a deal breaker. And I'm sure it's happened at some point during the history of the world.

(No, I'm not a screenwriter.)


(Whispers creepily to you) I am. 

reply

ahahaha... you're ridiculous.
my cousin is a pro volleyball player in slovenia, who began to play as a child, and he stands at 6'4, while his dad is 5'8 and his mom even shorter.
you just pulled this 'theory' out of your ass.

reply

I highly agree that the small gig part really stretched credibility. I can't even imagine fans being so rude as to demand a song. also, they made it seem like he was only going to play one song! the movie lost me there tbh

MathurMarquee.Blogspot.com Facebook.com/MathurMarquee

reply

1) You can't pigeonhole phenotypes and physical attributes to people as well as some may think. There are people who look nothing like their parents but can be compared specifically to a great gradfather.

2) So a man being intelligent should automatically guarantee his son become intelligent and successful? That logic seems a little too superficial too fly. I have to ask if you're being serious here.

Officially Canadian for 26 years. Never heard "aboot."

reply

Toronto Italian:

1) You can't pigeonhole phenotypes and physical attributes to people as well as some may think. There are people who look nothing like their parents but can be compared specifically to a great gradfather.

2) So a man being intelligent should automatically guarantee his son become intelligent and successful? That logic seems a little too superficial too fly. I have to ask if you're being serious here.


G'day, fellow Canadian AND Torontonian!! And both your points were uppermost in my mind as I read the OP.

The OP almost comes across as a classist and a eugenicist who got an F. YMMV.
But many of his points that relate to music/business were succinct. Just please stay away from classism and genetics!

Officially Canadian for 26 years. Never heard "aboot."


How about eh, eh?

**Have an A1 day**

reply

In all honesty, you make some very genuine & thoughtful points in your thread.

While I fully enjoyed this movie (and for me, the added array of Lennon music samplings only sweetened things, being a devoted & dedicated fan), I have to also admit as a serious music lover & knowing what I do about the industry, there is certainly some validity in certain aspects of your criticisms.

I don't agree with the bulk of it (why go into it, most is already outlined above by those putting it better than I probably would) but will grant you that it's not very true to life in its adherence (as you rightly suggest, I too would guess that potentially represents a complication ONLY for small minority--the most serious music aficionados & industry insiders. Other's likely will fail to notice, much less, care about).

Yes, I've been to more great concerts than just about anyone so I can attest they often open with a notable song but never biggest hit. Yes, that is what encores were invented for (wanna keep them pleased, longing & spirited).
Artists typically bury mid-set any new songs/albums they want to expose to audience (um...in hopes to later sell!) but I'm sorta of one mind with the others (in their rejoinders) stating "who's to say really" as far as constructively arguing he would only write ONE song. Maybe unlikely, maybe not. Who knows?!
You can't simply lump artists together & the process varies I'm sure. There's a certain mystery to all this that those of us (at least I consider myself foremost a fan) could never quite understand, yet still wholly appreciate, even find fascinating.

I was ambivalent only in Pacino (maybe the finest actor of my generation) in one simple & obvious regard (that, sadly, you can't ACT through)....
because he can't sing but ended up finding this a rather brave choice. Thank GOD they didn't try to pipe in someone who could, boy, would that have been disastrous.
And frankly, his pipes didn't matter...it's a character study of one artist's journey, seeking purpose to his life that's moving toward its end.

Honestly (and I'm strict on this)...I don't think it's overly maudlin. It absolutely rang infinitely plausible to me; and, therefore, I went willingly along for this interesting journey & ended up surprisingly moved by it.

Lastly, personally I don't think someone (at ANY age) seeking to find themselves or meaning in their lives (particularly one they've thought of taking themselves!) can ever ring hollow. Not in Pacino's hands, anyhow.
Yeah, again... true, it's been done before (maybe better, dunno...but certainly WORSE) but let's be honest....1) it's universal chord we can easily identify & relate to & 2) it's truly THE important story (and moment in ones life) needing to be told because at some point or another, it's one we all struggle with (famous or not!).
What sort of life have we lived, what impact have we on another, what's our legacy, what meaning is there...the introspection we all privately battle, judging our life-decisions in the absent piercingly-quiet moments starkly alone.
Fortunately NOT just terrain reduced for superstars, artist, or such. Touches every person I've met.

Without question, you're right....it's been done SO many times before, in too many formats to list. But again, because in the end, nothing else can rival what we do with our lives & the people we have become.

