Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (No Spoilers)

It's been asked for so here it comes....my review.

I am avoiding spoilers here, and will hopefully chime in later with a more spoilery reaction.

I've had a relationship with Star Wars since it's birth. I was five years old, and I lost my goddamn mind. The bottom line is that I wanted to do *that,* whatever that was, and launched myself on a lifetime journey to figure out what the was.

Between the ages of 5 and 11, I had the original trilogy, Episodes IV to VI, wherein we saw the galactic civil war, and the rise of Luke Skywalker as savior of the ways of the Jedi, and redeemer of his father, Darth Vader, AKA Anakin Skywalker. As with so many people, these three films are a defining moment of my life (as the previous paragraph should indicate).

Between the ages of 28 and 34, I had the "Prequel" trilogy, Episodes I to III, wherein we saw the fall of not only the Old Republic and the Jedi order, but of Anakin himself. These films have been a hotbed of contention for years. With long diatribes about their faults and failings.

Here's where I stand; I love Star Wars. I love it all, I love it despite it's faults and failings, but also in many ways, because of it's faults and failings. As a whole, it is an idiosyncratic work, with weird digressions and inclusions that are there for no more reason than George Lucas' fancy. It's that personal touch, for good or ill, that, for me, lift them above standard Hollywood studio escapist fare.

This article pretty neatly encapsulates my feelings.

So, now, here we are. It's 2015, I am 44 years old, and over this past weekend I have seen Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens twice. It's a very, very good movie. It introduces exciting new characters into our saga of the Skywalker family, returns old favorites to the screen with vim and vigor, and pushes us forward into a new trilogy of adventure tales.

I do not think it's anywhere near perfect. However, it's imperfections are along totally different lines from the films made under Lucas' supervision, and will not detract from it's entertainment value. In fact, I feel it's imperfections run almost perfectly opposite from the earlier films.

Let's bottom line this....Do you have any interest in the type of film that Star wars is? Space opera (NOT science fiction) on a grand scale? If you say yes, see this movie. It's not the best film of the year, or even the best adventure film of the year (that would still be Mad Max: Fury Road), but it's the best space opera since at least Revenge of the Sith (sorry Wachowskis). I had a great time with the film, so what I'm about to go into is NOT "this film sucks" criticism, don't read it as such. It is so worth seeing, and I cannot wait to see where Rian Johnson takes up with Episode VIII in two years.

My first viewing of The Force Awakens was after spending nineteen hours in a theatre watching the previous six films. While this made me excited as hell to see the new film, it also made the shift in tone with this film very apparent to me. Lucas' Star Wars films were pastiches of 1930s sci-fi serials, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, and the like, with a heap of Joseph Campbell to take all that nonsense and give it a sheen of real cultural and anthropological importance. The Force Awakens, in a very, very real way, is a pastiche of Star Wars itself, and the reverence to Campbell-style myth-making has been supplanted by the filmmakers reverence to this specific myth.

Which was probably utterly unavoidable. I would guess there is not a single competent filmmaker in Hollywood, who would have any interest in making a Star Wars movie, who doesn't revere the earlier films. Honestly, the saving grace here was likely the involvement of Lawrence Kasdan in scripting. He was there, having scripted both The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi (not to mention Raiders of the Lost Ark). He clearly enjoys this type of material, and yet, I'd guess, isn't star-struck by it.

There is a sequence in the center of the film that, if I'm fully honest, didn't feel like Star Wars, but rather like one of the myriad Star Wars ripoffs that littered the 80's. A lot of the humorous dialogue struck me as a lot more glib and unceasing than the earlier films, like it was the product of someone who remembered all their favorite lines, and regurgitated them without the breathing space that made those lines originally pop. Now, to be fair, the writing here is so far beyond Lucas that I hardly cared, but I was struck by the change in tone.

And the structure. There is more than a little truth in the criticism that the film is little more than a remake of A New Hope (AKA the original Star Wars). That's not a huge problem for me, because that fits with Lucas' vision. The Phantom Menace echos A New Hope, as well, but less slavishly. There is a point when I'm thinking, "oh this is like the Mos Eisley Cantina....Oh, look at the echo of the trench run...etc." I almost wish they'd just made our new desert planet, Jakku, a return to Tatooine. The production design is so virtually identical that it's obvious that they were trying to have their cake and eat it too. There is a long, long list of elements that fall into the "remember that?" category.

All of that becomes almost totally forgivable because Abrams and Kasdan have given us a nice big pot of terrific characters to revisit and get to know. I loved, loved, loved all of the new characters, and I was surprised by how much I was drawn to Kylo Ren, in particular. He's a villain that gives us a new perspective of the Star Wars universe, and The Force, that we've not really seen before now, and Adam Driver does a wonderful job with the part. Harrison Ford is better than he's been in years and Daisy Ridley and John Boyega are honest-to-God movie star finds. Oscar Issac isn't given much to do, but fills his moments. Much like with his Star Trek films, you can find absolutely zero fault with Abrams' casting instincts.

Watching the film is a blast, and I'm resistant to even delving into the plot very much, so as to allow you to discover it yourself. It's an experience, and all of the critical comments I've made are pretty irrelevant while you're watching. However, as a huge fan, I am concerned with the ultimate health of the franchise. There's things here that make me worry, specifically with Disney's aggressive plan of a new Star Wars film every year.

The Force Awakens is now corporate product, you can't deny it, and I see echoes of Disney's (financially, if not always creatively) successful Marvel Cinematic Universe. The fact that the emotional beats work as well as they do is a testament to the skill and talent of J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan, because in other hands, this film could've easily toppled over into Transformers territory.

The Place on Thorndale Recommends - Grinder Blues

dUg Pinnick has a new side project. Which in and of itself isn't terribly big news, he seems to release a new side project every six months. I have liked most of these, but I really long for more King's X. Of course, with drummer Jerry Gaskill's current heath situation...that may be a long time coming.

Grinder Blues is Pinnick's latest jam, and I am quite impressed. As the title alludes, the emphasis in on blues forms, progressions, and lyrical tropes. Lest anybody think this is some sort of throwback, nostalgia trip, the project does re-evaluate the form through a hard rock, even metallic, lens. It's good stuff, and Pinnick has found good collaborators in drummer Scot Little Bihlman and guitarist Jabo Bihlman, a brother act known for TV work, as I understand it. The trio plays well together, and the spirit is loose, with a solid groove.

Of course, as with most of Pinnick's side projects, I do hear more than a little King's X in it. However, I don't think it's quite as direct and obvious a comparison as from the KXM material earlier this year that paired him with George Lynch (Lynch Mob, ex-Dokken) and Ray Luzier (Korn). Yet, it's not as distinctive as the Pinnick Gales Prigden records with Eric Gales and Thomas Pridgen.

