Very much enjoyed this, as a fan of the bands music, I'm not sure I learned much that I didn't know before but I loved seeing a lot of this archive footage and photographs, which I don't think have been seen before publicly.

Its very much a celebration of the bands music and legacy and a few of the interviews made me laugh and the closing montage may have made me cry a little. What more can you ask from a film?

I did find the Warhol style a little jarring at the beginning, with some of the flashing imagery, but it did calm down and seems fully appropriate to the subject and so much better than it being a dull series of interviews with talking heads... And while there were interviews with the remaining members of band and the scene they were all completely relevant, thankfully we didn't get a series of other fans or celebrities talking about the band and themselves. The film also did really well including those members who are no longer with us and it really felt that the whole band was featured and represented here.

It is not an encyclopedic history of the band which some people perhaps wanted, I guess you'd need a six or eight hour miniseries to cover that, or you could just read one of the many books and biographys that exist. Like I say I love the bands music and the artists subsequent careers, I don't know how the film would play if you were not familiar with Warhol and the band already but for me it was a perfectly judged and very enjoyable two hours.

Pieced together almost as strangely as the band itself, this doc features excellent profiles of each band member and those closest to them. Was nice to have insight from people like John Waters, and who knew Jackson Browne was once involved with something that didn't suck?

Loved the early footage of Lou Reed and the band playing doo-wop.

It was not the full three-sixty on the band, but centers on their sound in the Reed-Cale era and rather than spend much time on theory, it focuses on who Lou and John were as people in order to explain it, delving into the environment they lived and created in. It also eventually compares them to contemporaries, but again, here it prefers to compare who they were in attitude and emotion. When John and Lou split, when the band starts winding down, the movie also starts winding down. I'm fine with all that. Visually, I felt like it was interesting, but not mind blowing. Personally, I didn't need to it to be a visual masterpiece to be satisfying. I didn't need it to interview every former flat mate or girlfriend, I didn't need it to chase down every subplot in the band, I didn't need a happy ending. I wanted a piece on Lou and John and what made the band what they were. It's a two-hour piece on that.

Todd Haynes' artful documentary on the pioneering art rock band fronted by Lou Reed and John Cale takes almost 40 minutes before Reed and Cale even meet. Haynes doesn't use narration but he builds his movie with ample footage from the time period. He creatively makes the link between the avant-garde and the "underground" which sets the stage for the band to flourish.

By hooking up with Andy Warhol and becoming his 'house band', the Velvet Underground not only got attention, but it also guaranteed that film and still photography would document their every move. They never sold many records at the time, but their influence was profound.

The interview subjects range from John Waters to Warhol scenesters like Mary Woronov, to go along with the generous archive footage. It paints a vivid picture of the rise and premature fall of the group (Co-founder John Cale only appeared on the first two albums; singer Nico only on their debut). Reed, of course, became a rock icon as a solo artist, but, the band's impact stands apart as a singular achievement, something which Haynes captures brilliantly.

One of the notable and important documentaries of recent times "The Velvet Underground" is a long overdue tribute to the great band and its incalculable influence on popular culture and artistic history. Utilizing a somewhat experimental slant in relating the group's fabled history this somewhat sedate and sombre academic take begins with the band members' origins and their path to legend. Chronicling their start from a garage band to the innovatory course they took that set them brilliantly apart from the rest and their fateful meeting with Andy Warhol onto the end of their career the film is a pretty compelling feast of art and music. Priceless footage of the band and interviews with people who played a part in the band's legend provide the information on what made the band tick. Considering The Velvets influence and importance it's a sorely lacking flaw that so many artists were not featured and interviewed in this doc. Having Jonathan Richman and a voice interview of a long dead David Bowie as the few luminaries featured is pitiful to say the least and diminishes/minimalizes on why the band is so important and why they will always matter. The lack of liveliness and a sense of fun and verve kill the sense of Rock n' Roll which is what this film is and should really be about. While the definitive Rockumentary on the mythical band has yet to be done this should be a good treat that'll have fans satisfied. A memorial to a time, a city and artists this is an aesthetic paean to perhaps the greatest and most influential Rock band in history.