And TRULY lastly! Certainly not a stretch to imagine Rock Stars (of all ppl) potentially suffering the suffocating angst/sorrow, insurmountable pain & profound disillusionment---often reflecting back on it all with unimaginable regret but equal hopelessness & lack of direction (hell....ever wonder why so many artists die early? Copious amts. of mind altering drugs can only dilute & numb reality SO long).

reply

Agree with almost all of that. And re Pacno's vocals, we can guess that Danny has lost a lot of vocal chops from living too hard. (Real-world example: Ian Anderson, who is almost reduced to a croak.)

I agree that writing just one new song is credible, and booking a gig to play it is only a bit of a stretch. I like my idea of his finishing a second song he had abandoned. The point is, if there's something in a script that will be a little stretch of credulity, and you can make it more credible in a way that also makes the story even stronger, you ought to. If making it more credible will slow the movie down, don't bother. Storytelling first, and then make it as authentic as possible. They usually do not conflict.

Some critics have complained about the mid-movie twist that fuels the plot thereafter (the cancer). It ultimately didn't bother me at all. I always give a movie one unlikely thing, because unlikely things happen in life. As long as a movie makes good use of that thing, fine. This movie could have used it for sappiness. I thought the last scene avoided that in a way that was just great; it has one of the better endings in recent film history.

See my next reply about how different people give different weights to a movie's strengths and weaknesses.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

reply

Absolutely, fair enough. I happen to agree with many of your ideas. With clarity & detail, you posed suggestions to improve upon the execution of this particular plot & oddly (and to my surprise) I indeed think it's likely to have done just that.
Also interesting to note, so happens I hadn't even taken note on any of those minor slips. You mentioned it & suddenly I did. Alterations you gauged would easy remedy deficiencies & again, I found myself nodding, yep, bet that would've been better.
Honestly now a bit perplexed most weren't caught, fine tuned or revised by the writers in the early stages (maybe as they brainstorm. Being I imagine is this is a big budget movie given Pacino (& Bening).

Good job dissecting movie from your perspective & increased knowledge of the music world.

reply

Thanks for the praise! Here's another idea:

There should be a second song from his past, the serious song that established his credibility as a songwriter. You open the movie with him headlining a benefit concert, and as he takes the stage, there are are a few people shouting for that instead of "Hey, Baby Doll," and when he does the latter they look a little disappointed but not surprised.

(Analogy: it's Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys. There would be folks shouting for "Help Me Rhonda," "California Girls," etc., as he took the stage, but folks like me would be shouting for "God Only Knows" and/or "I Get Around," or, just to state our credentials, something more obscure. True fact: when I did see Brian on an early solo tour, his first two songs were those famous Beach Boy classics "The Little Girl I Once Knew" and "This Whole World" -- an incredibly clear message that the show was aimed at his hardcore following.)

You can then use this second song as shorthand for what he abandoned. In the same scene where old ladies are fawning all over him, one of the serious fans asks him why he doesn't play it anymore (and, just for credibility, they name a couple of other titles, which we infer are the other radio songs from the big debut album), and he says he just doesn't relate to them any longer (although of course we understand he real reason). Work it into the small gig somehow. Hmm ... he decides to save it for his encore, but he doesn't do one; he killed the momentum of the set so badly with the new songs that "Hey, Baby Doll" doesn't quite rescue the audience enthusiasm into something that would overwhelm his self-hatred at that point.

Oh, and if you want to go for the gold (you might have needed to cast a better singer for this!), we finally hear the song as the end credits music, and learn that the lyrics actually are somewhat relevant to his family situation. Not enough to make it a twist, just enough to add depth and complexity by informing us of his mindset when he was young. The end result should be that his current situation is a fulfillment of a yearning expressed in the lyrics, not one that surprises us, but has already been established in the movie.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

reply

yes, yes, YES!! You have the makings of a playwright inside you, bursting to escape.
Honestly you should consider trying to bang out your own script.
They certainly could've used your insight.

You (or someone LIKE you) should've been hired on as creative consultant (Yes, they have those. Often worth their weight in gold. And instinctively I would guess here that Pacino-- as a classically trained actor-- would not only KNOW this, but surely welcome instrumental feedback. It's how work is improved upon).