I think , however, that we can be clear that Pinnick enjoys the trio format.

as to if you will like it, the first single, Burn the Bridge  (see the video below), is pretty indicative of the project and the direction. Although my favorite track is probably the last on the album, TX to CA. I'm loving it with only a couple of plays, you might too.

Retro Review: Queen + Paul Rogers: Return of the Champions

I recently found a used copy of this 2-disk set, Return of the Champions, and picked it up. I'd always wanted a copy, but even digital it was fairly pricey. For five bucks, I couldn't pass it up.

Replacing band members is this sort of weird thing. Sometimes, it heralds a change in tone and direction that reinvigorates a band (look at the 2500 versions of Deep Purple that have existed). Sometimes, nobody notices (Anthrax gets a new lead guitarist quite regularly, in the grand scheme). Then there's the times when you really can't imagine how anybody could think that a band member could ever be replaced. When their personality is so central to the chemistry of the group, you just can't see how it can go on.

Such was Freddie Mercury and Queen.

Now, what really sucks about this is, often the remaining members would like to, y'know, continue their careers, and don't want to take the Joy Division-into-New Order route of starting a new band. I get that. Brian May and Roger Taylor wrote those songs, too. They played all those shows, and the thing that was "Queen" was just as much theirs as it was Freddie's.

It's just that Freddie was such a HUGE personality.

So, when I heard they were going to go on tour with Paul Rodgers, I was a little perplexed, but then I saw a bit of genius in it. Now, look, I personally think Paul Rodgers is, give or take, the best voice in rock and roll. His voice is pretty much what I love in a frontman, a full, powerful, bluesy kind of sound. When I sing, I wish I could sound like Paul Rodgers.

But that's nothing like the soaring, cabaret vibe of Freddie Mercury. Which is honestly why I dig this album, and, to an extent, the studio disk they put out in 2008. First, they don't pretend it's "Queen," it's "Queen + Paul Rodgers," and, while of course there's a musical connection, because it's the same guitarist and drummer, they let Paul be Paul.

Which is why I can accept this pairing, and yet I feel like the shows they did with Adam Lambert were just painful, sellout moves. Why? It's clear that May and Taylor drooled over Lambert because he was a flamboyant, gay rock singer...that whole escapade REEKED of desperation and lack of imagination. A desire to simply try to re-create what they had before.

Paul Rodgers, on the other hand, was established. They were peers deciding to try to work together. It was new and different, and, to my ears, exciting. It felt like moving on, and moving forward. Did Rodgers sing The Show Must Go On like Freddie? No, he sang it like Paul Rodgers, and taken as that....it's pretty goddamn awesome.

I an say that about a number of tracks here, Tie Your Mother Down, I Want to Break Free, Fat Bottomed Girls. Yeah, they keep Rodgers to more of the rocking end of the Queen catalog, but that makes a lot of sense. May and Taylor also take lead vocals on a number of Freddie's songs. The bottom line is that it works because Rodgers simply isn't having anything to do with A) pretending to be Freddie, or B) worrying about not being Freddie. Frankly, with his career, he has every right to that.

My only real complaint is that, of all the numbers they do from Rodger's career, they don't pull out Radioactive by The Firm, which I think May and Taylor could've KILLED on.

Freddie Mercury was the only lead singer for Queen, but Queen + Paul Rodgers was it's own animal, and it worked pretty damn well.

Check Out This Album: Walking Papers

When I FINALLY dived into the digital music realm, I found myself discovering a lot of new stuff. I'll concede that, with physical record stores all but a thing of the past, and those that do exist not really catering to an old hessian like myself, it's nice to hear about a band like, say, Kadaver, and be able to just quickly download an album.

Of course, this damn digital "revolution," the the devaluation of music attached to it, is why there's a fraction of the record stores around from when I was a kid. That, however, is another rant.

Last week, I was surfing the web, and came across a interview with Duff McKagan, of Guns 'N Roses fame, taking about a new project called Walking Papers. A project sprung from McKagan's Seattle roots, featuring former Screaming Trees drummer Barrett Martin, Jeff Angell (guitars and vocals) and Benjamin Anderson (keys), both from The Missionary Position (a band I confess I've never heard of). Mike McCreedy from Pearl Jam also guests on a couple of tracks for lead guitar work. I was curious simply because I've been interested in McKagan, and his various projects, since reading his autobiography.

So, out of curiosity, I listened to the album a bit on Spotify Friday at work. I couldn't blast it, being in a work environment (far, far from it), but I was struck by the rhythmic choices, and the snippets of lyrics I caught. It was basically underscore to my day's activities, but I found my toe tapping quite often. So, Saturday morning I downloaded the deluxe edition of the album (with 3 live tracks), and listened to it most of the weekend. It's catchy, and rocking without being "in your face" guitars and drums. The tone shifts from a Seattle grunge feel, to a very Rolling Stones sort of vibe, to tracks I would've sworn were Tom Waits covers.

It's simply one of those records that treads a lot of ground, sonically. I get excited with almost every track. There's just a ton of balls here, and this albums has quickly risen to one of my favorites, if not THE favorite record of the year. It's not often that I think everyone should check out a band...I mean, I really love The Sword and Mastodon, but their appeal is very much in the "metal" mode. Walking Papers is definitely rock, but I think with a very wide appeal.

This is great rock and roll. Take my advice and check it out.

Favorite Tracks:

- Two Tickets and a Room *(Favorite)*
- The Whole World's Watching
- Your Secret's Safe With Me
- The Butcher
- Capital T

The Lone Ranger

I love The Lone Ranger.

When I say that, I mean the character. I've always been attracted to characters who are "superheroes" without super powers, and who work with a close partner. Batman, Captain America, even The Green Hornet (who's actually the Ranger's great-nephew, for the trivia-obsessed).

I also love westerns, as a genre. The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Searchers, Silverado, The Unforgiven...the western is a uniquely American creation, and can be used to say so much about our uniquely American society. Our tendency to fierce independence, our love of community, our unending pursuit of "more," be it money, freedom, space, whatever. It's also, inherently, grappling with the people and societies we unthinkingly ran over to get there.

The Lone Ranger occupies an odd space in our collective consciousness now, as do most of his contemporaries in the radio/pulp era that spawned so many forgettable characters. He'd probably have become just as obscure as The Spider, or any number of other of that ilk, if not for the TV version starring Clayton Moore as the Ranger, and Jay Silverheels as Tonto. I grew up watching the adventures of The Lone Ranger and Tonto, and, while the series is steeped in the time period in which it was made, both technically, and in it's attitudes, it did (along with many other things) provide a constant reminder of the power of decency, loyalty and friendship.

