The Crucible is not the fantasy/horror movie I've been looking for, since finding out that Salem's Lot is about vampires and not witches, but it is, at least, about the Salem witch trials. It's a very convincing period piece - in set, wardrobe, casting and language - that plays like a colonial courtroom drama. But it's one of the most riveting (and chilling) courtroom dramas I've ever had the pleasure of watching, every bit on par with the likes of A Few Good Men. And considering the historical significance of the Salem witch trials, I couldn't imagine a more fitting dramatization of the mass hysteria that contributed to such a heinous corruption of justice, resulting in the state-mandated murder of too many innocent people.
Winona Ryder stars as Abigail Williams, the scorned lover of John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), a married man who resents his adulterous affair with her, and is trying to redeem his honor and good name. Guided by the voodoo traditions of a local slave woman, Abigail leads the village's young maidens in a ritual to incur the love of the men they each fancy, but takes things too far. A local Reverend catches them in the act, and fear of the devil's influence soon takes hold of the town. In absence of concrete proof of the supernatural, yet firm belief in the powers of god and the devil, even the court of justice finds itself beholden to sensational testimony. The less scrupulous townsfolk see in this an easy opportunity to get rid of their enemies, and soon accusations of witchcraft, not easily disproved, are flying. As tension builds, and the death toll mounts, John Proctor finds himself in a tenuous position; he may be able to put an end to the hysteria, but what will it cost him? And more importantly, how much is he willing to pay, to right the sins of his fellows?
It might be that you need the right sensibilities to properly enjoy this movie. It's not really about witches - just the fear of good Christian men and women falling into temptation and consorting with the devil. And it takes a little warming up to the period setting - the language, in particular, can be a hurdle. But if you give it a chance, once the trials commence, the tension just continues to build as the whole town falls apart over what begins as superstitious fear and ultimately reveals itself to be a travesty of misjustice, that the wheels of bureaucracy (even in colonial times) are mostly powerless (or careless) to stop. You don't have to be religious at all to appreciate it, you just need to have concern for the horrors that superstition and the justice system are capable of exacting on a population of more and less innocent (but all decidedly human) citizens. For myself, I give the movie my highest recommendation; it was a real surprise and a treat for me.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Joe Bonamassa - Different Shades Of Blue (2014)
Last month, Joe Bonamassa released a new album, after the longest hiatus of his career - it's been two years since his last studio record, Driving Towards The Daylight. But that doesn't mean Joe hasn't been busy. In the last few years, he's released three albums with supergroup Black Country Communion (now sadly defunct), two as a duet with soul singer Beth Hart, and one with funk group Rock Candy Funk Party. And that doesn't include all the live albums and DVDs that have been put out, both with those other groups, and as a solo artist - the latter includes Beacon Theatre: Live From New York and An Acoustic Evening At The Vienna Opera House, not to mention the 4 DVD/4 CD set documenting Joe's most ambitious tour yet - 4 nights at four historical locations with four different bands in London - the appropriately dubbed "Tour de Force".
Joe is now over a decade into his career, and this is his eleventh studio album (by my reckoning). It's a more mature offering, as reinforced by Joe's soberingly personal introduction in the liner notes. He acknowledges that the Tour de Force was an ending to one part of his career, this album being the first step into the next phase. The album is distinctive in that, apart from a short instrumental cover of an appropriate Jimi Hendrix tune (New Rising Sun), it features all original material from Joe (who had assistance with some professional co-songwriters). I've always marked Joe as a phenomenal cover artist, but I suppose there comes a time in any serious musical artist's career when he has to consider contributing something new to the cultural repertoire (not that this hasn't been a piece of the puzzle all along). After all, even The Rolling Stones started out as a cover band; it was only when Mick Jagger and Keith Richards started penning songs together that they became the "greatest rock n roll band in the world".
From that perspective, Different Shades of Blue is a promising record. Joe has always - even going back to his solo debut A New Day Yesterday - been a demon on the guitar, but both his songwriting and his singing talent has improved remarkably over the past decade. And his playing - fierce and ferocious at times, delicate and haunting at others - is at a point of sophistication where you could conceivably hire him for a pop session, and he could put one of those fiery solos down in the middle of a song by a commercial band who could never hope for that kind of musical prowess. But Joe is more than that - and his songs are infused with this kind of talent from start to finish. And the musicians he's playing with are at the top of their game as well. He's undoubtedly been growing his reputation over the years, and I think that it's conceivable that he may be on the verge of breaking into the mainstream (his albums are charting even outside the blues chart), without ever having to give up his personal approach to music and the industry, but simply by polishing his talent over the years to the point where it sparkles like a many-faceted diamond.
