MAD MAX: FURY ROAD

"We are not things. We are not things!"

I'll be up front, I have been excited for this film for a very, very long time.

I wrangled a ticket to a public advanced screening last night, May 6th, so I have no qualms about sharing my opinion. Real-D 3-D screening, which is not something I would probably have paid for (the film is post-converted), but, hey, it was free.

Oh, man, I am so glad I got in.

This is going to be the film to beat, as far as I'm concerned, this Summer. It is the very definition of a "thrill ride," and some of the strongest action filmmaking I've seen in years. George Miller, almost 70 years old, and away from live-action filmmaking for almost 20, re-asserts himself as a master of the form without a snag. This is a director's film, without a doubt, and Miller falls seamlessly into the style and tricks that have defined this franchise since he created it (I laughed out out loud at every shot undercranked to up the speed of everything, or the quick dissolves to black at the end of scenes), and yet embraces every bit of the new tech available to him. The film is pure cinema, energy, motion, and visual splendor.

Yes, there is CGI in this film. More than I hoped, but Miller has used it in the service of augmenting live stunt work. We see real cars smashing into each other, but CG men caught and ground under the wreckage. There are a few shots that fall into the "this was put together on green screen" feel that was so pervasive in Avengers: Age of Ultron, such as about anything involving the traveling music/soundtrack that Immortan Joe brings along on his hunt. The use is, to me, tasteful and understandable. In the main, you are seeing real stuntmen doing really crazy shit with insane-looking vehicles in the middle of the desert. If we're not; the effects are even better than I'm giving them credit for.

Plot-wise, Miller has not been exaggerating much, at all, when he says the film is a "two hour chase scene." I was shocked at exactly how fast this film moves. There is no exposition, really, at all. There is a brief voice-over from Max (Tom Hardy), vaguely sketching out the world, and then...literally moments into the film, before the title appears, you are into a full-on chase. The nature of the world, and Immortan Joe's (Hugh Keays-Byrne) enclave, just sort of piles up higher and higher. The film is content to have the audience put their own pieces together.

The film is clearly a reboot, with Max's iconic V-8 Interceptor, destroyed in 1981's Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior, back in action at the start of the film. There are also flashbacks that Max experiences that seem to be about his family, but do not jibe, at all, with what was portrayed in 1979's Mad Max. Yet, even as I watched it, and knowing that the script started with the intent of returning Mel Gibson to the role he originated, I could see threads that suggested this film would fall after 1985's Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

 What I mean by that is this franchise has presented a post-apocalyptic world that has devolved and evolved in a very interesting and linear way. Mad Max presented a world on the verge of collapse, with forces of order fighting, in vain, to keep society functional. The Road Warrior was after those efforts had failed, and humanity had re-entered a tribal phase. Thunderdome allowed us to see a very medieval city-state, based around commerce and fudal thinking.

Fury Road goes one step further, as adeptly as the best Star Wars films, just piles on throwaway detail after throwaway detail, without stopping to explain, until the world simply feels undeniably clear and undeniably real. Humanity has clearly become more and more adept at replacing what's been lost (ammunition, fuel), and within this world, Immortan Joe's enclave is a dictatorship based on religion. A religion that's never overly explained (but nothing really is), but clearly trades on Norse mythology (Valhalla is invoked over and over), and ritual suicide in battle (presented as a sure path to Valhalla, and marked by spray painting one's mouth silver). Joe maintains control of the peasantry by parceling his supply of fresh water.

He also hordes a lot of other resources. The how and why of all these things, is parceled out through the narrative. There really is never any "oh, that's why!" explanation. He's after a lot of stuff, blood (we discover Max is O-Negative, a perfect donor), mother's milk, and women. Women who might bear him a "perfect" - i.e. unmarked by the ravages of a post-apocalyptic world - son.

And it's this that really drives the story, because Max, despite the title, is not the real protagonist of this film. That would fall on Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), it's this character, and her journey, that defines the conflict, and the film itself. Max's role falls into the "Han Solo"-type second lead. He's a survivor, out for himself, who is changed by meeting the Imperator and her cargo.

(I am being intentionally vague here - plot details are easy enough to find if you wish to, but I prefer to allow you to discover them yourself while watching the film.)

The plot is dead simple. So simple that I'm sure that there will be audiences who think it has none. Plot is not important here, theme is. There is no complicated set-up, we know what everybody wants, we know who wants it, and why. What's left is action, and I don't mean that in the sense of things slamming into each other, although that is central - it is a Mad Max movie. What I mean is that the themes of this film, which are deep, compelling, and progressive, are defined wholly and completely by what the characters DO, not by talking about it. Theron, who is masterful in the film, shares everything the audience needs to understand about how she feels about Immortan Joe's society in the way she drives her war rig, and the hardness of her stare.

The film is, in a very, very real way, the ultimate expression of a thesis I have long held to, in that these pulpy, simple stories are the most powerful way to make specific, powerful points about our society now than many, many other formats. They do not have to be stupid, George Miller has crafted an epic action film the like of which we have possibly never seen, and at every turn he is saying something about us and our world right now. In a world where Michael Bay can have robots slam into each other nonsensically, and where the final battle of an Avengers film can be reduced to a series of shots that seem like random and disconnected moments of flash, and it's deemed "good enough," Miller has taken the concept of the car case and made it sing. The characters are compelling, the action motivated and clear, the geography understandable, and the deeper meaning of it all right there, if you want to consider it.

This is the film of the summer, creatively. I left this film as thrilled and entranced as when I watch Raiders of the Lost Ark, which, for those that know me, is just about the highest praise I can muster. I honestly can't tell you if a wide audience will embrace it. It's exceptionally thrilling, and I had definite moments where I could feel the audience, en mass, catching their breath. However, it's also filled with Hard-R brutality (not gore, thank goodness), and the story moves so quickly that I wonder if our society, sadly disinclined to think, or figure things out on their own, will embrace it.

I so hope they do. This film deserves the widest audience possible.

Thor: The Dark World

First off, and I cannot state this any more strongly:

I will NEVER pay to see a Marvel Studios film in 3-D again.

Never.

Marvel's use of this technology has consistently been sub-par and mercenary. It's simply a gimmick to inflate the box office numbers, and I've had enough. Especially in a year with a film like Gravity showing us how this tech can be used creatively and intrinsically to immerse the audience in the world of the film, Marvel's consistently half-assed presentations simply make me angry.

However, what can I expect when I see a film like Thor: The Dark World.

Is the film bad? No, not at all. It's diverting and provides entertainment. Yet, as with Iron Man 3, I just felt like the whole escapade was simply a matter of going through the motions.

Let's start with the good. I've come to the conclusion that Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman are going to be the only couple Marvel ever gives us who actually seem to have a honest physical attraction or relationship. Tony Stark and Pepper Potts seem like a mommy and her petulant child, and, while I loved it in the context of the film, The Steve Rogers/Peggy Carter relationship was SO chaste. Portman and Hemsworth have moments of true sexual chemistry, something sorely lacking in the rest of the franchise.

The cast continues to be game and engaged with their roles. Hemsworth, however, seems a bit trapped by the limitations of the thunder god (Rush showed what he's capable of as a leading man in a way these films can't even remotely come near). Portman, as opposed to the Star Wars prequels, where she just stopped trying, is engaged. Of course, Tom Hiddleston steals the show to the delight of women everywhere who like pale, thin, non-threatening British men.