As "The Velvet Underground" (2021 release; 115 min.) opens, we are introduced to young Lou Reed, whose family moved out to Long Island when he was 7, the start of a long journey that eventually sees him landing in Manhattan in the early 60s. We then shift to John Cale's background and early life in Wales, where he learns the viola. He ends up in New York in 1963. The movie reminds us what life in New Yok was like in the early 60s: "we are not counter-culture, we ARE the culture." At this point we are 10 min into the film.

Couple of comments: this is the latest film from acclaimed director Todd Haynes ("I'm Not There", "Carol", "Dark Wates"). In other words: this pretty much guaranteed that this would not be your typical rock documentary . It's also not just about the Velvet Underground, but the whole New York arts scene in the 1960s including Andy Warhol's Factory. "It was Andy Warhol who made the first album possible", claims a talking head (implying that without the famous cover art and with Nico's presence, the debut album would've never seen the light of day). Ah yes, Nico. She gets her due as well, and then some. Along the way we get treated to a slew of rare if ever before seen film footage and photos from that era. The first hour of this documentary, which carries us up and through 1965, is a perfect 5 stars, and had me just watching in complete fascinations with it all. The second hour of the documentary is not nearly as good. Much of the talking heads' (including surviving members John Cale and Maureen Tucker) interviews was filmed in 2018. (Did you know that Jackson Browne regularly played with Nico during her early solo gigs?)

"The Velvet Underground" premiered at this year's Cannes Film Festival to immediate critical acclaim, and Apple TV eagerly snapped it up. The movie was released in select theaters for a limited run, and thankfully my art-house theater here in Cincinnati had it in its lineup as from this weekend. The Saturday matinee show where I saw this at was attended so-so (7 people in total including myself). If you are a fan of the Velvet Underground or are simply interested in a slice of rock history. I'd readily suggest you check this out, be it in the theater (while you still can), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

(Jonathan Richman on Velvet Underground): "For me, it was like being in the presence of Michelangelo!"

Now, let's not get too crazy here - Michelangelo never created anything as rad as "I'm Waiting for the Man" :p

This is the kind of documentary you can sink into, that moves from one part to the next seamlessly. And it made me realize that how they created those first songs and that first album is even more miraculous than I had thought before. It's like a really clear and inspirational look - and inspiration that comes from depicting life in an honesty and sadness that came from personal spots - also at how this group managed to synthesize art into many forms... because it wasn't "with it" (oh how they go after the hippies here, or at least Woronov who is a great interview). Real art actually pushes past what came before while embracing so many other kinds of art (from the most avant garde to the Everly Brothers in pop), and Haynes's doc does a superb job of revealing that.

Haynes did a q&a after the screening I went to (oh I'm so glad I got to see the title on a big screen if nothing else, but those Warhol Screen Tests really are more interesting in a theatrical setting, though it helps that there's split screen to juxtapose and so on that's so great, I digress but the editing is some of the most invigorating in a doc in years) - he called this kind of a Dreamscape of the 60s and New York, and it's a dream that vacillates in the joy and thrill of creating something new and the edge and uncanny and dark that comes with that. And the fact that the footage of the Underground largely rests in the Factory world makes it a story of that, too... up to a point.

But at the heart of it and what drives it to being so absorbing is Lou Reed. There's a mystery and sadness to him that the film can only scratch the surface to see, not because it doesn't mean to try but because it would be too disrespectful to try to make hypothetical things. He's just... Lou.

And lastly... I still don't get Warhol, either. Frankly, maybe I've just never been cool or hip enough for it. Vinyl (1965) is not bad, though. And I'm glad there was mention of (the Factory) being not all peaches and cream, especially for the women.

Oddly limited in scope. I knew it was a standalone two hour job but found myself doubting that- given the first half was given to pre-band. This was of course fascinating.

But we end up with a 20 minute breeze through the Doug Yule era and I adore those albums.

No reformation covered either.

Visuals wonderful - but bizarre sound mixing (at least for my experience anyway) which meant you couldn't hear the commentary over the music so I had to watch with subtitles on. Which gave an interesting experience in realising that "my" Velvets lyrics have subtle, distinct differences to those that are apparently true.