It's actually kind of weird. I was really looking forward to this album, after I saw Joe perform one of the new songs - Oh Beautiful! - live on a French television show (view it here). The song features relatable lyrics, as one who has spent a lot of time in rapture to beauty, but otherwise consists of a really long guitar solo that just goes on and on and on. But when the album finally came, I wasn't that impressed with it the first time I listened to it. My superficial impression was that it featured way too many horns (this is one of the things I disagree with Joe on - the horns don't belong in the blues). I was resolved that this would be one of Joe's albums that I just wouldn't like as much (like, say, Black Rock, which had some good tracks, but overall felt a little too worldly for a Bonamassa album - not that I begrudge him that musical experimentation).
But after listening to it several more times, I hardly even hear the horns anymore, and what I do hear is all that fantastic guitar, and the great hooks (both musical and lyrical). Honest to god, there's not a song on this album I'm not already singing along with (except the last one, which is softer - I'm not as keen on Joe's softer songs, generally speaking). The standout tracks are the aforementioned Oh Beautiful!, Heartache Follows Me Wherever I Go, the fierce Never Give All Your Love, and the title track, which starts out gently but builds to yet another searing guitar solo. But the rest of the songs are still a joy to listen to, especially with the volume cranked up. Whatever magic is at play here, Joe's got a winner on his hands with this album. And if you want a scrumptious teaser of what this album offers, watch the five part in-the-studio documentary Joe's put out. I recommend it. But if you've only got three minutes, then please, just watch this.
Joe is now over a decade into his career, and this is his eleventh studio album (by my reckoning). It's a more mature offering, as reinforced by Joe's soberingly personal introduction in the liner notes. He acknowledges that the Tour de Force was an ending to one part of his career, this album being the first step into the next phase. The album is distinctive in that, apart from a short instrumental cover of an appropriate Jimi Hendrix tune (New Rising Sun), it features all original material from Joe (who had assistance with some professional co-songwriters). I've always marked Joe as a phenomenal cover artist, but I suppose there comes a time in any serious musical artist's career when he has to consider contributing something new to the cultural repertoire (not that this hasn't been a piece of the puzzle all along). After all, even The Rolling Stones started out as a cover band; it was only when Mick Jagger and Keith Richards started penning songs together that they became the "greatest rock n roll band in the world".
From that perspective, Different Shades of Blue is a promising record. Joe has always - even going back to his solo debut A New Day Yesterday - been a demon on the guitar, but both his songwriting and his singing talent has improved remarkably over the past decade. And his playing - fierce and ferocious at times, delicate and haunting at others - is at a point of sophistication where you could conceivably hire him for a pop session, and he could put one of those fiery solos down in the middle of a song by a commercial band who could never hope for that kind of musical prowess. But Joe is more than that - and his songs are infused with this kind of talent from start to finish. And the musicians he's playing with are at the top of their game as well. He's undoubtedly been growing his reputation over the years, and I think that it's conceivable that he may be on the verge of breaking into the mainstream (his albums are charting even outside the blues chart), without ever having to give up his personal approach to music and the industry, but simply by polishing his talent over the years to the point where it sparkles like a many-faceted diamond.
It's actually kind of weird. I was really looking forward to this album, after I saw Joe perform one of the new songs - Oh Beautiful! - live on a French television show (view it here). The song features relatable lyrics, as one who has spent a lot of time in rapture to beauty, but otherwise consists of a really long guitar solo that just goes on and on and on. But when the album finally came, I wasn't that impressed with it the first time I listened to it. My superficial impression was that it featured way too many horns (this is one of the things I disagree with Joe on - the horns don't belong in the blues). I was resolved that this would be one of Joe's albums that I just wouldn't like as much (like, say, Black Rock, which had some good tracks, but overall felt a little too worldly for a Bonamassa album - not that I begrudge him that musical experimentation).
But after listening to it several more times, I hardly even hear the horns anymore, and what I do hear is all that fantastic guitar, and the great hooks (both musical and lyrical). Honest to god, there's not a song on this album I'm not already singing along with (except the last one, which is softer - I'm not as keen on Joe's softer songs, generally speaking). The standout tracks are the aforementioned Oh Beautiful!, Heartache Follows Me Wherever I Go, the fierce Never Give All Your Love, and the title track, which starts out gently but builds to yet another searing guitar solo. But the rest of the songs are still a joy to listen to, especially with the volume cranked up. Whatever magic is at play here, Joe's got a winner on his hands with this album. And if you want a scrumptious teaser of what this album offers, watch the five part in-the-studio documentary Joe's put out. I recommend it. But if you've only got three minutes, then please, just watch this.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006)
(Except me).
