Pretty Good

Admirable film.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

4/12/18. I liked quite a few of Iggy Pop's songs and wanted to learn more about him. While he is quite articulate, it is amazing that he is considering his history with many drugs that he talked about. Interesting to listen to but the sparsity of the music that made the Stooges iconic is a testament that this documentary could have been done better. Listing all the bands that were influenced by Iggy and his band is somewhat meaningless without including the music that made them so influential.

I've seen the movie two times within 3 weeks with two friends of mine who didn't know much about The Stooges but they were like "well OK, whatever". After the movie they had bright eyes and were totally excited and happy that I invited them. That says it all. I enjoyed it the second time even more.I'll start with a few of the negatives: I really missed some details about Iggy's time with Bowie in Berlin. I think it was a really productive and important part of Iggy's life and had an influence not only on him but on the band. On the other hand there were some scenes which I would have left out: for example the part with John Wayne or some stories about the trailer. They didn't add anything to the story. The music wasn't really in focus here so someone who doesn't know them, won't love their music after this nor will know anything about the process of making music, except a few details.Now the positive side: I love the fact that this is a documentary about The Stooges and not about Iggy Pop. He is a unique, eccentric figure, but he doesn't steal the show. Every member of the band share their stories and I was really happy to see and hear the Ashtons before they passed away. Jarmusch focuses on the history of the era, the history of The Stooges and the personal stories behind the stage and on stage. I adore him for not asking 200 critics and some distanced relatives to talk about them. He asks only people who were either in the band or in a close relationship with the band.I love The Stooges and I knew some things about them besides their music but Gimme Danger had some new information to share, it does a great job in organizing 40 years in 2 Hours, which is not a walk in the park, it was genuinely funny and sometimes also touching. The parts in the second half where the band comes together were like that. It was moving to see 50-60 year olds, some of them in a bad condition to be happy as a child because the band is together again. It was heartwarming watching Ashton play the drums for the last time. These guys didn't care much about the big money, they just wanted to play music. It doesn't matter that their lost their way, they always find a path somehow to play again. Overall Gimme Danger has some weaknesses but I would watch it over and over again, because it does justice in portraying The Stooges. It is also unique, because most of them are not with us and it would have been a huge missed opportunity to not interview them for the last time.

This plodding, by-the-numbers doc manages to make the Stooges (of all bands) seem boring. I know a LOT about the band and their music, and I found this film to be stiff and fairly dull; I can't imagine anyone unfamiliar with the Stooges sticking it out.The first big problem is that Jarmusch proceeds with the assumption that the viewer reveres the Stooges as much as he does. The film doesn't really bother to make an argument for their greatness, or even discuss the specifics their music much, beyond the making of the first album. Instead, it focuses on superficial details like what city they were in at any given time; light music-biz gossip, etc. It's almost absurd how little is said about the aesthetics of "Fun House" and "Raw Power." Usually, docs like this will have other rock luminaries and music critics talking about how the subject artist inspired them personally, made a mark on rock history, etc. That approach is absent here. Mike Watt is interviewed at length, but only to go over the minute details of how the band reunited in the 2000s. Much is said about how J. Mascis was instrumental in pulling the guys back together -- why is he not on camera, talking about what their music meant to him? (Danny Fields also shows up, to recount some stories told at greater length in the "Please Kill Me" book... this is cool, as far as it goes.) Instead of making a case for the Stooges' place in the pantheon, Jarmusch just plays a montage of "punk" album covers (y'know, because the Stooges "inspired punk"), followed by clips of younger bands covering their songs. It makes the Stooges seem like a smaller and much less consequential band than they were... you come away with the impression of a minor act that recorded a few songs people like.Another strange choice is to begin the doc at a "turning point" in the band's career, then go back to the beginning and tell the story up to that point (and beyond it). This is a very common approach in documentaries and biographies... but in this case, the "turning point" is the band's dissolution in the early '70s (after "Fun House"). The film begins by presenting a drugged-out, worn-out, falling-apart group of guys, and then expects the viewer to care how they got to that (not very interesting or unique) point(?) Once the chronological story line does kick in, it proceeds without tension or suspense. Jarmusch compensates for a lack of extensive archival footage by frequently throwing in old film clips, apparently in an attempt to "humorously" illustrate what interviewees are saying... I found this move to feel obvious and "smug."A final problem is the extent to which Jarmusch relies on recent interviews conducted with Iggy. He seems to have simply turned on the camera and let Iggy drone on, and then included big chunks of the footage in the doc. Let's just say that it does not do the film, or Iggy himself, any favors.I can't remember ever before watching a documentary about a respected band or artist, and coming away less of a fan than I was going in... but somehow, "Gimme Danger" managed to achieve that.

Gimme Danger: Gimme IggyGimme Danger is about Iggy Pop and the Stooges, the unruly, undisciplined band of post-hippy rockers that, "killed the sixties" as Iggy says in one interview. There are several directorial and artistic choices made in the film that prevent "Gimme Danger" from being a spectacular film and places it in the middle of the list of good biopics, but not spectacular. In summary, I would rate the parts of the film thusly:First half: A+ Third Quarter: B End: C-The film doesn't address Iggy Pop's career from 1975 to 2003. What was happening during those years? What was happening is Iggy Pop was recording his successful solo album "Lust for Life" with the cult hit The Passenger on it. Why exclude this? Did the record label refuse permission? Did Iggy or Jarmusch insist on only including Stooges music? What about Pop's other solo music and his dabbling into acting? What about his lifestyle transformation from drug addiction to clean living? No, the film buried the real story: Iggy Pop. It was a poor choice and I wonder why they did it? Why not more about Iggy? Was he trying to "Share the credits evenly?"Why not interview some of the musicians Iggy and The Stooges influenced like Henry Rollins, Billy Joe Armstrong, among others? I would love hear what Neil Young thought of the Stooges, or Kim Gordon from Sonic Youth. Why not interview the family or others around the scene. Why not quote Bowie who produced some Iggy Pop music after the Stooges? Why take out the most interesting subject of the film? That was a bad choice, and even if Iggy Pop insisted, insist harder to include more about him. Perhaps that was a condition of filming, or otherwise, Pop would have refused? If it wasn't, Jarmusch did us a disservice. That said, they did include his early career as a drummer, the development of the band, growing up in a progressive town, Ann Arbor, and how that influenced them, their drug addiction and issues staying clean, his travels to record music from Detroit to Chicago to New York to London and finally L.A. Iggy is far more interesting, his transformation is more interesting, than the band. Imagine a Bourne movie spending half the film talking about Nicky Parsons. She's an important character, but you would be rightfully disappointed. That's how it is with Gimme Danger. Iggy is the attraction. Rating: Matinée, accrued score. First half: Pay full price, see it twice. Second Half: Rent it. The first half had me laughing and intrigued, the second half of the film was a big let down. Peace, Tex Shelters