The film also looks good, with Game of Thrones vet Alan Taylor building some grunge into the Nine Realms, which, in retrospect, seemed lacking in Kenneth Branagh's original film. He coaxes some good moments out of his cast. The pacing and action are handled well. Like I said, it's not a bad movie, and the fact it's not be attributed to Taylor and his cast.

Because the script is awful, for the most part. Christopher Eccelston, a truly gifted actor, is utterly and completely wasted as Malekith, the leader of the dark elves, who are on the hunt for the Aether, which is a really, really uninspiring and ill-defined maguffin. Somehow, the Aether can return the nine realms to the time of darkness, when the dark elves ruled. It's also fluid/gaseous, and is able to worm it's way into Portman's Jane Foster. It could kill her...I guess. The whole function and nature of this stuff is frustratingly ill-defined, and Malekith's hunt for it really lacks much in the way of drive.

(Of course, it's also part of a larger crossover-universe thing, but I'll get to that.)

Which shouldn't be construed as saying nothing happens. Plenty happens, but it all seems really perfunctory. Without getting too spoilery, in the final moments of the film it becomes very, very clear that this entire move was an excuse to move a few pieces around the "Marvel Movie Universe" board, rather than a fleshed-out narrative on it's own.

Which is really frustrating, because it plays right into the biggest pitfalls of this shared narrative universe. The idea of a shared universe is exciting, but this film, much like Iron Man 2 with The Avengers, felt like it was a tossed off story simply there to set up Thor 3. Because it's REALLY obvious where the third film will head, at this point, and everything important that happened in this film probably could been part of the first act of that film.

Then there's the during/after credits tags...one, I'm sure it's no surprise, is designed to lead us to Guardians of the Galaxy, which I am excited about. However, the teaser, which Alan Taylor wants us to know he had nothing to do with, is kind of alarming. I want to believe in James Gunn, but it looks cheap. Like Sci-Fi original cheap. It also gives us the sense that the Aether is tied directly to a BIG piece of Marvel Universe Mythology.

To that I say, "fuck you Marvel." You spend a whole movie with this stuff, and make it confusing and less than inspiring. Then you try to make it important...for the next movie.

In short, this movie didn't need to exist. It's a placeholder, like The Matrix Reloaded, just there to put plotlines and elements in play for other movies. Which would be fine if it was wildly entertaining, but it isn't, it's passably diverting.

So, yeah. I didn't hate it. I didn't get up angry or feeling gypped, like with Man of Steel or Star Trek into Darkness. It happened, and I went home. Being a completist, I'll buy the Blu-Ray. Maybe I'm being too harsh, it's not offensive or insulting. It's just by-the-numbers franchise filmmaking, but after enduring the rampant ego of Iron Man 3, I really wanted this to be better.

Metallica: Through the Never

I think Metallica takes WAY too much crap.

I certainly don't love everything they do, and, yes, they're thirty years, and multiple millions of dollars, from the greasy-faced kids that cranked out Kill 'Em All in 1983. You can read multiple online rants about how they've lost the "fire" that drove their early work. That's probably true, but, folks, you can't be 20 years old forever, and if you try to, you end up a giant act of fakery like David Lee Roth.

The trick is to find a new kind of fire.

They aren't those kids, nor should they be. Too many years, deaths, arguments and dollars have passed. One can mock and criticize them for standing up to illegal downloading, making a documentary about their group therapy sessions, the resulting chaotic, ugly album, or creating art-house rock with Lou Reed. To be clear, much of the criticism would have valid points, but I would also ask how many major, world-renowned music acts would do those things? Would take those risks? Very, very few, and frankly, the vehemence and unreasonable nature of the criticism the band has endured probably has more to do with fans who can't get past not being who they were in 1983, rather than a band who's run out of ideas.

I am nowhere near the rabid fan I was for many years, but I will always be interested in what Hetfield, Ulrich, Hammett and Trujillo do. They've given me enough enjoyment, excitement, and straight-ahead anger management that I figure I owe it to them to give a fair listen to what's turning them on, rather than just demanding they hew to my vision of what "Metallica" should be.

I don't have to like everything, and I haven't, but I get it. I get the desire to create, and not be placed in a box, forbidden from exploring anything outside of a rigid fan's desire.

So, Metallica put up a bunch of their own money, and made a movie. Metallica: Through the Never. It's been playing in IMAX 3D at select locations, and will go wide tomorrow, October 4th. I managed to make it to the Navy Pier IMAX last night to check it out (frankly, I didn't know it was playing there until Monday - somebody at Navy Pier needs to get their stuff on Fandango, something).

For the most part, Through the Never is a pretty straight-ahead concert film. There is a "narrative," of sorts that plays out as the concert goes on. With Dane DeHann playing Trip, a Metallica roadie sent into a nightmare city of revolution and violence to procure, and return, a special item needed by the band. Really, this whole element of the film is complete hooey, and I mean that not as a criticism.

The band didn't want to just do a concert film, citing Led Zeppelin's The Song Remains the Same, with it's fantasy sequences starring each member of the band. Metallica, probably wisely, based on the Zeppelin example, felt they should not be directly part of these sequences. Trip travels through a series of surreal episodes tied to each song the band plays, as well as the concert staging, giving the entire enterprise the feel of a giant music video. Sometimes this works perfectly, the sequence around Cyanide, from 2008's Death Magnetic, is legitimately creepy and disturbing, not just for the surreal landscape of hanging bodies Trip walks through, but the video imagery of people finding themselves sealed alive into coffins that surrounds the band as they play.

It's these moments when the narrative really works, even if it makes not a lick of sense. Trip's journey is illogical, with the character apparently dying at least twice during the film. However, Director Nimrod Antal effectively sets up the entire world he's operating in as wildly dreamlike and surreal, even before Trip leaves the arena. The introduction of each band member, as Trip first sees them, play as weird jokes (My favorite being Hammett conferring with a tech about a damaged guitar that is gushing blood).

So, yeah the entire narrative is silly and rife with heavy metal horror movie cliche'. Never bothered me, because the film knows what it is up to. It's more than happy to poke fun, as with the "first in, last out" screaming uber-fan who opens the film. When the film, and filmmakers know that this is all sizzle for the steak, I can roll with that.

Because the steak is so good. Antal's cameras are everywhere in the arena as the band plays. At several points you see the crews dodging flashpots, and band members, on the stage to get up close. When the advertising says that you'll best seat in the house, it's not hyperbole, the cameras are literally inches from the band members, and the audience.

It's also a really effective use of both the IMAX format, and 3D. As with most of my favorite 3D films, the effect isn't Count Floyd poking something at you moaning, "sacry, scary," but a sense of depth and actually being in the arena. Frankly having a wall of people behind the band in nearly every shot really helps. Not to mention that the IMAX format makes all those people, and the silly things people do at concerts, very, very clear.

The spectacle of the whole thing is also tied to the truly amazing stage set the band had constructed for these shows. Featuring props and gimmicks from throughout their career. It was kind of amusing to see things like "Doris" the lady justice statue from the ...And Justice For All tour constructed and destroyed just like the old days. Each new prop and bit brought back memories for me.

As pure spectacle, the film is well worth the money. If you want to hear the band sound spectacular in full surround sound, it's worth the money.

It's worth the money.

Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

I will still give it a few episodes before pulling the eject lever, don't get me wrong. I think it's weak sauce out of the gate, however.