Slashers have been done to death. Which is not to say that there isn't occasionally a good one still being made (You're Next was worth watching), but those ones are few and far between, in a subgenre that apparently attracts a lot of filmmakers for its simple formula. Slashers were fun when they were fresh and unfamiliar - decades ago - but now, I feel like if you want to make a good slasher movie, you can't just set out to make a slasher movie. The slasher has to be a vehicle for something else that's worth seeing. Even going as far back as 1979, Alien was one of the best slasher movies ever created - because, though it follows the formula pretty closely, it's not strictly a slasher movie - it's a monster movie, for one thing, but it's also an intelligent, and genuinely unsettling sci-fi film. More recently, The Cabin in the Woods hit it off because it went far and above the demands for a slasher movie (and I'll remind you that my criticism of The Cabin in the Woods had less to do with the movie itself, and more with the things people were saying about how it was supposed to be interpreted).
I don't know why I thought All The Boys Love Mandy Lane would set itself apart from the average slasher flick. Maybe it was the suggestion of eroticism dripping from its title. Or maybe that its premise seemed to promise an I Spit On Your Grave-like morality tale. Unfortunately, the movie instead develops like your typical slasher flick - and as is also a complaint with many of those, the characters are not only difficult to relate to, they're utterly unsympathetic. Just considering the drugs alone, no longer are horny 30 year old teens content simply to smoke a blunt and get high, now they're popping pills and even snorting coke - at high school age! Although, sadly, I wonder if this is not simply a reflection of reality, and the modern drug epidemic in America (when I grew up, the concern was drug dealers peddling to kids in the schoolyard - just recently, I had a 14 year old boy ask me for drugs in a public park...).
Amber Heard looks pretty scrumptious as the titular character - although she doesn't quite pull off the "inexperienced adolescent" who just recently developed and is starting to attract all the attention of her same-age 30 year old peers in high school (I'm sorry if I beat the age thing to death, but it's really become ridiculous). Given the premise, what little nudity and eroticism there is is entirely disappointing (they completely wasted that locker room scene, by the way - how can such a depraved generation of rapist drug addicts be such modest prudes?). The sexism and misogyny is just oozing throughout the whole film - neither sex comes off well: the boys are all rapey assholes, and the women are petty, cock-crazed airheads. Why don't people understand that you can make an erotic film that doesn't cater to sexist stereotypes? Or are they intentionally trying to attack sex? In which case, they do a terrible job of it, by setting up unbelievable straw men. One scene almost hints at the main character being a lesbian, which is an idea with enormous potential that could have, if developed, transformed this whole project into something meaningful and worthwhile - but it's totally thrown by the wayside.
Ultimately, we come to the ending, which throws a few twists at the viewer. Sadly, an hour of cliches doesn't make up for a final half hour of "unexpected" twists. But what's worse, the twists don't even make sense. I literally watched the last fifteen minutes with a blank face and resting heart rate. No, "oh my god, I can't believe she did that!" Or, "holy shit, this is extreme/intense/twisted!" If anything, I might have had a furrowed brow because it seemed like the film was trying to be clever, but completely lacked any justification for the characters' actions. It was just simply confusing, and a completely unsatisfying ending to an overall disappointing movie.
Slashers have been done to death. Which is not to say that there isn't occasionally a good one still being made (You're Next was worth watching), but those ones are few and far between, in a subgenre that apparently attracts a lot of filmmakers for its simple formula. Slashers were fun when they were fresh and unfamiliar - decades ago - but now, I feel like if you want to make a good slasher movie, you can't just set out to make a slasher movie. The slasher has to be a vehicle for something else that's worth seeing. Even going as far back as 1979, Alien was one of the best slasher movies ever created - because, though it follows the formula pretty closely, it's not strictly a slasher movie - it's a monster movie, for one thing, but it's also an intelligent, and genuinely unsettling sci-fi film. More recently, The Cabin in the Woods hit it off because it went far and above the demands for a slasher movie (and I'll remind you that my criticism of The Cabin in the Woods had less to do with the movie itself, and more with the things people were saying about how it was supposed to be interpreted).