The Velvet Underground: Documentary about the band and their artistic/social milieu. Many interviews, some bitterness fro Lou reed: "Andy Warhol produced The Banana Album in the sense that he was live in the studio when it was made". But y0u also see them together when Warhol was dying, friends again. Split screen is used to good effect, often using a loop of John Cale or Reed blinking when more info/clips are on the other half. Moe Tucker the VU drummer and sometime singer didn't like hippies, the West Coast or Frank Zappa. Demo tapes of Venus In Furs and Waiting For My Man plus many other VU songs. Great Music Social History film. Directed by Todd Haynes. 8/10.

I've seen several docs but this one covered a lot of the NYC environment during the time period! Wish Lou, Sterling, and Doug would have been there in the flesh! Very well made and awesome ending. Would definitely recommend to VU and music and art lovers alike!

'The Velvet Underground' is certainly artful and reverential to its subject. No stranger to music, Todd Haynes also made the fictionalized Bowie story 'Velvet Goldmine' (1998) and mysterious Dylan fantasy documentary 'I'm Not There' (2007)). Making the definitive VU documentary is something of a holy grail for film makers, but I'd say Haynes enjoyable film achieves its aims partially.

It's fair to say The Velvet Underground blazed the trail for punk and indie music 70s and onwards. Lou Reed, John Cale ... but so much more! Brian Eno famously once said: "Their first album only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band". For Haynes film, the music nerd in me would have liked more information about the various songs (titles, albums, dates, producers etc.), even art history like this needs its points of reference. I guess it wouldn't bother most newbies as info can be checked easily these days, but I'm old school and like films to organize and document their subject matter, too difficult to catch everything in the final credits.

If you are coming to The Velvet Underground for the first time, they were only together roughly 1966-1970 so their music isn't hard to navigate. Counter intuitively, tackle the studio albums in reverse order. Start with the 4th and final 'Loaded' (1970), great songs by Lou Reed as he contemplated a solo career ('Sweet Jane', 'Waiting For My Man', 'Rock'n'Roll'), then go back to their eponymous 3rd (1969), 'unplugged' beautiful achingly sad songs in a story cycle again by Reed ('Pale Blue Eyes', 'Candy Says', 'Beginning To See The Light'). The band's 2nd 'White Light/White Heat' (1968) is chaotic and avantgarde, but its song 'gems' shine through all the noise, Cale and Reed shared the songwriting duties but it was to be Cale's last as a band member ... and finally there's 'The Velvet Underground & Nico' (1967), legendary, but so much written about it already. Live album '1969' is a nice homage to Reed's guitar playing, and 'Live at Max's' is a very collectable if poorly recorded bootleg of the band late career. Happy exploration!

Nice to hear people like John Waters and Jonathan Richman among many others contributing to Haynes' film ...

This is not really a review of the film as such. As a documentary about a rock band, it's fine: just about average, I'd say. One could argue that it's a little too busy--sometimes distractingly so--from a visual standpoint, but I won't quibble about that. (At the very least, it ensures that the film doesn't have a staid PBS look.) Those who already are fans of The Velvet Underground will enjoy it; nonfans are unlikely to be converted. There's no substitute for locking the door, cranking up your stereo and hearing the music in all its weird glory for the first time. The VU were amazing, but the film gives you more of a sense of time and place than of the music itself, and this was a band that largely *transcended* time and place.

My problem is with the fact that director Todd Haynes glossed over Lou Reed's traumatic experience with electroshock therapy because his sister felt that it reflected negatively on their parents. Since Reed's death in 2013, she has stridently maintained that it was unfair of him to criticize Mr. & Mrs. Reed for subjecting him to electroshock therapy in his teens because, at that time, the treatment was not well understood and Lou's parents didn't realize how frightening and unpleasant it was going to be for him. He repeatedly referred to the experience in both song lyrics and interviews throughout his career, but his sister feels that he exaggerated its impact. And there you have it. You're not supposed to say mean things about my mommy and daddy, you guys, and if you do then I'm taking my ball and going home!

In the first place, Reed's sister isn't the one who had to endure the treatments, so she can afford to be a tongue-clucking backseat driver. Secondly, Lou is no longer here to speak for himself. Thirdly, the experience was incredibly significant to his body of work as a lyricist and to his identity as a musical artist. To dismiss that significance for any reason is asinine; the horror of electroshock is an unsubtractable part of Lou Reed's story. But Merrill was allowed to subtract it because, you know, bourgeois embarrassment and stuff.