My friend Linus Lee made a few comments that crystallized a lot of my feelings about what I think just doesn't work. They don't explain exactly why this special team is being created very well, or set it up very well as a "mystery," if that's the idea, in contrast to this HUGE S.H.I.E.L.D. organization we've seen an understand from the films (not to mention that that context makes the show feel REALLY rinky-dinky - which I absolutely acknowledge as unfair, TV budgets, etc, but the impression is there). The Coulson thing? They basically dropped a "Life Model Decoy" road sign right in the middle of the first act, so...I'm simply waiting for that shoe to drop.

I don't understand why this show exists, why this story needs to be told, in the context of the "Marvel Cinematic Universe." Outside of that context, on a corporate level, to exploit the brand? I get it.

"Next Wave," you say? Fine, but the context of that is horribly muddled "psudeo-Kitty Pryde" is connected to them, but not? They're trying to make superheroes? Wasn't that a subplot of about half of the movies so far? "Everybody wants a super-soldier!" Got it, check, can we move on? They're not defined, and not immediately interesting enough to pose much of a mystery aspect.

I also dislike most of the characters. Let's be honest, that's where a show like this will live or die. I find they fall into REALLY obvious "Joss Whedon" tropes, and the cast seems unable (talent regardless - they're at sea) to breathe real life into those tropes. There are exceptions, the great Clark Gregg manages to at least spit out some truly awful "jokes" (the "dark corner" gag is truly one of the most clunky things I've ever had to watch an actor struggle with, and fail). Ming Na was also great, but the character's arc was blindingly obvious and telegraphed, not to mention that what we do learn about her personality is about as generic as it comes. (I've heard her character called "bad ass" in a couple of conversations....Really? She beat up one guy. That's "bad ass" now?) The rest of the cast become pretty much forgettable, even Whedon's beloved "Kitty Pryde stand-in" character. "Agent Handsomeface" (kudos to Linus on that one) would actually be more memorable if his name was actually Handsomeface.

I honestly don't think I had very high expectations. I should point out that the only Whedon show I actually can stand to watch is Firefly (half of you have now discredited my entire opinion, fine), and that's because the cast absolutely crushes the dialogue. The AOS cast simply doesn't seem to have the facility with it. To that, I found it all pretty contrived and stilted, and groaned at pretty much every "easter egg" joke.

"Join us on our JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY." Really? GROAAAANN....

Also, Joss? What happened on the directing front? It made me INSANE that the direction was just flat as a pancake. Here's Joss, makes a couple of really well-done, exciting features, comes back to TV, and it's just muddled. Run over here, do something, talk fast, witty comment, run over there, rinse, repeat. There were no clearly defined stakes, unless you've seen Iron Man 3. I felt no narrative connective tissue, just a series of events. The social commentary was just lame. In that, I got it when I saw the guy was out of work, there was no need to spell it out, and, literally, beat somebody over the head with it.

I also...is this even really a "Joss Whedon" show, or is it a corporate synergy move? It's certainly about as "work for hire" as the man's ever gotten. Joss is not the showrunner, or apparently even going to be very hands-on, at all (he's got Age of Ultron to make, and apparently doing script fixes on everything else Marvel does, I don't see how he can be). The show feels cobbled together out of Marvel's desire to move into TV, having Clark Gregg be available, and Joss gave them a framework for someone else to try to flesh out.

Could it get better? Of course. It's just a pilot, and all pilots are usually very different from the series proper. (Look at Encounter at Farpoint - a solid pick for the WORST Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, ever). That's why I'm sticking around for at least a few more episodes. That said, I think we, as a fanbase, have a duty to be critical and honestly say that something feels amiss (without going overboard into ultra-hateful "Prequel territory"). Hopefully the team has already figured all of this out, and is making adjustments.

The stinger for upcoming episodes didn't give me much hope, however. I quote, "you won't want to miss the end OF EVERY EPISODE!!!"

So, what? There's a big twist at the end of every episode? Major game-changers? No? (Really, how could there be?) So, you're just spouting ultra-generic marketing doublespeak, instead of selling what the show is, and why I might want to tune in.

That doesn't make me all that confident. In act, it makes me feel like somebody in a suit thinks slapping "Marvel's" on almost anything will make fanboys tune in, no matter the quality.

Sad thing is, they're probably right.

Zero Dark Thirty

I'm more than a little conflicted on this one.

On one hand, Kathryn Bigelow has made a really powerful and precise re-enactment of the events that led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Starting with audio of the 9/11 attacks, right to the aftermath of the raid on his compound. It's sharp, extremely well-made, and feels authentic. You can't argue about Bigelow's skill with the camera, she is a master, only now, finally, getting her deserved attention. There is nothing wrong with this film, and individual scenes work like gangbusters.

I'm also sort of torn, because unlike The Hurt Locker (yes, it's unfair to compare, but I cannot help it), I was never really emotionally engaged by what was going on. Intrigued? Interested? Sure. The Hurt Locker, however, felt revelatory and powerful because it made me understand what William James (Jeremy Renner) was enduring and experiencing emotionally. After a pretty shattering and frightening use of telephone audio from the Twin Towers in the opening moments, Zero Dark Thirty works very, very hard to make the events unemotional and clinical.

I understand that must've been an intentional choice. I also understand why you would make that choice. thing is, the movie sort of fell in the middle for me. It's not a "puzzle" challenging the audience to keep up, like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (though it obviously is for the characters), and it doesn't emotionally suck me in. It's a fictionalized documentation of the recent past, and precious little more than that.

It's not like it doesn't raise issues, because it most assuredly does. The loudest voices have been about the film's "jingoism," and portrayal of torture by the CIA.

On the first issue, I can only say that the film is far too cold and clinical to really be jingoistic. It presents what happened, and how various people responded to it. The CIA analyst we follow through the story "Maya'" (Jessica Chastain - who's quite good), has a laser-like focus on her target, but we never know why. All we ever really know is that she is a professional who does her job well, even after she has friends killed by an Al-Qaeda bomber. There's obviously politics involved, you couldn't tell this story without them, but I never once felt any sense of "America, FUCK YEAH!!!" This is what happened, according to "first person accounts," Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal (who also wrote The Hurt Locker) document it, period.

As to the second issue, all I can say is this: The film clearly, and unflinchingly, shows the techniques of torture used by the CIA on detainees. It also shows that information gleaned from these detainees led "Maya" to Bin Laden's compound. It also shows us, in the character of  "Dan" (Jason Clarke - who's the absolute best thing in the movie), operatives who do not take joy in these sessions. It's almost a mantra for the film, this is their job, they do it well. They understand the horror of it, but they see it as their duty to do it. "Dan," in particular, being the primary character engaging in these tactics, seems haunted for the entire film, and "Maya" is clearly sickened at first.

I think an audience who would rather see an indictment of the practice will be upset or outraged, and the supporters will be upset because they would rather not have ever seen waterboarding, for example, dramatized. I, personally, will give the film high marks for making the torture of the detainees as messy and complicated as the "issue" truly is. This is what happened, it was ugly and brutal, and it may have saved lives in the long run. Certainly, these characters felt it did.

That sort of clinical detachment continues to the actual raid on Bin Laden's compound. The SEAL team (Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt are the most recognizable faces) is precise, brutal and thorough. Again, I'm sure some will find the way they coldly put and extra bullet in each downed body off-putting, or even offensive, but I recognized the idea that you need to make sure that when you put a hostile down, he stays down. Ultimately, however, the clinical nature of what we're seeing makes the entire sequence less than immediate. Everything feels at arms length. To be clear, I never expected to be thrilled, or exhilarated by this sequence, but I did expect more tension than I felt was there.