In 1981, there was a miserably tin-eared attempt to revive the character as a big-screen franchise, The Legend of the Lone Ranger. Despite some rather breathtaking scenery (courtesy of director, and Oscar-nominated cinematographer, William Fraker, and his cinematographer, the legendary Laszlo Kovacs), the film is hobbled by a zero-charisma leading man in Klinton Spilsbury (who even ended up having every line of dialogue dubbed by James Keach), and a really, really off-putting rhyming, cheesy narration by a I-can't-imagine-he-wasn't-embarrassed Merle Hagard. Entertainment Weekly has a terrific write-up on the whole debacle, here.

The Legend of the Lone Ranger is a pretty epic example of having a lot of great ingredients in a creative stew, and finding out the center (Spilsbury) couldn't hold it all together. The script isn't AWFUL (except for the narration), the direction comes very, very close to the epic scale that they were aiming for, and the supporting cast is pretty awesome. I really like Michael Horse as Tonto, and Christopher Lloyd kills as Butch Cavendish.

It bombed, big time. I honestly think the narration was the biggest culprit. The Ranger was relegated to a few comic book runs, and a couple of fairly miserable attempts at television shows.

Well, as you might guess, that brings us to the most recent attempt to bring the character to the big screen. Jerry Bruckheimer producing, with Gore Verbinski at the helm, Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio working on the screenplay, and Johnny Depp as Tonto. Basically, the team that made the first three (enjoyable, in my opinion) Pirates of the Caribbean movies. They're joined by Armie Hammer as John Reid, aka, The Lone Ranger.

I saw the film last night, after reading numerous miserable, dismissive reviews, and hearing all sorts of comments regarding Johnny Depp's performance...

It's not that damn bad, folks.

Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. There is a big problem in terms of tone, as I was never really sure if the script, credited to Justin Haythe, along with Elliot and Rossio, wanted to really be a Lone Ranger movie, or a parody of one. Even the recent The Green Hornet with Seth Rogan had moments of humor and levity without feeling like a parody, and The Lone Ranger hits that tone for roughly half the running time. The other half is split, pretty evenly, between being a truly kick-ass western action film, and feeling like an out-and-out attack on the character.

I mean, they aren't changing anything from what has been presented before, John Reid returns from the East a lawyer, ready to help bring the West, kicking and screaming, into a more enlightened future. He's deputized by his Texas Ranger brother, Dan, to ride after the Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner, who's just AMAZINGLY great) gang, and the posse is betrayed and ambushed, leaving only John alive. He's rescued and nursed back to health by Tonto.

That story can certainly feed the greenhorn version of The Ranger they present. I was rolling with it. However, the script just sort of leaves him (and by extension Armie Hammer, who's a lovely choice for the role, honestly) in that mode for pretty much the entire running time. It doesn't really feel like he rises to become the Lone Ranger we know, and I, as a fan, wanted to see. Takes steps in that direction? Yes, and maybe they were playing the long game, hoping for a franchise to allow the character to grow.

The box office makes that point moot.

What does work? The direction. The Lone Ranger is, hands down, the best directed of all the major "blockbuster" films I've seen so far this year. The look of the film is PERFECT, and, visually, the perfect way to step away from the powder blue number that Moore and Spilsbury both wore. This feels like a classic western with a pulp-fiction twist. The tactile sense is gritty and realistic, but the details evoke something just beyond realism. I even love Tonto's look, in the context of the film.

It also absolutely reaches the "epic western" look that Fraker was chasing for The Legend of the Lone Ranger. I do admit, shooting in Monument Valley for a film set explicitly in Texas gave me a "that's definitely not Texas" chuckle, but....John Ford made Monument Valley THE look for the American western film, and Verbinski just shoots the shit out of it. Every shot is gorgeous.

Verbinski also can shoot the crap out of action. The final act of this film offers massive destruction and chaos, as is apparently mandatory for a Summer Blockbuster these days, but the sense of what is happening, and where the characters are, in relation to each other and their goals, is clear and easy to follow. Where Pacific Rim lost me with more, more, MORE, no matter how illogical the introduction of that more was (not to mention the murky visuals), The Lone Ranger sets the scene, shows you the pieces on the table, and then begins to gleefully smack them into each other. I admire that so much the more I watch other films descend into "what the hell did I just see" confusion.

I also, and I'm sure I'll get killed for this....LOVE the framing sequence with Tonto on "display" in a 1930's "Wild West" sideshow attraction. Mainly because I think so few people have understood it. Tonto isn't telling the story, the little boy he's talking to is imagining it. There are various moments that give us hints at this, but the killer, for me (and I hope I'm remembering this right), is when the boy becomes upset that Tonto leaves off the story at a point where it appears everyone's going to die. The boy protests that can't happen....

Tonto responds, "it's your story."

And see...I wish the film had hewed more to that, overall. As children, we don't know that The Lone Ranger, as a concept, is a bit out of touch. We don't know that Tonto is, more or less, a caricature (and in my opinion, the film saves this whole area by making Tonto explicitly insane, and presenting a whole tribe of non-caricature, noble, intelligent and worldly Native Americans). The film does sort of hit a batshit-crazy "anything can happen" level of a child's narrative (I'm thinking of the carnivorous rabbits...so weird and disturbing), but doesn't allow for the hero the kid obviously admires (he's wearing the mask, so he obviously plays at being The Ranger), to truly become the HERO. He just flirts with the edges.

I don't think the film is perfect, and it misses a lot of notes I wanted it to hit, but I cannot call it a total loss. It looks exactly like I wanted an updated Lone Ranger to look, and the action set pieces are the best you will see this year. It offers two charismatic leads, and much of the humor landed for me, even when I was wishing for something more serious.

At this point, you probably won't see it in a theatre, but it's worth seeing.

Man of Steel

I'm going to endeavor to remain spoiler-free here, and talk about the film in terms of theme and tone, rather than in detail.

I saw the film on Saturday, and have been chewing on it ever since. I have to be honest, the more I think about it, the less I like it. The reason is simple, and becomes more obvious to me as I turn over the decisions made here...

I would say the most human superhero, ever, is Spider-Man. Not only are his powers limited, but he also carries the weight of the lives of all of his friends, even after they might betray him. He is defined by his open heart.

Second on that list would be Superman, and it's not by much. His vast power levels set him apart from humanity, but that is negated by a heart that is more open, more encompassing, than any other. Superman/Kal-El/Clark Kent, whatever you may wish to call him, is human because he has chosen to be.

Where the film utterly stumbles is in constantly, and oppressively, reminding us of Supeman's alien nature. There's been talk the film was framed as a "first contact" story, and that's pretty accurate. It's also not what Superman is about.

Superman is not about The Other coming to us and changing our world, but about The Other becoming Us, the best of who we are. The Other who becomes the best of us because he was taught that is how everyone should be. Snyder and Goyer seem to poo-poo the immigrant angle, but Goddammit, that's what the story is.