I don't know why I thought All The Boys Love Mandy Lane would set itself apart from the average slasher flick. Maybe it was the suggestion of eroticism dripping from its title. Or maybe that its premise seemed to promise an I Spit On Your Grave-like morality tale. Unfortunately, the movie instead develops like your typical slasher flick - and as is also a complaint with many of those, the characters are not only difficult to relate to, they're utterly unsympathetic. Just considering the drugs alone, no longer are horny 30 year old teens content simply to smoke a blunt and get high, now they're popping pills and even snorting coke - at high school age! Although, sadly, I wonder if this is not simply a reflection of reality, and the modern drug epidemic in America (when I grew up, the concern was drug dealers peddling to kids in the schoolyard - just recently, I had a 14 year old boy ask me for drugs in a public park...).
Amber Heard looks pretty scrumptious as the titular character - although she doesn't quite pull off the "inexperienced adolescent" who just recently developed and is starting to attract all the attention of her same-age 30 year old peers in high school (I'm sorry if I beat the age thing to death, but it's really become ridiculous). Given the premise, what little nudity and eroticism there is is entirely disappointing (they completely wasted that locker room scene, by the way - how can such a depraved generation of rapist drug addicts be such modest prudes?). The sexism and misogyny is just oozing throughout the whole film - neither sex comes off well: the boys are all rapey assholes, and the women are petty, cock-crazed airheads. Why don't people understand that you can make an erotic film that doesn't cater to sexist stereotypes? Or are they intentionally trying to attack sex? In which case, they do a terrible job of it, by setting up unbelievable straw men. One scene almost hints at the main character being a lesbian, which is an idea with enormous potential that could have, if developed, transformed this whole project into something meaningful and worthwhile - but it's totally thrown by the wayside.
Ultimately, we come to the ending, which throws a few twists at the viewer. Sadly, an hour of cliches doesn't make up for a final half hour of "unexpected" twists. But what's worse, the twists don't even make sense. I literally watched the last fifteen minutes with a blank face and resting heart rate. No, "oh my god, I can't believe she did that!" Or, "holy shit, this is extreme/intense/twisted!" If anything, I might have had a furrowed brow because it seemed like the film was trying to be clever, but completely lacked any justification for the characters' actions. It was just simply confusing, and a completely unsatisfying ending to an overall disappointing movie.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Invasions of the Body Snatchers
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
I worry sometimes about old, black and white movies that I won't be able to fully enjoy them, given how much cinema has progressed over the years, and the different sensibilities that previous generations have had. But in the case of the 1956 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I had nothing to fear (well, except for the body snatchers themselves). This was the most compelling black and white film I'd seen since the original Night of the Living Dead. Though I'm not the sort of stuffy horror fan who is always complaining about the dire state of modern horror, there may be at least some merit to the claim that modern movies focus too much on gore and cheap scares, to the exclusion of character depth and constructing a truly unsettling atmosphere.
Certainly, as cliche as the subject of alien "body snatchers" may have become, it's a terrifying premise - that seed pods from outer space can almost perfectly replicate human beings - with only the faint hollowness of their going through the motions of human emotion to hint that anything is wrong. Who can you trust when everybody around you that you know and love starts doubting that their friends and family are who they appear to be, and you can't be sure who's still human and who has already become one of them? The theme is rife with potential for symbolic interpretation (e.g., fear of conformity, communist paranoia), and the subject itself represents a haunting psychological phenomena. But even without any deeper meaning, the superficial sci-fi take involving alien pods is scary enough all by itself.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
The 1956 film tells the story (in voice-over) of a doctor's experiences as the invaders gradually take over a small town. The 1978 version uses the same basic outline, but with a health inspector in downtown San Francisco. I don't know how much the fact that this story seems better suited to the sensibilities of 1950s America contributes to this, but the 1978 version feels hollow somehow - like it has the shell of an Invasion of the Body Snatchers movie, but the heart is missing; it's just going through the motions. There are some memorably creepy moments - like the otherworldy intro, the pod garden transformation scene, the dog scare, and the scream at the end - but overall it didn't feel to me as gripping as the '56 version.
And this is in spite of a very prominent cast that includes Donald Sutherland in the lead, with a very pretty Brooke Adams, a young Jeff Goldblum, Veronica Cartwright (who played second female behind Sigourney Weaver in the first Alien movie - and is just as panicky here), and even Leonard Nimoy as an obnoxious psychiatrist (who heavy-handedly introduces the film's theme of emotional detachment in then-modern society as a red herring to explain away the alien invasion). Although, it could certainly be said that having so many distinctive faces on screen takes you out of the movie a bit.