Like I said, I see the reason for these choices. This idea, again, of watching these events through the eyes of professional people simply doing their jobs, is interesting. Yet, ultimately, I felt like I might as well have watched a news report. Bigelow and Boal's film feels more like a documentary than most of the documentaries I've seen lately.

I guess for me, personally, I feel like a fictionalized, dramatic film should do more than simply relate events to us. Fictionalizing true events, at it's best, allows us to expand the human feelings that massive historical events tend to steamroll over. To find the way these events impacted, and changed, the humans caught up in it. It exposes something beyond facts and details. The Hurt Locker did that with the Iraq War, in my opinion. I think Zero Dark Thirty, while being a truly outstanding work of cinema craft, fell short.

***ADDENDUM***

I really don't give a crap about how "accurate" this film is. My discussion of the as being "realistic" seems to be construed by some as that I think everything is accurate. I don't. I also don't think that matters.

Zero Dark Thirty is a FICTIONAL version of true events. Yes, the filmmakers have attempted, via research, to be as accurate as they could, however that does not make the film a documentary. It makes it a fictional film that strives for a hyper-realistic, psuedo-documentary feel. That "feel" is what I have trouble with.

I don't know how accurate the film is, in terms of detail. Don't care, at all. However, I, personally, wish Bigelow and Boal had strove from more emotional connection, rather than aiming for an accuracy they could never really achieve.

The Delicate Balance of Dealing With Reviews

I have a very schizophrenic relationship with reviews.

I don't really hang much on them, and, as I've said, I am much more interested in the opinions of general audience members than anything else. I do believe there is often a disconnect between many critical responses, and the layman's. Not always, to be sure, but I do think that if people are flocking to see a show (or a movie, or read a book, or whatever) that is widely panned, the problem isn't necessarily the public's taste, or lack thereof.

But I do read reviews. I puzzle over them, consider any arguments I feel are valid, and dismiss any I find to be unfair or just obtuse. Sometimes, I am hurt by them, sometimes emboldened, and sometimes just downright confused. You can't change your choices because some critic for "poptheatreblog.com" thinks you yell too much, but you can consider choices you might make in the future.

I find that I learn things, even from the most negative reviews, if they come from a place of thoughtfulness. If the critic approaches the work with an openness. They may lose it completely as the show progresses, that is one-hundred percent fair, but you can always tell when that happens. There's a clarity in how they will describe where you lost them that you can learn much from.

You can also never forget that there are critics, and whole publications, who have determined, before they ever enter the theatre, if the show will be "good" or not. Is it the latest show from the current "hot" director? Is it a company who traditionally caters to an "older" audience? Is it a Neil Simon play? Or perhaps the latest "hot" playwright? You'll spot these right away. They're either gushing, embarrassingly gushing, or nitpicky about things that are, in the overall scheme, unimportant, or the best that can be accomplished on that production level, but easy to point out and mock.

That said...I absolutely reject the idea, that I have heard in many a dressing room, that critics are, essentially, a de facto arm of the theatre's promotional department. They do not owe you a good review "to encourage people to go to the theatre." They owe the public an honest, and, I believe, thoughtful, reaction to they show they saw, period.

Also, NEVER forget that it's just some person's opinion.

As you may have guessed, I am taking a walk back through reviews of Frankenstein, and my performance in it. I make no bones about the fact that I put a lot of myself into the show, and some people just did not "get" it. I tried to give everything I had, every show, and I paid the price, physically especially. So, I will admit, the first few reviews out of the gate were fairly critical, and they shook me.

At the end of the day, I think it was good. I needed to break myself out of cocoon of self-indulgence I feel like I'd started to build around myself and my performance. I was twisting myself in knots, because I wanted to be "good." I wanted to be impressive.

What this taught me is to relish when the critical reaction to my work is all over the map. When some critics dismiss your work, while others embrace it eloquently. It's a visceral reminder that not everything is for everyone, and that trying to be that is a recipe for luke-warm water.

Ultimately, the reviews were all over the map. I was honestly amused by the sheer variety of reactions. Some people wanted more rage (as if The Creature is some sort of 19th century version of The Hulk), while others seemed to feel I was just wandering around bellowing the whole time. Who knows? Perhaps my performance varied that much from night to night. Perhaps that's the curse of playing such an iconic role, everyone had their own creature in their mind before I ever rose from the slab.

It doesn't matter. It. Does. Not. Matter.

The simple fact is, the lions share of my notices were positive, if not outright glowing. I have nothing to complain about in the grand scheme. I certainly did not have to deal with some of the out-of-line comments that were directed at other members of our cast. Honest criticism is fair, comparing an actor to a Muppet is just being a dick for the sake of it.

All I know is this; I loved doing this show. I loved playing this role. I loved this cast and this script. I feel strong and justified in the choices I made and the performance I gave. Was this a perfect production? Probably not, because that simply does not exist. I wanted as many people to see it as possible, and I am honored by every person that did.

Goon

Heya kids, long time no see.

It's been busy as hell in Mark world. Trying (in vain, oftentimes) to keep up with my responsibilities as a understudy for the uber-hit Moment at Steep Theatre. Working on scenes for my Meisner class at The Artistic Home. Traveling hours by plane and car to shoot a regional farm product ad in Iowa last week. Finally, beginning Frankenstein rehearsals last night.

I am exhausted. Completely, and I found myself utterly unable to come up with much to write about over the last few weeks. I just wanted to vegetate. That led to my watching a really, really wonderful little film on Netflix instant Saturday night after I got back from the shoot, while I was doing laundry.

Goon is a hockey movie, and hockey is just about the only sport I enjoy watching. There's something about the brutality of the play mixing with the gracefulness of the skating. It's the wonderful dichotomy of how those disparate parts of the game smash into each other. Screenwriters Jay Baruchel (from the short-live TV show Undeclared - he's also in the film) and Evan Goldberg (Superbad, Pineapple Express) get this. They've created one of the best combinations of brutal violence and tender sweetness since Rocky.

I was utterly blown away by how good Seann William Scott, who usually grates on me like sandpaper, was as Doug Glatt, a local bouncer who effortlessly beats the crap out of a player who hurls a homophobic slur. "My brother's gay" he repeats as his fist cracks the player's helmet in half. It's a early, powerful display of how Doug's mind works, which I think it's safe to say isn't much, but loyalty drives him utterly. Family, friends, teammates, Doug appoints himself as protector to all, and his blatant ability to endure, and dish out, pain makes him very good at it.

What's uncanny is how well Scott rides the wave between honestly playing Doug as...well, I'd honestly have to say the character is almost functionally retarded...and making his clarity of vision and purpose, and his huge heart, shine even in the midst of some quite graphic fight sequences. And, make no mistake, the fights are brutal, blood flows liberally, and Director Michael Dowse makes it HURT. even moreso because Scott's Doug is so, so winning, so sweet and open that every bit of punishment he took shook me deeply.

See, when the local coach sees Doug bring down a fully padded player with two punches, he sees an opportunity. He brings our hero onto the team when he can't even skate (he first takes the ice in figure skates), and molds him into a full-fledged enforcer, a "goon," there to endure and inflict damage to protect the "real" players. Everyone treats him like a joke, an ape. Every time he tries to actually play, disaster strikes, and he faces scorn. There's also an extremely painful scene where Doug, proud of his accomplishments, takes his parents (Eugene Levy and Ellen David) to dinner, where they deride his career. After the loyalty we've seen this character display to everyone in his life, it's heartbreaking to see how blind his parents are to it, and he's left with only the loyalty of his brother.