Deal-breaker.

Truly amazing in every sense but gives a notion that they have never seen again since Max Kansas city... 1972... and shamelessly lacks all about the 1993 reunion. Very sad about that because it does not felt complete this documentary which is truly hipnotic to watch.

'The Velvet Underground' (2021) is pretty good. It does what many documentaries fail to do which is staying authentic. Its a documentary but you don't really feel that you are watching one as remains artistic in its portrayal of the the early beginnings and studio work/performances.

I'll admit as good as it is I was bit a disappointed as it seems to skim over some aspects of the band's history like the post-Lou Reed VU (aka the 'Squeeze' album released in 1973) and even the later reunion years. It would have been nice to acknowledge the great influence the VU had since their formation. But its still a very good documentary.

This film mostly focuses on the origins of the band and how their first album came to fruition. The band and their "friends" are all so interesting that you realize its amazing that the band was able to even get the backing to first record. Andy Warhol gets his fair credit and does Sterling Morrison.

My favorite interviewees were Maureen Tucker, Mary Woronov, and the ever-exciting Jonathan Richman.

Definitely worth a watch even if you know very little about the band. Its good, practically great.

It's a music documentary on the influential band led by Lou Reed. I've heard of the band many times, but I actually don't know much about them. They're a bit before my time and way too cool for me. Of course, some of Lou Reed's solo hits are very familiar to me. He's always been connected to the New York scene and more specifically within Andy Warhol's circle. Again, that scene was way beyond a school grade kid like me. It's nice to get a sense of these people now. There is some surface work on Lou Reed although I don't feel like I got his inner self. I never knew about his anger issues. I assumed some drug issues. I also assumed a somewhat open sexuality rather than straight forward homosexuality. Cinematically, it's interesting to have the members holding a pose for long stretches. It gives the illusion of an inner monologue. As a newbie, this gives me some sense of these people.

Great long overdue homage to the band that kicked started what became 'punk rock' at Max's Kansas City in New York..Looking forward to more of this type of subject mater.

Trying again to watch all the movies on Apple TV, a feat I've let slip for a fair bit of 2022, I watched this documentary about The Velvet Underground, a band that I like quite a bit. Whilst there is plenty I enjoyed about this - I did feel it was a little too interested in feeling like a Velvet Underground performance, to feel like a definitive documentary.

The Velvet Underground were an avant garde Rock Band, formed in New York in the early 1960's. A marriage of the songwriting of Lou Reed and the experiment music of John Cale, the band were managed by Andy Warhol and were key to both his studio and to his travelling multimedia show The Exploding Plastic Inevitable. Whilst not universally loved in their time, their style was undeniably influential on the bands that followed.

Todd Haynes tries, I think to capture the feel of one of Andy Warhol's multimedia shows creating a documentary that is an endless kaleidoscope of footage, set to the music of the band - and with talking head style interviews cut in and around. I was never sure whether some of the interviews, with the surviving cast of characters, was actually shot for this film, or taken from another one, but it's mixed with old footage of interviews, so you do hear from Warhol and Reed, who are no longer with us. That commitment to recreating the experience, does rather come at the expense of the information contained with it. Particularly I really struggled with a sense of the timing of things, how long they performed with Warhol, how much success they had at which points, when the albums were released, things like that.

Again, I don't want to come across as too negative, because generally I enjoyed it - but I'm not sure I really learned that much about them that I didn't already know.

It's hard to imagine how a documentary on the VU could be any better than this. Besides providing a bounty of film clips, photos, old and new interviews and more, the film captures the voice and aesthetics of the Warhol/Velvets milieu through cinematic techniques such as splt screen sequences a la Warhol's Chelsea Girls and visual portraits from Warhol's Screen Test series.

The tone is appreciative and sympathetic, but never sycophantic; Lou Reed's curmudgeonly persona is evident at numerous points, but in view of his monumental artistic achievements, all is forgiven. All the other players are given their moment in the spotlight and it's a notable joy to witness contemporary remarks from Moe Tucker and Mary Woronov.