The film positions Superman as a God...and I hate to invoke Chris Reeve, but he has really given the
only absolutely perfect performance of this role, ever...Reeve, at every, single turn, gave us the man. The man is what we can relate to, the man is who we can cry for, and with. The man allows us to see his limitations. The man gives consequence to action sequences.

Henry Cavil may be capable of that. I liked his performance, but it was a good performance of a character who was almost joyless, emotionless and cold. Superman is none of those things. Cavil is at his best in the moments where we see the man...There is a moment of pure joy upon his first flight that screams out "more of this, please!" Also a reaction to a terrible choice that Cavil nailed completely (a divisive moment, but I liked it), even if the rest of the film utterly let him down.

"All those things I could do, all those powers, and I couldn't save him."

That's one of the two defining lines in Richard Donner's 1978 masterpiece. Why? Because it speaks to limitations, not just of strength, or speed, but that Superman is, simply, not a God. He is a man, with powers and abilities beyond the rest of us, but he cannot do everything. He cannot save everyone. BUT HE WILL ALWAYS TRY.

This is where Man of Steel goes completely off the rails, for me. It's no secret that the third act is, essentially a long fight between Cavil's Superman and Michael Shannon's General Zod. It's a huge throwdown, buildings topple, the two titans smash each other around like rag dolls.

Yes, I am disturbed that buildings are falling, innocent people are CLEARLY dying horribly, and Superman is oblivious. What's even more annoying is that Zach Snyder and David Goyer could've solved that problem easily. We only need to see Superman TRY to save innocents, and we will love him, even if he fails. Why not a moment where Superman attempts to hold up a building, only to have Zod use this moment to take a cheap shot, and the building still goes down. Superman instantly feels more human, on many levels, and Zod more dastardly.

But see, the film isn't interested in that, it doesn't care about puny humans. At all. The Daily Planet staff is pretty much half-baked, aside from Lois, and Metropolis itself is just a city. It has no character. It has no life. It's there to simply be a bunch of buildings to get knocked over. I've never seen such huge scenes of MASSIVE carnage feel so antiseptic and cold. Who cares? The film hasn't even taken a moment to establish a world that feels in any way "alive."

You may think those last two paragraphs contradict each other, but, frankly, the latter just makes the former all the more apparent. It's just so blindingly clear that Snyder and Goyer don't care about people, they care about Gods. This whole film is in service to watching two video game characters (and that is EXACTLY what it looks like) punch each other through buildings, and fly thousands of feet through the air.

Drew McWeeny, over at HitFix, found the fight scenes emotional. I suppose that's true, but the emotion is blindingly self-centered. This movie is about Clark/Superman dealing with HIS issues, and saving the world just sort of happens to be part of that. It's ridiculous, and it's NOT Superman. Superman saves people, and, in many ways, is a servant to humanity. I don't see any of that in this film, his personal trials and difficulties should be attached to that. Which is something that Bryan Singer's Superman Returns TRIED to do, and, ultimately, got lost in reverence to Donner's vision.

Poor Brandon Routh...I maintain he could've been a GREAT Superman, but no one can succeed when the mandate is "play Christopher Reeve playing Superman."

Still, Singer was closer than Snyder. Much, much closer. Mainly because Singer pulled out all the stops to make Superman human. Probably too much, but...I prefer that to a cold, distant alien.

The sweet spot...clearly somewhere in between. Superman: The Movie and Superman II hit it, I think. They proved you can have massive, powerful, superhuman action, and never forget that Superman is here to help. He cares about us, all of us, and he cares even more because he can do more than anyone else to keep us safe. Just re-watch the fight in Metropolis from Superman II, it's full of drama, it's exciting, and it never, ever forgets the humanity.

Hell, that version of Superman RUNS AWAY, rather than risk more lives fighting in a crowded city.

Compare that to the climax of Man of Steel, which is about two men in a personal grudge match. Superman wrecking massive slabs of the planet to "save" it. Multiply that with the almost entirely CGI nature of the sequence. Floaty heads yelling at each other. Big deal.

Of course, at the end of the day, it's not Goyer and Snyder's fault, either. It's the mouth-breathing  crowd and their inane "he has to punch something!' calls. Hollywood, long being the purveyors of groupthink, just gave you what you wanted. A big, loud exercise with loving shots of super-powered beings punching each other. Big whoop.

As a post script - I don't blame Nolan for this, at all. I've long maintained that Nolan had to be hands-off member of this production.  It's Snyder and Goyer's show. I figure Nolan was there for cachet, and got a story credit for an off-the-cuff (which is pretty much how it's described) conversation with Goyer.

 What did I like? I loved the Krypton stuff. I love Russell Crowe as Jor-El. I love Keven Costner and Diane Lane as the Kents (although that one scene with Costner....so dumb, but he was good). I thought the cast was game and handled what was thrown at them well.

I just wish what was thrown at them was more Superman and less "let's smash a bunch of stuff."

Home Video Review - FAIR GAME

The film is, basically, a dramatization of the Plame scandal. An event that I, personally, found reprehensible, on the part of the Administration at the time. However, my feelings about the real events are irrelevant when it comes to a dramatization of them.

What a terrible movie.

Truly god-awful.

First, it represents the worst of "socially conscious" filmmaking/storytelling, and reminded me of the worst kind of scripts we get a Stage Left. It's not concerned with people, only making a political point in the most ham-handed and inelegant way possible.

Second, Sean Penn, an actor I love and admire, is AWFUL. He takes Joe Wilson, and makes him a character who's motivation is, seemingly, to be right ALL THE TIME. When he begins his campaign to hold the White House accountable for the exposure of his wife, he keeps saying it's because it's "the right thing to do," but everything we've seen about the character, and the way Penn is playing it SCREAMS "I am a condescending, smug asshole."

CByrd and I both felt the same, I suggested that Tom Hanks could probably have knocked it out of the park...given you the sense of decency and honor. She suggested Mark Ruffalo, who's laid-back nature and style, would have made the character less grating.

Near the end the film tries to explore the impact on the marriage, but these to actors have so little chemistry together (like, ZERO), the viewer literally doesn't give a rat's ass if they do break up. And Joe is so plain unpleasant, you think Valerie would be better off. (It is, however, always nice to see Sam Shepard bring his understated honesty to the screen - he's clearly the best thing in the movie) The attempt to make a human connection to these characters is far too little, far too late.

Watts is fine, but pretty much steamrolled by Penn. When her choice is to play reserved nobility, the guy playing the frothing mouthpiece is going to win.

All the problems come to head when the climax is Penn giving a lecture to a group of students, and the audience, clearly, about citizenship. Then we see Watts enter a congressional hearing on the matter...and the film cuts to actual footage of Plame at the hearing.

A) What I have seen of Penn's character makes me absolutely disinterested in his lecturing me about how to be an American.