Baruchel plays Doug's best friend Ryan, who hosts an insanely foul mouthed hockey call-in show. He's over the moon with his friend's rising fame. There's also Marc-Andre' Grondin as Xavier LaFlamme, a star player who was badly injured and now holds back from his full potential for fear of further injury. He's Doug's roommate, and spends his time in debauchery that rivals any rock star's.

Alison Pill is Eva, a local "slut" (her words), who is utterly shocked that Doug treats her with respect and love from the moment he meets her. Unfortunately, she also has a boyfriend, who she also apparently cheats on constantly, but something about Doug's unwavering loyalty makes her unable to just screw with him. When she does actually leave her boyfriend for Doug, and we see how our goon "makes it right," I have to admit I teared up. It was absolutely painful, and also absolutely right for the character.

But my favorite supporting performance was Liev Schreiber as Ross Rhea, a veteran enforcer who's career is winding down, and the player who dished out LaFlamme's injury. Schreiber is stunning in a role that could've been a pretty one-note villain. Rhea is much smarter than Doug, much more aware of what his life and job have cost him, and he tries, in his own way, to pass this to the kid.

But, of course....they are on a collision course for each other.

I feel in love with this film. It's violent, crude and unapologetic about it (oh, so NOT for kids), but it also has about the biggest heart I've seen in a film in a long while. The courtship between Doug and Eva is flat-out charming and lovely. The way that Doug almost unknowingly lifts up and inspires the people around him reminded me of the great Being There. The way that the film knits together the brutal and sweet is really impressive.

This is a film that debuted on video on demand, I believe, and only had  the briefest and perfunctory theatrical releases. It did play at the Toronto Film Festival in 2011, but I'm pretty certain it's earned itself a solid place in my top ten of 2012. It, and Seann William Scott's wonderful performance, won my heart.

Highly Recommended.

The Dark Knight Rises

Before we get into this, Comic-Con update; I'm having some problems with the photos, and I don't want to write it all up until I have some pictures. It's coming.

Onto today's topic: The Dark Knight Rises.

I am going to be brief and to the point here. I do this because if I begin talking in specifics about the film, I will be prone to spoilers. I will say this: if you haven't seen this film, do yourself a favor and don't read anything about it. Go in unspoiled, and enjoy the twisty ride Christopher and Johnathan Nolan have crafted for you (not forgetting David Goyer's story credit). This is a film filled with secrets and surprises, and I happily only had one major one spoiled for me before the film rolled.

I am so happy about that.

So, I'll stay in broad strokes. The cast is uniformly great. I've heard some rumblings about Tom Hardy's Bane not matching Heath Ledger's Joker, but that's just silly. It moves from this idea that comic-book villains are uniform and one-note. The Joker was an agent of chaos, Bane is an engine of destruction. I think Christian Bale does his best work of the series, as does Michael Caine. Anne Hathaway is probably the best Selina Kyle ever put on screen (even if she's never called Catwoman). Gary Oldman is still letter-perfect as Commissioner Gordon.

However, I think the MVP is Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake. There are large swaths of the film where Bruce Wayne and Batman are out of the picture, and Blake gives us a very human hero to root for. Gordon-Levitt handles the action with aplomb, and I really feel like you're watching a true superstar on the rise in this film.

Again in broad strokes, Nolan has done what few have done before. He's taken this trilogy to it's completion as a unified statement. He's used a pulp/comic book/serialized fiction character in ways that we've only really seen before in actual comic books. He understood that these characters can, and should be, used as a reflection of the times in which they are told. That they adapt and endure because great creators have defined and redefined them for their times. What Nolan has done is in that grand tradition.

He's crafted a super-hero movie that's about where the world sits right now, in this post-9/11, internet age. He's done it without smirking or looking down on the material. He knows the power of the toys he's been given to play with, and he's used it for the right, and best reasons. This is a summer blockbuster art film.

I loved The Avengers, unreservedly. However, what The Dark Knight Rises shows is how much more you can get out of these stories if you're willing to look deeper, and embrace the thematic elements. The Avengers, and the entire Marvel Productions film output, so far, have been artfully rendered commerce. Nolan's Batman trilogy is highly commercial art. That's why these three movies will live on for decades to come, not just as huge blockbusters, but as examples of great filmmaking.

Bring on whatever you want to do next, Mr. Nolan. I can't wait. 

Grant Morrison's Supergods (With Ultra-Long Subtitle)

Early this morning, I finished up Supergods: What Masked Vigilantes, Miraculous Mutants, and a Sun God from Smallville Can Teach Us About Being Human by Grant Morrison.

Morrison is known mainly as a comic book writer, which makes him rather well equipped to write a book like this. It's part history of superheros, part memoir, and part philosophy lecture. that may sound a bit dry, but the sort of amazing thing here is that Morrison is so damn charming and funny. Amazing only in that, his comic work tends toward the whimsical and bizarre. There's a charm to it, no doubt, but it's not laugh-out-loud funny. Some of it is downright incomprehensible.

I laughed out loud several times reading this book, of course, I also had a couple of moments that brought tears to my eyes. I've always been hot or cold about Morrison's comic work, sometimes I found it lovely, sometimes just one step up from random gibberish. The one real discovery I made reading this book is that pendulum swing stems from a sincere, deep desire on Morrison's part to push the concept of the superhero further. Sometimes, it works beautifully, sometimes not.

What is abundantly clear, on page after page, is that Grant is a BELIEVER. A believer in the power of these characters to shape our world, to change humanity for the better, if we'd just embrace their power. He even sets up a belief system wherein Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the others are, in many ways, real. The ink is real, the story is real, and the characters have "lived" and evolved far beyond any given concept that any given creator has applied to them. Invoking string theory, he speaks of looking into 2D dimensions wherein reside the DC, Marvel, and other comic "universes."

Yeah, it's heady stuff, and I don't know as I buy everything he throws at the reader. The saving grace is that he doesn't, either. He positions every strange encounter he's had with other dimensional beings as HIS experience, via his status as a practitioner of various chemical/occult/eastern/Sci-Fi philosophies. Certainly, the ultimate experience he had while in Khatmandu can have correlation in pretty much any belief system, that we are all connected in some sort of mystical/physical/spiritual manner. Morrison's own Sci-Fi leanings and mindset re-interpret that revelation with liquid metal (?) beings from a dimension above ours, rather than Jesus or Buddha. He invites the reader to write off his, personal, experience as some sort of nervous breakdown, but also insists you consider the implications of the ultimate revelation.

When he brings that philosophy back to his comics work, and the super-hero genre as a whole, he reveals something I've long believed. Just like the folktales of Gods and heroes of the mythic past, super-heroes are her, their function is to guide us toward a better world. Morrison also strongly believes in the power of story and myth to do just that. When he writes a super-hero story, he shares with us the exact thought process he enters into, and how he sees his role in continuing the stories of these characters. Even attempting to create an avatar for himself within this 2D world (The Invisibles), or allowing the characters to understand their relationship to the creator and reader (his rightly acclaimed run on Animal Man). It's breathtaking stuff, inspiring, even if, in me, he was preaching to the choir.

Click to enbiggen -a beautiful Morrison Moment

The joy in Morrison's view is that it doesn't mandate an infantile viewpoint. His work is more than willing to embrace drug culture, sex, violence, etc, but always with a implicit mandate to provide some understanding and comfort to those of us reading. He can write "realistic" super-heroes, but he's (and I think rightly) found that to be a dead end. Superman inspires because he is greater than us, a figure to aspire to. His comics are always designed to push the medium, either in form or content, while still holding central and sacred their inherent, important place within our society.