Above it all, though, is the thrill of the music, still sounding powerful and life-changing. After seeing the film, you'll want to dig out your Velvets vinyl and once more become immersed in these historic tracks.

A documentary on the rock band The Velvet Underground - Lou Reed, John Cale (later replaced by Doug Yule), Sterling Morrison and Maureen Tucker. We see the backgrounds of the members, their history and, through interviews with contemporaries, influence.

As an admirer of The Velvet Underground's music and its influence on later bands (e.g. REM) I eagerly watched this. From the start, however, this is not an easy documentary to get through.

Director Todd Haynes makes the delivery as jarring as possible, apt considering VU's music but a bit disconcerting and limiting in terms of engagement. There are some stretches where we get smooth sailing but for the most part it's not a very engaging experience.

In addition the documentary seems to dwell on certain aspects and time periods and then speed through others, missing details. Not the most ideal pacing.

Overall it's still watchable and gives a decent view of VU's history and influence but could have been better.

Take all your memories of famous rock music documentaries, and then throw them all out, because Todd Haynes does not have a checklist that needs to be ticked off.

No talking heads here, no stories about "from zero to hero" but an avant-garde approach to an avant-garde rock group.

They way he uses a mix of footage, photography and audio to create an interesting natrrative is refreshing and innovative. You can sense that Andy Warhol is a big inspiration, both on the Velvet Underground and on this Rockumentary. If you are familiar with Andy Warhol's movies. You probably know what I'm talking about.

I thorougly enjoyed it, and hope you will give it a try as well. It can be found on AppleTV+

Between this, The Sparks Brothers, Summer Of Soul, and The Beatles: Get Back, 2021 was a good year for music documentaries. Maybe it's because of COVID lockdowns, where it's harder to film more normal movies, and surely most directors would have at least one musical artist they'd love to make a documentary about.

The Velvet Underground works pretty well. It tries to capture the rough, messy, but unique and captivating qualities of the band to moderate success. The style is quite eclectic and unconventional at times, but next usually in the way that The Velvet Underground (the band) were able to do when they were at their best.

I did appreciate how the documentary was at its artiest when covering their first album and the whole NY art scene, it was at its messiest and loudest when covering their chaotic second album, mellowed out when focusing on their soft third album, felt bright and like a traditional documentary when covering their pop-rock fourth album, and completely ignored their apparently terrible fifth album entirely.

There's some good info here and sometimes cool, sometimes frustrating presentation. There are parts earlier on that focus in on Andy Warhol and his whole thing in the 60s for a surprisingly long time. It's important context for the band of course, but it spends maybe just a bit too long on this detour.

Ultimately it's still a good documentary though. It's well above average and there's clearly love and thought put into it; I just didn't connect with it 100% of the time.

As a VU fan, I was so excited to see this! But considering how many cool interviews, photos, and films, they had access to, the final product is disappointing. They spend the first 60 minutes with background material on avant-garde sound and film, on John Cale and Lou Reed's childhoods (focusing more on Cale). The spend only a few minutes of the documentary on the third and fourth albums. No mention of the Rock Hall Of Fame induction. No mention of their reunion shows in Paris (although a picture is flashed briefly). There are too many people on the periphery of the band talking, instead of the band members themselves. Many important insights about the band that we all have read about over the years were never mentioned. In the end, the film makers were more interested in making an cool avant-garde film for a cool avant-garde band, than they were in telling the true story of The Velvet Underground or giving any insights to their story. John Cale is way over represented with the screen time they give him, while Sterling Morrison and Doug Yule are under represented. The Velvet Underground were one of the most important bands in history and possibly the greatest American band of the 60's. They deserve better than this.

Thank you, Todd Haynes, for understanding that the key to making an accurate documentary is to immerse the viewer into the world and Zeitgeist of the people one is documenting. I was riveted from start to finish - which was a welcome surprise, considering I almost passed up on watching it completely after having just struggled through the first 25 minutes of the woefully banal 'Bruce Being King' Springsteen & his band documentary which is listed next to it on Apple TV (BTW note to THAT director; in this day and age, making an entire movie - let alone a documentary - in black and white is a ludicrous pretention with absolutely no justification), and was at the point of practically dying of boredom before the first few frames of Velvet Underground fortunately revived me. Transformer, for sure.