If hard pressed, I couldn't exactly put my finger on my lingering subtle sense something was amiss (or not quite right) but I think it maybe was that--certain holes needing to be filled better. They absolutely had a plethora to work with as far as his songwriting & what evolved over the years (to make him feel a fraud & sell out). I wanted to throw something at the screen during "baby doll" (it was that bad, I'm sure by design & for good cause) all the while realizing some trite, poor songs DO make artist rich & resonate with audiences (while I sit scratching my head in wonderment). Even the Beatles, Stones, Petty, P Floyd, Van Morrison, Clapton (well ppl can all fill in their own giants) have their "lesser" work. That's understandable. Not everything is a home-run nor is it all collectively appealing to the masses (I for the most part, utterly appreciate/celebrate the ARTful work, which not surprisingly, is often overlooked by most)

But what's TRUE in what (I THINK, in part) you're suggesting is that we needed insight into his music making & career to be more fleshed out. Understand WHAT happened, exactly!
I wanted to FEEL his pain but it would help me to identify with him by seeing some genius perhaps intertwined with some of the silly commercial success. Many artist have multiple sides to them & their real fans see it & know it.
All that's revealed here is baby-doll. That was the writer's decision but potentially short sighted, it gives short-thrift to what was suppose to be a complicated, long-going & expansive career. Arguably, I almost see WHY---you haven't time to explore everything!-- I just think your ideas are MOST interesting & would've benefited this film immensely.
I actually REALLY enjoyed this ending & applaud them for NOT going the cloying, expected & most traveled route. I found it rather creative also because I totally bought that Collins as the protagonist would likely be an astute observer (which ties into the conclusion). Art (to me, found in many places but inherent in music) is much of what makes life worth living.

NOW go write...I think you might have a script in you somewhere...😁

reply

I think you're nitpicking. Back when Led Zep IV came out somebody asked me what was the best song. Rock and Roll, I replied. The other guy rolled his eyes and started going on about STH. But I was serious. I was a garage-band rocker. I didn't consider STH a true rock song. So, for me, LZ's always opened w its biggest hit, a rocker. Elvis starts w That's Alright Mama, a rocker that gave Sam Phillips an epiphany. A movie is short, compromises are made. Like you, I know about music and, honestly, some of the points you noticed I did as well. Maybe that's why I rated it 8 instead of 9. But I thoroughly enjoyed the movie; I even think it had seeds of greatness. The director said they had financial limitations. Without those, and had the director had a bit more experience the film might have been truly great. But he got great performances out of some great actors and his placement of Lennon songs was brilliant. I hope it earns an Oscar or two. Ending scene: Christopher Plummer leads Pacino and company across Mulholland Drive and over the ridge from Hollywood and its nitpicking critics to freedom. They build a new ski resort in Colorado and live happily ever after, shining on, like the moon, and the stars, and the sun.

reply

Well, your first point actually argues in my favor, which is to say, you're identifying a lack of realism that I had missed! You're right: the opener is almost always an uptempo number, a rocker, that gets folks jumping. But "Hey, Baby Doll" is not a rocker; it's a pop sing-along. It wouldn't be credible as an opener even if it were his second or third biggest hit!

You docked the film from a 9 to 8, and I docked it from an 8 to a 7. Why is that? I bet we enjoyed it equally as much while watching it. (I enjoyed it thoroughly while watching it.) My brain happens to be wired, though, so that a lot of the enjoyment I get from a movie is from thinking about it later*. (I grade every movie I see, and then a year or two later, regrade them without looking at the original grades, and the results are really interesting.) Most of the thoughts I had about this one, at least at first, are "that should have been even better."

I'm thinking back to Once, where the scene where they go into the studio to record "When You Mind's Made Up" is so authentic that (for me) it lifts a great movie into classic status. Think how great this movie could have been if the small-gig sequence had been like that, instead of all wrong.

* If you check out my list of the top 58+20 indie sci-fi movies, http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076641370/, you can see that I value "thought-provoking" as much as anybody.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

reply

I completely agree with you on how a beloved performer works in new material, and I was really irritated at the notion that Danny would do what he did in the small bar. That said, he never practiced working in new material, so maybe he just didn't know any better?

HOWEVER, I do have to strongly disagree with the idea that his son is "intellectually limited" to construction work. First, let's not insult construction workers by stereotyping them as somehow intellectually stunted. Next, remember that Danny's son specifically said that he spent his life trying very hard to NOT become like his father. Manifesting that as a physical laborer is not outside the realm of possibility.

reply

Crippling flaws. I could put it all in this message, or just read my review at Ruthless. Pacino was great, but the rest of the movie? Ugh.
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/29174/danny-collins/


Goat at Ruthless Reviews

reply