Chazbot013

The worst low budget '#39;pseudo-biopic'#39; i'#39;ve ever seen in my life, no wonder David Bowie'#39;s family didn'#39;t support this production hence **not one single song** of him is heard throughout this celluloid abomination, the direction this movie went was literally '#39;off a cliff'#39;, what was Gabriel Range thinking when he decided to make a biopic without the support of the family ? David Bowie must be rolling in his grave for this travesty of a movie to exist.

JakeyWest

Ugh, this is truly rock ‘n’ roll suicide.

garethkeano

Yes sorry agree with all other bad comments. I knew nothing about Bowie before watching the movie and having watched it i still know nothing. Confusing about what is happening. Flashbacks to different times without saying whereand when.

Lee Brown Barrow

The movie isn’t completely useless but it is a disappointment. Not having the rights to Bowie’s music is obviously a problem but the main issue is that the film is quite boring. Flynn is okay as the lead but the script doesn’t let him bring the character of Bowie to life. A better movie about the singer will one day be made... I hope... so you can be forgiven for passing this one by.

padawan_seneca

This is supposed to be about Bowie, and it fell boring, low budget. At times the scenes and actors came off as rehearsing for a movie rather than being the part. David Bowie'#39;s interesting, this movies dull. If you try to imagine it being about someone other than Bowie and just a 70s rocker, you might enjoy it more, but it doesn'#39;t have a lot of heart and it comes off a bit phony. Not a lot of spunk due to the fact that there'#39;s no music and the few parts there is, it doesn'#39;t sound like him. They did his teeth and contacts for the pupils, but other than that, the actor doesn'#39;t have the vibe. I'#39;d suggest some good Bowie docs instead!

Chazbot013

To no fault of Johnny Flynn's part, this movie is completely devoid of what constitute a biographical movie of an artist and there's **NO MUSIC** whatsoever. All the actors play their part beautifully but It's obvious that movie was made without the consent or the approval of the Bowie family. What's the point in making a movie about an artist when no songs of the artist is played ??!! Instead of calling it 'Stardust', it should've been called simply 'David'.

miguelreina

[AtlàntidaFF] The worst thing is not that it doesn'#39;t work as a biopic, but that it doesn'#39;t work as a biographical fantasy either. It seems more like an exploration of mental illness that takes David Bowie as an excuse, but this fearful character, frightened by his brother'#39;s illness, shy in his approach to the world, that John Flynn strives to make credible without succeeding, has nothing to do with a David Bowie who was never ashamed of his family heritage.

+schmoogie

After seeing this pseudo-biography I'#39;d actually much prefer to watch an actual biographical documentary on the man. It was interesting enough to keep watching to see some of what Bowie went thru early on in his career. But the '#34;in-depth'#34; story-telling of 1970/71 just kind of suddenly ended and we jumped forward to his 1972 Ziggy Stardust performance. There was a huge disconnect there. How I rate: 1-3 :heart: = seriously! don'#39;t waste your time 4-6 :heart: = you may or may not enjoy this 7-8 :heart: = I expect you will like this too 9-10 :heart: = movies and TV shows I really love!