B) Valerie's testimony would seem to be a far more stirring and noble climax. I'm also always somewhat put off when a filmmaker decides to cut away from a performance to actual footage. It undermines whatever reality the actor had allowed us to buy into, up to that point. (See What's Love Got to Do With It? for perhaps the most egregious example, ever.)

It doesn't matter that I was horrified by what happened to this family in real life, which is, I suspect, why it received mainly positive reviews upon release. Politics alone doesn't make a good story, and this movie is a prime example.

Jack Reacher and Not Fade Away

Caught two films over the weekend, Jack Reacher on my own Friday afternoon, and Not Fade Away with CByrd on Saturday evening.

Jack Reacher

I have a fondness for the 70's, both in music and in film. Many of my favorite action films are from that decade, and exist in a time before "blowing shit up" became the primary goal of an "action" picture. I love the methodical style of, for example, Clint Eastwood's 70's "action" pictures. Dirty Harry and The Outlaw Josey Wales weren't afraid to slow down and build a plot that had to be unpacked, rather than inane banter to tie wankfest CGI sequences together.

Jack Reacher is very old-school. Little to no CGI, and what there is of it is used unobtrusively. A storyline that is compelling, and rather shocking (after recent headlines, having the film open with a sniper brutally taking out five seemingly random people is unsettling). It's also, while admittedly far-fetched, logical and watching Reacher investigate his way to the core of the case is compelling.

The film also greatly benefits from two really strong performances. No, Tom Cruise does not look, at all, like the Jack Reacher of Lee Child's novels, but he does make the character a formidable screen presence. I don't really care what Cruise's beliefs are, or the tabloid stories, only that he is a truly fine movie star. He knows exactly how to play this stuff, and be credible. It's a dynamite star turn. Cruise is one of our best, and I think people need to keep reminding his detractors of it.

On the opposite side, I want Werner Herzog to play the villain of every movie from now on. His "The Zec," with very little screen time, is unsettling and powerful. You are fearful of the character, just because Herzog seems to completely understand human depravity and evil. It's just a stunning performance. Kudos to writer/director Christopher McQuarrie for using him to the fullest extent.

Jack Reacher is hardly ground-breaking, nor is it likely to make anyone's top ten list, but it is an highly entertaining old-school action thriller. Yes, Jack Reacher is a rather generic title, I would've much preferred if they'd used One Shot, the title of the novel.

Well worth your time, if you like that sort of thing.

Not Fade Away

You ever have one of those experiences where you're watching a movie, and it's perfectly fine. It's entertaining enough, not setting the house on fire, or anything, but a perfectly pleasant evening at the movies. Then, out of absolutely nowhere a choice is made in the final moments that makes you almost absolutely loathe it?

I'm not even talking about a "twist" that feels unearned, or an unhappy ending, but a choice that displays a sense of preciousness and pretension that feels absolutely unearned. That feels so very unconnected, in any real, or logical, thematic way, to that film you've just watched, that you feel like somebody just scammed you.

So it is with David Chase's (The Sopranos) motion picture writing and directing debut, Not Fade Away. I'm absolutely serious that, if you lopped off the final minute or two of this film, I'd probably be giving it a positive review. The story of Douglas (John Magaro), a New Jersey teenager in love with the Rolling Stones and blues. He forms a band with several other guys (notably Jack Huston, Will Brill and Gregory Perri), starting as the drummer and them moving to vocals, with dreams of reaching the top. There's great fun had in the deluded visions of impending stardom in all of these kids.

It's basically a realistic take on That Thing You Do!, they play some local gigs, write and record some songs, and unlike the wish-fulfillment Wonders of Tom Hanks' film...nothing happens. They plug away, getting high and talking about "their image" and "doing interviews." Douglas falls in love, terrible accidents occur, and the band's dreams get fairly well squashed by a New York agent (Brad Garrett). Douglas' father (James Gandolfini) gets cancer. Then Douglas moves to LA with his girl, almost meets a couple members of the Stones, and, it's inferred, becomes David Chase (I had no idea this was an autobiographical film until after I saw it).

This is all pretty well acted, even some outstanding performances, and the murky cinematography by Eigil Bryld has some nice "earthy" moments. The soundtrack, put together by Little Steven Van Zant is really, really fun and exciting. Like I said, it's a perfectly pleasant coming-of-age drama, with rock and roll as a backbone.

Then you get to the final moments, and you just want to find David Chase and punch him in the nose. It's that awful. That unearned. That tin-eared. That pretentious. That unconnected to the perfectly pleasant movie you were watching up to that point.

There's lots of good parts to recommend about the film, but I just can't recommend it as a whole.

The Hobbit: An Unending...Er, Unexpected Journey

Let's get right to it....

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is not a good film. It's not a disaster, but it's just not a good film. You may enjoy it for various reasons, and it may satisfy your personal needs and whims. I do not begrudge you that experience, but it is not a good movie.

It's a quintessential example of how to take a simple, direct, compelling and fun story, and bury it under the weight of connection to other stories that it really has precious little to do with. Peter Jackson's film is so busy trying to show you every, single facet of Middle-Earth and it's mythology that the story of J.R.R. Tolkein's homebody hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, is drowned out by details and story elements that Tolkein wisely left to Appendices and The Similarion.

I have read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, I enjoyed the trilogy, but personally found The Hobbit a bit precious and twee. However, I do understand a respect the world that Tolkein created. I understand the depth of lore and history that Mr. Tolkein dreamed up that give his stories a taste of realism. However, what Tolkein understood, and Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Phillippa Boyens and Guillermo Del Toro clearly do not, is that history and lore should be there to illuminate a story, rather than being part of it.

If you are a Tolkeinite, and view Jackson's films as fodder for a checklist of elements from Tolkein's books, you'll probably be in heaven. I understand that for a portion of the devoted fanbase, seeing Radagast the brown and his sled pulled by rabbits is VASTLY exciting. Watching Galandriel, Saruman, Elrond and Gandalf discuss the rise of the Necromancer (i.e. Sauron) and impending danger to Middle-Earth is pretty much crack.

It just doesn't belong in this movie.

The harsh truth is that this stuff has absolutely nothing to do with Bilbo's journey with Thorin Oakenshield and the dwarves to the Lonely Mountain to confront Smaug the dragon. Worse than that, the general audience is left feeling like the major players in the story they are supposedly here to enjoy are paper-thin and under-baked. Bilbo is damn near a cypher in this film, with only one speech, almost two-and-a-half hours into the damn thing, to finally give him some motivation. Thorin? Plays out like a less-interesting, shorter clone of Aragorn. The rest of the dwarves are less characters, and more collections of prosthetic make-up (Tolkein's rhyming names help not at all). In Jackson's rabid attempt to make this story epic enough to justify a nine-hour (when all is said and done) running time, that he forgot to make us give a damn about the small story, and the characters, at the center of it.