Body Snatchers (1993)
The 1993 film Body Snatchers is a decidedly grittier adaptation of the story, with less concern for strictly adhering to the outline of the previous two versions, while still covering all the bases. This time, it's an EPA agent bringing his family to a military base for a working vacation. The primary protagonist is, however, his teenage daughter, played by a very delicious-looking Gabrielle Anwar. Though only in minor (but important) roles, R. Lee Ermey and Forest Whitaker round out an otherwise unfamiliar cast, though Meg Tilly channels the creepiness of the pod people very well, and Billy Wirth counters that as an at times unsettlingly deadpan human.
The performances are all mostly understated (to good effect), except for Forest Whitaker, who goes maybe just a little bit overboard in his big scene. I'm glad that this movie reprised the alien scream from the 1978 version, which was probably the best contribution it made to the Body Snatchers legacy. There are a few parts of this movie that feel like maybe they would make more sense to somebody already familiar with the story, but since this was the third version I'd seen, that didn't bother me. You might - and I stress that this is merely a guess - be better off if this is not the first version you watch, though. I would recommend the original, followed by this one.
The Invasion (2007)
One of the interesting things about these Invasion of the Body Snatchers movies is that they all do a good job of capturing a snapshot of the times when they were made - the '50s, the late '70s, the early '90s. And the 2007 adaptation, simply titled The Invasion, is no exception, with its emphasis on a drug-addled population in the internet age. Indeed, the body snatchers are re-imagined as an infectious disease this time, that takes over people's bodies in their sleep, instead of the plant pod body replacements of decades past. Apart from that, this version of the story resurrects some basic elements (and characters) from the first two adaptations, relocating to a big city like in the 1978 version, albeit not adhering to the formula quite as strongly as that version did.
This movie seems to make several nods to previous versions, with last time's EPA agent upgraded to the CDC, and both a doctor and a psychiatrist in leading roles (yet here, the psychiatrist is a protagonist). The latter are played by Daniel Craig (who we all know as the new "James Blond") and Nicole Kidman, continuing the tradition of featuring an uncommonly attractive woman in one of the lead roles. Veronica Cartwright also, interestingly, returns in a cameo role. The Body Snatchers movies have all prided themselves on their special effects - even going all the way back to the original 1956 version. The 1978 version probably struck the best balance between spectacle and excess. Unfortunately, the CG graphics in the 2007 version largely fail to impress (the switched focus on disease instead of plants surely contributes to that).
One thing this movie does a decent job of, thanks to the ubiquitousness of 24 hour television news networks these days, is demonstrate the difference between human nature and alien pod nature on a global scale. Always has there been an emphasis on the lack of emotion - the source of conflict between humans - in pod mentality, but to see a world dominated by pod people resulting in global peace treaties, and nuclear disarmament, and an end to terrorism - really drives home the question of whether human nature is really worth preserving after all. Although there's been more than enough Invasion of the Body Snatchers adaptations already, I'd like to see one credibly written from the body snatchers' perspective.
I worry sometimes about old, black and white movies that I won't be able to fully enjoy them, given how much cinema has progressed over the years, and the different sensibilities that previous generations have had. But in the case of the 1956 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I had nothing to fear (well, except for the body snatchers themselves). This was the most compelling black and white film I'd seen since the original Night of the Living Dead. Though I'm not the sort of stuffy horror fan who is always complaining about the dire state of modern horror, there may be at least some merit to the claim that modern movies focus too much on gore and cheap scares, to the exclusion of character depth and constructing a truly unsettling atmosphere.
Certainly, as cliche as the subject of alien "body snatchers" may have become, it's a terrifying premise - that seed pods from outer space can almost perfectly replicate human beings - with only the faint hollowness of their going through the motions of human emotion to hint that anything is wrong. Who can you trust when everybody around you that you know and love starts doubting that their friends and family are who they appear to be, and you can't be sure who's still human and who has already become one of them? The theme is rife with potential for symbolic interpretation (e.g., fear of conformity, communist paranoia), and the subject itself represents a haunting psychological phenomena. But even without any deeper meaning, the superficial sci-fi take involving alien pods is scary enough all by itself.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
The 1956 film tells the story (in voice-over) of a doctor's experiences as the invaders gradually take over a small town. The 1978 version uses the same basic outline, but with a health inspector in downtown San Francisco. I don't know how much the fact that this story seems better suited to the sensibilities of 1950s America contributes to this, but the 1978 version feels hollow somehow - like it has the shell of an Invasion of the Body Snatchers movie, but the heart is missing; it's just going through the motions. There are some memorably creepy moments - like the otherworldy intro, the pod garden transformation scene, the dog scare, and the scream at the end - but overall it didn't feel to me as gripping as the '56 version.