Reading this book actually brought up a memory of attending a panel at the 2008 San Diego Comic-Con, on which Morrison, as the current writer on Batman, was sitting. One of our typical "make it real" fanboys stepped up to the mic, and proceeded to blurt out the often-heard "Batman should carry guns" theory. The gist of which is, Batman, as a rather dark and driven character, shouldn't be held back by such things as a code against killing.

Morriosn went livid. It was truly inspiring, and shocking, honestly, the man always presents himself in such a serene and contemplative way. "Batman with a gun is just another soldier," he snapped in his thick Scottish accent, and the whole room fell silent. "The last thing we need is another soldier!"

I've always been on the fence about Morrison's take on Batman, it's a bit too "James Bond" for me, but, with that answer, it was clear he understood exactly who and what Batman was, at the core. This book feels somewhat the same way, I don't agree with everything he presents, but he's got an iron grip on the core concept. He also articulates it with excitement and verve.

That's an inspiring thing.

The Hunger Games

Last night, I finished Suzanne Collins' trilogy of novels, The Hunger Games.

Color me impressed. In a environment where far too many books aimed at adolescents get a pass because, "hey it's getting kids excited about reading," here's a solid Sci-Fi series that aims for something a bit more. Collins has crafted a world that seems fantastical, while sadly possible. A world full of good and evil, but where those lines are blurred.

Katniss Everdeen, and her story start out simple enough. She's a girl of 16, living in the country of Parnem, the remains of the United States, after some sort of disaster. Parnem has 12 Districts, and, every year, each must send a teen boy and girl to the Capital to compete in the Hunger Games. Only one child will survive.

Katniss is a hunter, with skills in tracking and the bow. When her younger sister's name is drawn for the Games, she steps forward to take her place. This sends her into a journey that will take her rapidly into adulthood, and far from the simple life of hunting she had enjoyed.

I don't really want to get too much into plot details, because I'd rather you discover the twists and turns on your own. The books are written in first-person, by Katniss, and thus we are allowed to follow not only the action, but her thoughts and feelings. Frankly, there are some moments when this becomes a bit of a cheat, as events will transpire while Katniss is unconscious,  that dramatically affect the outcome of events. It ends up feeling a little "Deus Ex Machina." However, there's not a tremendous amount of that. At least not to the point where I felt completely cheated.

What is really impressive is that Collins doesn't back down from her subject matter. The story is, fundamentally, about teenagers being thrust into situations where they must face death, and kill to survive. It's about being used by powers greater than yourself. Finding out that, even those who are on the side of "good," are still motivated by power an influence. That celebrity and fame carry a burden, as well as reward. Not to mention a pretty naked criticism of our reality show culture.

No, she doesn't back down. About halfway through the series, you begin to get a real sense that no one is going to get out of this unscathed. Injuries, both physical and mental have been sustained, with nothing but the promise of more. A major supporting character is hauled away brutally, and, when I realized there would be no return for him, I knew hat Collins was playing for keeps. To her eternal credit, she holds to the purpose of her series, and never blinks. I've seen too many of these series where I feel like the writer was aiming for something really profound and irreversible, then chickened out.

Collins does not chicken out. She gives every character a price to pay, and those debts are not magically lifted. In her acknowledgements, she thanks her father for the truth about war and peace (That's me going by memory, so it's not exactly accurate). Collins, with this series does the same, even those who do survive to the end of the book are changed, forever. A price is paid.

I've read a number of reader reviews of the final book (my personal favorite), where readers felt betrayed by the dark turns. How sad that so many have become indoctrinated to the idea that stories should end happily, that heroes should emerge victorious and untouched. That you can't wake up and find out that those you put your trust in are just as bad, or worse, than those you fight against. That characters can't be lost, just because we love them.

That's just not the way the world works.

The Hunger Games - Catching Fire - Mockingjay

New Chickenfoot and Mastodon Albums

On this past Thursday, Chickenfoot and Mastodon unleashed new music on the world.

Being a Van Halen fan through many years and many lineups (I even can find cool things in the Cherone era), of course I'm interested in a band that includes what's increasingly looking like the most rational (former) members of that band. I enjoyed the first Chickenfoot album, it was fun, it sounded like a bunch of friends getting together to jam. However, if this band is now a going concern, they needed to go beyond that.

Mastodon came onto my radar with Crack the Skye, which I thought was an amazing album. I can't say I was engrossed by their previous records, which seemed to embrace the "cookie monster hacks up a lung" vocal style that just bores me. Skye, however indicated a move toward more melodic vocals, and truly inspiring, progressive musicianship. I became a big fan of that record.

So, with that history, you understand that I was excited about both these releases, and downloaded them first thing on Tuesday. (That they were pretty cheap on Amazon helped a lot).

Chickenfoot - Chickenfoot III

The first thing to understand is that the sound of this band has not changed dramatically. It's still the same four guys, Satriani shredding, Hagar singing, and Chad Smith bringing the same incredibly powerful drumming he brought the first time around (I'm actually very sad he'll be missing at least the first leg of any tour for the record, due to Red Hot Chili Peppers commitments). Michael Anthony is a revelation on bass here, totally unleashed from the Van Halen 8th/16th notes shackles, even beyond the freedom he enjoyed on the first album. It still sounds like Chickenfoot, but the band, apparently more comfortable with each other, finds places to jump around the map style-wise. Sure, you have the foot-stomping rockers (Big Foot), but you also have a bluesy acoustic number (Something Gone Wrong) and a couple of tracks that inject some real funk (Up Next). It's still radio-friendly rock, but these guys are masters of the form, finding ways to inject surprising elements.

It was also nice hearing Sammy Hagar embrace some lyrical content that feels truly personal, instead of the Cabo Wabo-centered "lifestyle rock" that seems to have dominated the last decade of solo work. Not that I don't enjoy having my feet in the sand with a margarita, but I did reach a "come on Sam" point with that material. Satriani also truly cuts loose on the solos here, which are much wilder and inventive than on the first record, where he seemed a little too concerned with being a team player.

I don't know that Chickenfoot will ever be considered a "great" band, I think they'll always be connected and compared to Van Halen, and there's just not enough time left, for any of these guys, to take a run at that kind of legacy. However, that said, my guess is that these Chickenfoot records will end up being far better than whatever Van Halen manages to get released in the next few years (and I am very skeptical that will ever happen, honestly).

Favorite Tracks: Last Temptation, Up Next, Different Devil

Mastodon - The Hunter

God damn what an album.

What Mastodon have done here is take that more melodic style from Crack the Skye, ejected the concept album trappings, streamlined the songs, and embraced basically whatever the hell they wanted to do. There's tracks of hard-core progressive riffing (The Hunter, Black Tongue), almost 70's-style arena stop (Curl of the Burl), and staggering, unexpected beauty (Creature Lives). The record is just a slap in the face for the metal community, it's pure rock, no nu-metal MC bullshit, with impeccable musicianship. It's so good to hear a "new" act with a serious hunger to play the crap out of their instruments, while still embracing the idea that the song is the point.

The shorter, punchier songs are also a strength. While I was enamored with Crack the Skye, I've had a few people tell me they "got lost " in the album, where several tracks neared, or passed ten minutes. Here, it's get in, rock, and get out. Take no prisoners. Nothing over six minutes, and nothing that overstays it's welcome.