Oh, yes, yes, Bilbo does manage to steal The One Ring out from under the nose of Gollum (a smashing scene, I'll grant), but none of the characters in The Hobbit understand the import of what has happened. One of the major problems here is that Jackson and crew seem intent on making damn sure the audience understands the macrocosmic importance of what's happening, but the characters, just due to how they react in The Lord of the Rings, can't, EVER, understand it.

The greatest sin, however, is simply this; watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey isn't any fun. At all. You're either trying to remember who each character is, or wondering why you should care. It feels like a history lecture by a professor who is deeply in love with what he's talking about, but so self-involved about it that he can't just tell the story, and make you involved with it.

Our lead character - I think Peter Jackson forgot.

This first film already felt nine hours long. Even with the 34 endings of The Return of the King, I was never bored. Embarrassed, maybe, but not bored. An Unexpected Journey trumps that with 3 or 4 openings. Including a return by Ian Holm as the older Bilbo, and Elijah Wood as Frodo, that only serves to remind you of much better movies that you realize, as the running time trudges onward, this film will never live up to.

I'm not going to sit here and lie, I'll be seeing the other two films. If nothing else, I want to see the dragon. I've also got little bad to say about the performances, everybody plays what they're asked to by this sub-par adaptation well enough. The film itself is also quite pretty, if overindulgent (who'd EVER guess that) in the New Zealand travelogue imagery. Why one shot, or even two, of the tiny men running in front of mountains, when we could have five? There are things here that are worthwhile.

It's just muddled. Muddled to the point where the story that's supposedly being told here, The Hobbit, gets sidelined and lost. If you want to argue that it's not just telling The Hobbit, but also "untold tales of Middle-Earth," or whatever. Then it's just a TERRIBLE script that doesn't have any idea what it's trying to be, or how to tell that story effectively to an audience who isn't clutching a copy of The Similarion for reference.

All I want is a home-video cut, akin to the much-lauded "Extended Editions" of The Lord of the Rings, but, instead, shorter. A "Just The Hobbit" cut.  My guess is, about 30 minutes of this 2:45 film would survive.

THE MUPPETS

Do you like joy?

Jon Stewart started talking about attending a Bruce Springsteen concert with that question. I found it hilarious, because it was true. I could ask the same thing about seeing The Muppets, Disney's 100% well-handled return of Jim Henson's creations to the big screen. 

The bottom line is, I think you'd have to be pretty cold-hearted to be of my generation and not be moved by this film. It's chock full of good will and positive energy. Even if you find nits to pick, the overall effort is so energized, and so on-task to the spirit that Henson himself imbued the characters with, that you have to let it evaporate.

I defy anyone to watch the sequence where The Rainbow Connection is fully performed to tell me this film doesn't capture the spirit of the Muppets. Yes, elements are updated, but not changed. Star/co-screenwriter Jason Segel has imagined a history that leaves untouched the "classic" Muppet projects, but sets up a quest/road picture that, yes, sows some seeds of discontent between the old team.

Personally, I had no problem with that. The characters did not become coarse, or stray from the personalities we remember, but they had moved on in logical ways. Fozzie still, desperately, trying to stay in showbiz. Piggy moving into high fashion. Gonzo becoming a plumbing magnate.

Yeah, that last one was odd, but IT'S GONZO. Plus, I chuckled heartily at the gentle dig at fears of "toilet humor" seeping into the proceedings.

There's a number of jokes like that, where Segel, with co-writer Nicholas Stoller, and director James Bobin stick in elements that, I'm sure, fans were terrified might rear up in a "re-invention." "The Moopets,"  ghettoized, crude versions of our familiar troupe comes right to mind. (Frankly, I'd have liked to see more of them...the idea tickles me so much...a "perform off" with the originals, or something. It also provides a funny celebrity cameo.)

Special kudos to Chris Cooper, who is nothing short of wonderful as Tex Richman, and my friends can thank him when I'm driving them nuts with, "Evil Laugh....Evil Laugh..." Let me just say this...the man can rap. Also, I can't tell you how much loved Uncle Deadly and ESPECIALLY Bobo the Bear as his partners in crime. Bobo SLAYED me in almost every scene. Genius work from Muppeteer Bill Barretta.

I really enjoyed Segel and Amy Adams as our main human protagonists. They were cute, which is pretty much the whole job. There's also Walter, our new Muppet. He, in many ways, drives the story. Just about every original character gets a good bit, or two, but there is a lot of ground to cover. I think Gonzo got a bit of a short shrift.

The new songs, by Flight of the Conchords member Bret McKenzie, are pretty good. I enjoyed all of them, but some of them, specifically Man or Muppet, sound an awful lot like Flight of the Conchords numbers. I'm luke-warm on that show/band, so your mileage may vary.

I also wonder about the Gary (Segel)/Walter relationship. They're brothers, but one is a Muppet? Then Mary (Adams) refers to Walter as Gary's "friend?" Aren't they brothers?

Aw, the heck with it. Long story short, if you were worried about someone coming in and screwing up the Muppets, allay those fears. You can question if it's as good as Jim would've done himself, but it's a loving, respectful love letter to his creations.

One last bit...Thank you, God for Zach Galifianakis as Hobo Joe. Brilliant. Utterly.

Jeff Bridges SINGS!!!!

Downloaded Jeff Bridges Self-Titled Album this morning, and, since it's a pretty short one, I listened to all of it on the way to work.

I kinda love it.

Now, to be fair, I was very, very taken with Bridges performance in Crazy Heart (as I am with almost every acting job he does) , and really loved his musical performances in that film, and on the soundtrack (which is phenomenal, BTW). No, he doesn't have a perfect voice, or tremendous vocal range, but his voice was authentic, and felt right for an artist like "Bad" Blake in the film. The same can be said for this album.

If you watched Crazy Heart, and just kept saying to yourself, "he can't sing," well...First, I think you're dead wrong, and second, don't even bother with this album.

It should also be said that Bridges has a long history with music. He and his brother, Beau, have apparently been writing songs together for years. Bridges has songwriting credit for two tracks on this set.

Bridges, as a music artist, is clearly in the vein of the old-time country troubadours, your Johnny Cash, your Waylon Jennings. Now, I am NOT saying he's as good as those legends, but that's clearly the vein in which Bridges, and producer T-Bone Burnett are working in. I also felt a very strong similarity to the work of Tom Waits. There's a very loose, shambling feel to a lot of the numbers that is in that Waits realm, and Bridges voice tends toward that growling baritone.

the Waits similarity is really pronounced in the Bridges-penned tracks, especially "Tumbling Vine." It really struck me several times that I'd like to hear Bridges take a shot at Waits' "Grapefruit Moon," or "Rosie." There's that same sort of world-weary, but sharp vibe. The big difference between the two is that Bridges wins on the sincerity scale. I LOVE Tom Waits, but you do often get the feeling that the whole thing is an act, a bit of a joke on his audience. I love him for that, the sense that he's a puzzle to be deconstructed, but Bridges, almost to a fault, makes you feel like you're getting something real.