While I hate to come off as someone jumping on the bandwagon of "the metal band even hipsters like," talent and execution are so high with this album, I can't help but fall in love with it. Troy Sanders and Brent Hinds up their game on vocals, while Hinds and Bill Kelliher (how can I not dig a guy covered in Star Wars tattoos?) just crush the guitars. Sanders also really fills out the sound on bass, something that too many metal bands just don't get. Brann Dailor's drumming is tight, and improvisational enough to avoid the "bam, bam, bam" metal monotony.

This is a great band, and I get the impression they're just getting warmed up. I mean, this is, essentially, a "leftovers" album, and I think it might be better than the record it was leftover from. Which is also a strength, they knew what needed to be on Crack the Skye, to fulfill the concept, and what could be filed for later. That we got a second monster album out of it is gravy.

Favorite Tracks: Curl of the Burl, Blasteroid, Dry Bone Valley, Creature Lives

Warrior

I am a huge fan of Miracle, a 2004 film about the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey team. It was headlined by Kurt Russell, in one of those Oscar-worthy performances that no one ever sees until the thing's on home video, and directed by Gavin O'Connor. It's a sincere, heart-on-the-sleeve movie about a team coming together to try to do the impossible. The fact that they actually do it would seem the worst sort of Hollywood hokum, except that it's all true.

I admired O'Connor's non-flashy direction, and the eye for detail he brought to the games. The performances he elicited from a cast made up of, mainly, real hockey players. He told the story and got out...hell, he even made a montage palateable.

When I saw that he'd made a film about the world of mixed martial arts (MMA) fighting, staring two up-and-coming actors I've admired, and Nick Nolte, I was excited. Boxing/fighting movies have always been a favorite of mine, as I truly do believe these are sports that hew tightly to the core of why humans compete. Two men (or women), in a confined space, set against each other with only their own strength, skill and will to reach for victory. It smacks of gladiatorial combat, survival of the fittest, a will to survive, that few other types of sports get near.

And, let's be honest, MMA is the extreme end of the scale. A brutal combination of boxing, wrestling, full-contact karate, and just about any other form of fighting sport you can imagine. With extremely limited padding. These guys beat the hell out of each other.

Of course, being a movie, it couldn't just be a MMA tournament. No, O'Connor and his team merged a family drama to it, with Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton playing estranged brothers, and Nick Nolte their estranged father. Everyone's estranged in this film. Brendan (Edgerton) and Tommy (Hardy) Conlon haven't seen each other since their mother ran away from their abusive father. Tommy went with her, while Brendan stayed, because he was in love with Tess (Jennifer Morrison), whom he eventually married, with two daughters.

The film smartly keeps Tommy and Brendan away from each other for most of the running time. The two men don't speak or interact until almost two-thirds of the way through the running time. What this does is allow us to understand each man, not as a reflection of each other, but as individuals. Tommy is an Iraq vet with a simmering anger over the ugly death of his mother. Brendan is a physics teacher with money problems. Both of them have a history of fighting, Tommy having been a top-seat wrestler, and Brendan a former low-level MMA fighter.

We're given a reason for each to want to enter "Sparta" a MMA tournament with a five million dollar purse. Tommy's reasoning is more nebulous, but we know he's driven, and serious, when he asks his father to train him, just as he did in high school. There's great moments from Nolte as father Paddy, 1,000 days sober when Tommy returns home, as he realizes this is not an opportunity to re-connect, or make amends, with his son, but only a straight business transaction. Brendan, suspended from his job for entering parking lot MMA bouts, is on the verge of losing his house.

The point is, each character gives you a reason to root for them. As the plot unfolds, and more an more of Tommy's motivations become clear, this only intensifies. What it sets up is a series of events where you truly wonder who will actually be the victor in the tournament. Tommy? Brendan? Will they both lose? Now, it is a populist film, so...yeah, you can probably guess who's fighting in the final, but you still wonder who'll come out on top.

I loved the performances in this film, I love the fight direction as well. You can see the personalities of the two brothers in how they fight. Tommy, in particular, made me laugh out loud with each victory. He's simply a monster, driven, and with no time for social graces. He has a mission to fulfill. Brendan, the teacher, the thinker, works the bouts more like a chess game. Looking for weaknesses and an opening to exploit.

Which isn't to say that Hardy and Edgerton only shine in the ring. No, both guys (both from Australia - they must but "acting juice" in the water down there) are good in all facets of their roles. Likewise Nolte and Morrison are fantastic. In what is becoming an O'Connor staple, we also see Brendan's co-workers and students watching the fights from home in really well-done vignettes.

I really loved this film, and I'm so glad I made the time to see it in the theatre. It's a bit cliche, and there are moments of "you're kidding me." That said, when these two brothers step into the ring against each other there's more than just a prize purse, or a championship on the line, and that's because O'Connor, his cast, and his crew made the fighting part of what was going on outside of the ring, rather than the reason for it. The final moments had me on the edge of my seat.

Sadly, it hasn't been tearing up the box office, despite lots of great reviews. I encourage you to go see it, it's worth your time. I can't wait to own this on Blu-Ray.

New Music From Anthrax and Dream Theater

Last week had the release of two new albums that I was curious about, Anthrax's long-gestating Worship Music, marking the return of vocalist Joey Belladonna, and Dream Theater's A Dramatic Turn of Events, the first album without drummer and founding member Mike Portnoy, which has even, apparently, sparked a lawsuit. Or maybe it didn't. Who knows anymore?

I am an Anthrax fan, but, if the truth be known, I'm far more drawn to the albums they did with former Armored Saint vocalist John Bush. While I appreciate the albums of what's widely considered the classic line-up, with Joey Belladonna fronting the band, I always found his delivery somewhat grating. Belladonna can obviously sing, that's not the issue, he's likely a better technical singer than 99% of thrash metal vocalists, but there were certain "look how high I can sing!" moments on every album that just knocked me out of the song. Bush was earthy, guttural, without entering "Cookie Monster zone," and his voice, to me, fit the music the band was making.

Worship Music is Anthrax's first in...6 years, I think? They had recorded it once with yet another vocalist by the name of Dan Nelson. That pairing, for whatever reason (and the internet is filled with gross suppositions), didn't fly, and the band, after trying to recruit Bush (which is a long story, in itself), brought Belladonna back to the fold. I had little hope, after all the strife, that the album would feel like a coherent whole, let alone be much good. To my surprise, Anthrax has managed to put out an album that I quite like.

Perhaps it's that Belladonna is older, his voice more "seasoned," and less flexible. There's very little vocal histrionics here. He's not all over the place with high notes for their own sake. Joey falls into the pocket and sings, and this merges with the music in a very similar way to how I felt Bush did. The riffs are catchy, as are the chorus hooks. Some of the lyrics are dumb, I mean, I could do without any media, of any sort, playing out a zombie apocalypse ever again, but I was very pleasantly surprised.

Best Tracks: "The Devil You Know," "I'm Alive"

Dream Theater has always been a tough nut for me. As a bit of a musician myself, I admire the skill and talent on display, but many of their songs tend to go on too long, and get bogged down in overbaked noodling. Their reputation as a band for musicians is not unearned.

In my opinion, their best album was 1997's Falling Into Infinity, where the band embraced shorter, less musically sprawling tracks. The result was an album with much more drive and power. As well as outright listenability.

A Dramatic Turn of Events is very much not in that vein.

Which should not be construed as my saying it's bad. It's Prog Rock, and Dream Theater are monster players. However, they do not bring the warmth and quirky humor to the genre that Rush always does. Music is serious business for this band, and it shows in the results. However, it's not something you can just put on and tap your foot to, it requires attention. There are times when I'm into that, and times when I am not. Your mileage may vary.