Maybe that's because he's a genius-level actor. Who knows? I do know that I felt like I was getting material that either came from, or touched, in the case of songs written by others, Bridges' heart.Of particular note is "The Quest," which really hit me as I rode the train to work today. It's a wonder that someone as accomplished, and successful, as Bridges could connect with me on the constant need to accomplish...something. He did, however, in spades. It's a great song, but it is Bridges rough voice that brings it to life.

The first track, and the first single, "What a Little Bit of Love Can Do," is the most "commercial" track here. It moves, and it's bouncy and fun. Ryan Bingham provides backing vocals. Here's the video:



I really enjoyed this record.

One Of Those Days

 

That's from the cover of Marvel's Secret Wars #4. The bad guys dropped a mountain on the heroes, and The Hulk caught it. 

What can you do, right?

Saw Crazy, Stupid Love over the weekend. What a great film.

Seriously. Yeah, I love my sci-fi, my comic books, my superheroes, but I really do love a good romantic comedy, and I think Crazy, Stupid Love is about the best I've seen since Love, Actually (which is just unassailable, in my opinion, as the best romantic comedy since...I don't know, Annie Hall?). The cast is flat-out terrific, anchored by Steve Carrell and Mr. "so talented I hate him" Ryan Gosling.

Gosling, it appears to me, anyway, seems to be doing a riff on what the Hollywood system would like him to be, while Carrell is...well, doing that thing we all love him for. He's the hapless, good hearted guy who gets his heart stomped, makes a lot of mistakes, and still ends up a decent human being. They're matched very well by Emma Stone and Julianne Moore, respectively.

I liked how the film is just determined to play nice. No one's overly an asshole, and everyone has good qualities. It helps to drive home how easy it is to fall in love, and how hard it is to stay there. The supporting cast is all great, and the film provides a few twists that, I admit, I never saw coming.

Good time, a good date movie. Well made. When you see the trailer for New Years Eve (from the people who brought you Valentine's Day...because they somehow escaped our wrath) before the film, you realize how little thought an effort usually goes into this genre. I'll always champion an example that shows effort and talent.

The Social Network

I don't care how accurate it is.

This is the first thing to understand about how I look at movies that are "based on a true story." Facts are inconsequential in the realm of art. As Oscar Wilde said;

The function of an artist is to invent, not chronicle.

Anybody working in this genre who's any good at all knows that emotional "truth" is vastly more important than things like "facts." If you invent a scene that allows your audience to understand your characters better, that's far more important than the nuts and bolts of "what really happened." There's nothing more annoying to me than when some idiot starts trying to nitpick a film that's working exceedingly well for inconsequential things like "that conversation wasn't outside that office, it was on the roof."

Because, let's be absolutely clear here...The Social Network is probably the best film you'll see this year. It's also vastly important, in that it understands, more than any other film I've seen, what the internet means to our society right now. The narcissism, the greed, the anger, the need for attention that drives it. The moment that leads to the invention of Facebook, as portrayed in this movie, is absolutely, 100% emotionally honest.

We all understand why Mark Zuckerberg (Played to absolute perfection by Jessie Eisenberg) takes the action he does in the opening moments of the film. We understand he's scum, and that he lives up to being called "an asshole" in the opening minutes. Yet, we've all felt as he does, and we all know that the internet is there for us to inflict our emotional state upon the world. There's even a line where he says something to the effect of, "I was drunk, angry, and blogging."

That's probably the best definition of the internet I've ever heard.

I've been excited about this film for almost a year, when I heard rumors about the brilliance of Aaron Sorkin's script. The rumors are true, the script is tight, juggling multiple storylines and time periods deftly, and always keeps story and character at the forefront in making the points it wants to get across. The Social Network is social commentary, but it's compelling drama, first and foremost.

I got even more excited when David Fincher came on board as director. I am a huge, huge, huge fan of Fincher's film Zodiac, which is just brilliance on legs. He's deft with a camera, and yet keeps storytelling to the forefront, and clear. It's on display in all his work, from Alien3 to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. It's Zodiac, however, that made me confident...it's the same sort of sprawling, multiple-viewpoints story. He does not disappoint.

As information and trailers started to get out, I did notice that a lot of people didn't quite get what the film was after. I heard a lot of "they made a movie about fucking Facebook!?!" I'll admit, the trailer, which was really interesting when you get what the point of the movie is, can be read as a Facebook advertisement. To be clear...this is not a cynical attempt to jump on the Facebook raze. Sorkin and Fincher have correctly surmised what Facebook represents, in terms of how we, as a society, view the internet, and seen how the story of it's creation is a reflection of that.

The performances are really sharp across the board. Eisenberg is a performer I've enjoyed a lot, he was particularly good in Adventureland, but, in playing Zuckerberg, he rises to a whole new level. It's deeply interesting and focused work. I became transfixed on how he would contort his lower lip in times of emotional stress. It's a specific, clear choice that tells us so much about Mark as a character, and his ability to deal, or not deal, with emotional moments.

The entire ensemble is lovely, the soon-to-be Spider-Man Andrew Garfield is just hearbreaking as original Facebook CEO Eduardo Saverin. His performance is always compelling, and, when you see how bad a situation he's allowed himself to slip into, you feel the betrayal as fully as he does. Justin Timberlake, as Napster founder Sean Parker is oily as hell, but walks that fine line, so you can see how his charisma could pull Zuckerberg into his fold. I also really liked almost-Batman-in-Justice League Armie Hammer as the Winklevoss twins. The effects work in his sequences is exquisite, but it's Hammer's sharp differences between the two that makes it really believable.

The Social Network is truly THE film of the year. I am looking forward to other releases in the next few months (True Grit....ahhhhhh), but I can't imagine any film feeling as "of the moment" as this one. This is today's story, about today's society, being told RIGHT NOW, and it's brilliant. It's brilliant because it does all of those things without losing site that the most important thing is to tell a story.

Go see it.

Review roundup: "Kick-Ass" and "La Raza"

Two blogs in one day? Mind. Blown.

Thanks to the generosity of Capone at Ain't It Cool News and Lionsgate films, Last night I saw Kick-Ass. The film is an adaptation of the comic book series by Mark millar and John Romita, Jr. It's set for release on April 16th.



Let's start by saying this: I'm not a HUGE fan of the comic series. I find, generally, with creator-owned comic projects by Mark Millar, it always feels like the comics are there simply to get a movie deal. Worked wonders in this case, as the storyline presented in the film just wrapped up last month with Kick-Ass #8, I think it was. I can say that John Romita Jr's art was worth every penny. Like his father, Romita is a legend in his own time.

But here we have the movie. Long story short, there are parts I like much better than the comic, and parts I liked less. Generally speaking, the film has much more of a sense of humor about itself than the book did, which helps a lot. The performances, with Chloe Moretz and Nick Cage being standouts, are all pretty solid. Cage does this incredibly odd Adam West voice while in costume as Big Daddy, and it's one of those things that reminds you of how wonderful his odd choices could be in the past. Moretz will be a fanboy favorite as Hit Girl, and is the centerpiece of pretty much all the major action sequences. Her physical work alone is as impressive as any adult, and the fact is she brings it emotionally, too. The final scene between Big Daddy and Hit Girl left me more than a little choked up.

(Note here: If you're uncomfortable watching a 10-11 year old girl kill 30-40 people in pretty brutal fashion, Kick-Ass is not the movie for you.)

The film itself centers on Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), and this is where things kinda fall down. The comics presented Dave as a uber-nerdy kid in the "real world" who decides to become a superhero. Being a movie/comic book, this, of course, leads him in to conflict with real-live bad guys far beyond his ability to deal with, as well as Big Daddy and Hit Girl, who are the closest thing to "real" superheros in this story.

The Dave of the comics was a true believer in comic book ethics, he is truly disturbed by Big Daddy and Hit Girl's body count. The film backs off this, and leaves up with Dave wielding the heavy artillery like everyone else. That saddened me. What also saddened me was the resolution of Dave's "love story," which changed from a pretty powerful (and realistic) denouement in the comic, to a extremely formulaic "Hollywood" resolution in the film. If anything the move really upset me, as far as changes, that was it.

Just to note, for the sake of noting it, yes...this movie also features McLovin (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) as a superhero.

Bottom line, I found the film entertaining. It drags a bit in the middle, but ends with a bang. I give it 3 out of 5 stars, with the caveat that I was no huge fan of the source material.

I also downloaded La Raza, the first album in ten years by Armored Saint.



I became aware of Armored Saint, really, because vocalist John Bush had joined Anthrax in the early 90's. I picked up a copy of Symbol of Salvation, which, in my humble opinion, is not only their best album, but one of the best metal albums, ever.

I am a big John Bush fan. I love the qualities of his delivery and attack when he sings, and the line-up of the whole band backs him with equal skill. Jeff Duncan (guitar), Phil Sandoval (guitar), Joey Vera (bass), and Gonzo (drums) all seem more than happy to be back together and making music.

The album starts strong with "Loose Cannon," but then gets even more solid for the next two tracks, "Head On" and "Left Hook From Right Field." these two tracks represent the high water mark of the record. Powerful numbers with great musicianship and vocals. We slip back a bit on "Get off the Fence," but then "Chilled" slows things down in a nice, moody number. Probably Bush's bet performance on the record.

The title track, "La Raza," is next, and I think it suffers a bit from "Chinese Democracy syndrome," wherein the band seems to try to do everything they can do in one track, instead of pushing through on one cohesive idea. It's good, but a little long and sprawling. "Black Feet" is a rugged little bluesy number, I like it a lot. "Little Monkey" comes off as a bit of a joke, with goofy wordplay and silliness, but it doesn't overstay it's welcome. The final two tracks are a bit weak, "Blues" and "Bandit Country," so the album kinda fades away rather than ending on a powerful note.

La Raza is not Armored Saint's best album ever, but having Symbol of Salvation on your discography kinda skews things. This is a really, really solid hard rock/metal album. It's enjoying heavy, heavy rotation on my zune right now, and I expect it to be there for a while.

Four out of five stars, and a big recommendation if you like this style of music.

Also of note: I am so very excited that Them Crooked Vultures are coming back to Chicago in May. I am waiting with baited breath to get my ticket.

Chickenfoot - Chicago Theatre -8/7/2009

Fantastic show, fantastic band.

Ok, first off. Chad Smith was out on stage about a half hour before the opening act, checking out the theatre, and hob-nobbing with the folks in front. Gave me a big laugh. Folks realizing who it was and trying to rush down there.

I was in the handicapped section to start. (Hey, I just asked what was left, and they sold it to me.) About 10 minutes before the opening act, the house manager comes up and asks if I'm alone. I say sure, she asks if she can move me "a little closer."

I say yes, and I'm led down to about the 20th row. Nice.

The opening act was great, Davy Knowles and Back Door Slam. Dave F, you would've went crazy for these guys, right up your alley. The only complaint I have is that the mix seemed to be in a frequency that went right through my head. I had a few moments when Knowles' guitar was downright painful.

So, after that, the lights go out and a tons of lights, a giant, lighted version of the "Chickenfoot" symbol, and a huge "Chickenfoot" banner lower into position. Chad Smith comes out, and just stands behind his kit for a minute, arms crossed, and surveying the crowd....then sat down and started banging away.

Look, let me get right to this. Chad Smith made this show for me. I've never seen the Chili Peppers, so I have no idea if this is his "normal" routine. Sammy Hagar, when introducing him called him the "craziest guy I know," and he lived up to that. First off, great drummer, and I can only compare it to Keith Moon, just wild, total abandon in his playing, all over the kit, but always in the pocket. He must also hit HARD, about 30 seconds into the first song, I see a broken stick come flying into the crowd.

Honestly, it was raining sticks all night. He must've thrown 30 or 35 sticks into the crowd. In some songs it seemed like every measure, a stick would go flying into the air. Then another one out, without missing a beat. It was hard to fathom how he could do all that, keep the beat, and never run out of sticks. I mean, he must've had piles of sticks behind his kit.

Plus, the dude is funny. You could see him playing with the audience the whole show, making faces, interacting directly to people in front. Totally entertaining guy. Smith also gets the line of the night, "Why are you people upstairs not standing up? We're working our balls off up here! You, in the orange shirt! Yeah YOU! Stand UP!"

Sammy was obviously having a ton of fun, and Mike Anthony was Mike Anthony. Love him to death, a stand up guy, and he was obvioulsy unleashed as far as what he was playing, and being able to hear him. Satriani was more reserved, but that's also the place that seems to be carved out for him in the group, as he's obviously the most reserved one up there.

What did come through, in spades, was that these four guys were having a ball playing together. They were not trying to trade on past glories, other than the fact of who they are, which they can't do anything about. They basically played the who album, then "Bad Motor Scooter" and "Highway Star" for an encore. No Van Halen (which would've been easy to do), no Hagar solo stuff, no Satriani solo stuff, no Chili Peppers. Though, man...it would be funny to see Sammy sing "Give it Away," or something. LOL.

Sammy directly addressed the issue at one point, thanking the crowd for coming out even when they knew that they were going to get 100% new songs. He then went on to say that he felt Chickenfoot wasn't a "supegroup," but a cult band. Now, I don'tknow about that, but I get the sentiment.

All in all, a really, really fun show. A band very much worth seeing.