This is a good Dream Theater album. It's got everything the band's fans will want, the band is playing superbly, as always, and the song construction is complex and adventurous. Frankly, Portnoy's absence is a non-issue, replacement Mike Mangini is a monster player in his own right, and I'd wager that, if I didn't know there had been a change behind the drum kit, I'd never have noticed. Drummers and hard-core fans are likely scoffing at me for that, but it's my honest opinion.

I'm glad I own it, but if you're not a fan, and looking for a hard rock/metal album, I'd probably steer you to the Anthrax release.

Best Tracks:  "Build Me Up, Break Me Down," "This Is the Life"

Looking forward to Mastodon's The Hunter and Chickenfoot III next week. It's a busy Fall for hard rock...

Captain America: Super Soldier for XBox 360

Little video game review action today.

This morning I finished the story portion of Captain America: Super Soldier on the XBox. It took me a little over nine hours to complete, which, based on the reviews I'm reading, is really slow. They say about six. Whatever.

Superhero and movie-based games each have a poor, poor history, and when you combine them...Hoo Boy! To this day, I blame my Three Rings of Death experience on the fact I was playing the Iron Man game at the time. The flying controls, alone, in that game were enough to make you want to kill someone, and not a vido game avatar, either.

There have been exceptions. Batman: Arkham Asylum being the best of the lot, and, as I've written about, my pick for the best video game, ever. The sequel is set for release in October. Of course, that game had nothing to do with a movie. Still, the development team got all the elements in place, and well executed, to make you really FEEL like you are Batman.

I bring that up because Captain America: Super Soldier was clearly developed by a team that spent a lot of time looking at Arkham Asylum. A third-person action game with a super hero character in a confined (if sprawling) location. Instead of Arkham, Cap is exploring Castle Zemo, the family home of classic Cap villain Baron Zemo.

The pros are pretty extensive. The combat system is really responsive, and intuitive. Again, the clear inspiration is Arkham Asylum, but that system is spectacular, so why not? I only had problems with shield-slinging, when you do a "quick throw" the shield will occasionally fly off in the...well in not the direction you wanted to throw it. There's a "aimed throw" process that works pretty damn well.

The character models are pretty sharp, and there's two unlockable alternate skins for Cap, the "Ultimate Universe" (WWII) version:

And the "Classic" uniform:

Of course, the default uniform is the one seen in the Captain America: The First Avenger movie.

The villains/bosses and Hydra soldiers all look good, as well. The character animations and cutscenes are all exactly what I expected, solid, but not spectacular. I've read a number of reviews that docked points for the backgrounds not being very detailed. I'll admit that I didn't have my eyes popped out of my head by them, but neither did they diminish my enjoyment of the game.

The vocal performances, with Chris Evans and most of the cast reprising their roles from the film, were really decent. The cast seemed committed, and frankly I've seen too many of these games where the vocal work (if they can get the actual cast) comes off as exactly what it is, a contractual obligation. Evans gets to do more speechifying than in the actual movie, and, I think, it proves what a solid handle on Steve Rogers he has. The villain cast, sadly, is not the original actors. For the amount of actual time the Red Skull is in the game, you think they could've talked Hugo Weaving into doing it. Alas...

Arnim Zola movie/game-style

That does, however, bring up a...well, I wouldn't call it a complaint, but a disappointment. You never actually clash with Herr Skull. Oh, there's a whole passel of classic Captain America baddies you do get to smash in the jaw, but the Skull remains elusive. Baron Strucker, Madame Hydra and Iron Cross all appear.

The ultimate battle is with Arnim Zola, in a very nicely realized "movie version" of his robotic, "face in his torso" look, which was nice to see after Toby Jones remained human for the entirety of the film. Alas, Jones doesn't provide the voice for the game, either.

I was a bit surprised that I didn't ultimately square off with Baron Zemo, given the location, but the game, via hidden "Zemo diaries" (Think the "Chronicles of Arkham" from Arkham Aslyum), ultimately paints a noble and somewhat sympathetic portrait of the Baron.

Oh, and they bring The Sleeper into it, which make my inner fanboy happy.

There's extras, once you finish the story, some challenge levels, etc. Stuff I haven't really dug into at all yet. I think it'll have more replay value for me, being a Captain America fan, over a strict gamer, and I'm probably overlooking some faults for that reason, as well. Still, I had fun with this one, and I picked it up for significantly less than a full-price new game (thanks, Amazon!, so I'm happy.

The game is good, but not REALLY good. There's an undeniable thrill to tossing the shield and seeing it ricochet around and nail 5 guys, and it provides that thrill. At the end of the day it's an Arkham Asylum clone, and, no matter how well executed,  it does pale against the original. It is, in my humble opinion, in the top-tier of the superhero/movie/video game genre. It's certainly a hell of a lot more playable than Iron Man, which just frustrated me too much to even deal with.

So, there you go. Your mileage may vary.

Super 8

Caught Super 8 last night.

It's fair to say that I am a huge target for this film. I was mightily inspired by the Amblin'/Spielberg films of the 70's and 80's that J.J. Abrams is keen to invoke with this project. Hell, I remember after the triple combo of Jaws, Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, every kid I knew had dug out their family old super-8 movie camera with the idea of becoming the next weaver of celluloid glory.

We all new the stories of young Spielberg crafting epics in his back yard, and it seemed so easy. Turns out it wasn't...even in the early 80's developing, or even buying, super-8 film was almost a thing of the past. Then video cameras...but editing on them was a nightmare.

Either way, what I can say is that I understand the kids of the small Ohio town of this movie. I was there, I get it. They're not only evocative of the kids that were The Goonies or Stand By Me, but the kids who loved those movies, as well. It isn't a small joy to revisit a film aiming so nakedly for the same kind of thrills that I experienced in movie theaters some thirty years ago.

The fact that Abrams is abetted by The Beard himself, as a producer, is interesting. I wonder how Spielberg feels about trading in nostalgia about his own work?

The good news is, on the whole, the enterprise succeeds. There are scenes scattered all through the film that immediately, and viscerally,  bring memories of Jaws, E.T., or Close Encounters. What's nice is that they make that connection, but without feeling like they're just mimicking. Abrams has done a terrific job of capturing a feel, without losing himself in detail. He's not stamping out cookie-cutter reproductions of things Steven shot better than anyone else ever could.

That said, it all doesn't work. Mainly these are in the moments where the film seems to leave the grounding that it has for most of it's running time, and that Spielberg's early filmography always had. The train crash that sets off the events of the film is so blindingly over the top that it doesn't even make sense within the script. Simply put, if the wreck is THAT bad, the subsequent events in the script make no sense.

What I go into next is probably *SPOILER* territory, but I also think it's blindingly obvious in the marketing materials that the film is about an alien, that I find it ridiculous that some people find the confirmation of that to be terrible.

Yes, there's an alien.

It looks like shit.

OK, that's not fair. It doesn't look like shit, per se, as much as it looks far to similar to the "big beasties" that appear in every, single film J.J. Abrams has been involved with. Wanna know what the creature in Super 8 looks like? Take a look at the creature in Cloverfield, which Abrams produced, and the ice planet monster from Star Trek, which he directed. Then squint a bit.

Mr. Abrams, please make an effort to find some new and different conceptual ideas next time.

So, that annoyed me, but it didn't ruin the film. On a whole it was an incredibly good time at the movies, that bumped into an awesome time at the movies with the ending credits, when Abrams runs the actual super-8 movie the kids have made.

Good times.