And this is in spite of a very prominent cast that includes Donald Sutherland in the lead, with a very pretty Brooke Adams, a young Jeff Goldblum, Veronica Cartwright (who played second female behind Sigourney Weaver in the first Alien movie - and is just as panicky here), and even Leonard Nimoy as an obnoxious psychiatrist (who heavy-handedly introduces the film's theme of emotional detachment in then-modern society as a red herring to explain away the alien invasion). Although, it could certainly be said that having so many distinctive faces on screen takes you out of the movie a bit.
Body Snatchers (1993)
The 1993 film Body Snatchers is a decidedly grittier adaptation of the story, with less concern for strictly adhering to the outline of the previous two versions, while still covering all the bases. This time, it's an EPA agent bringing his family to a military base for a working vacation. The primary protagonist is, however, his teenage daughter, played by a very delicious-looking Gabrielle Anwar. Though only in minor (but important) roles, R. Lee Ermey and Forest Whitaker round out an otherwise unfamiliar cast, though Meg Tilly channels the creepiness of the pod people very well, and Billy Wirth counters that as an at times unsettlingly deadpan human.
The performances are all mostly understated (to good effect), except for Forest Whitaker, who goes maybe just a little bit overboard in his big scene. I'm glad that this movie reprised the alien scream from the 1978 version, which was probably the best contribution it made to the Body Snatchers legacy. There are a few parts of this movie that feel like maybe they would make more sense to somebody already familiar with the story, but since this was the third version I'd seen, that didn't bother me. You might - and I stress that this is merely a guess - be better off if this is not the first version you watch, though. I would recommend the original, followed by this one.
The Invasion (2007)
One of the interesting things about these Invasion of the Body Snatchers movies is that they all do a good job of capturing a snapshot of the times when they were made - the '50s, the late '70s, the early '90s. And the 2007 adaptation, simply titled The Invasion, is no exception, with its emphasis on a drug-addled population in the internet age. Indeed, the body snatchers are re-imagined as an infectious disease this time, that takes over people's bodies in their sleep, instead of the plant pod body replacements of decades past. Apart from that, this version of the story resurrects some basic elements (and characters) from the first two adaptations, relocating to a big city like in the 1978 version, albeit not adhering to the formula quite as strongly as that version did.
This movie seems to make several nods to previous versions, with last time's EPA agent upgraded to the CDC, and both a doctor and a psychiatrist in leading roles (yet here, the psychiatrist is a protagonist). The latter are played by Daniel Craig (who we all know as the new "James Blond") and Nicole Kidman, continuing the tradition of featuring an uncommonly attractive woman in one of the lead roles. Veronica Cartwright also, interestingly, returns in a cameo role. The Body Snatchers movies have all prided themselves on their special effects - even going all the way back to the original 1956 version. The 1978 version probably struck the best balance between spectacle and excess. Unfortunately, the CG graphics in the 2007 version largely fail to impress (the switched focus on disease instead of plants surely contributes to that).
One thing this movie does a decent job of, thanks to the ubiquitousness of 24 hour television news networks these days, is demonstrate the difference between human nature and alien pod nature on a global scale. Always has there been an emphasis on the lack of emotion - the source of conflict between humans - in pod mentality, but to see a world dominated by pod people resulting in global peace treaties, and nuclear disarmament, and an end to terrorism - really drives home the question of whether human nature is really worth preserving after all. Although there's been more than enough Invasion of the Body Snatchers adaptations already, I'd like to see one credibly written from the body snatchers' perspective.
Friday, September 26, 2014
The Keep (1983)
The Keep distinguishes itself right out the gate with a cast that includes Ian McKellen, and a score by Tangerine Dream. The cinematography is very artistic, and the setting most foreboding. As the movie begins, a Nazi regiment tasked with guarding a mountain pass in Romania sets up camp inside an ancient keep, whose caretaker warns them of terrible nightmares that have driven out anyone who has previously attempted to spend the night. Just fifteen minutes into the movie, and I'm actually shivering with anticipation of what's to come.
And what follows is far from predictable. Rather than a conventional monster movie, this film evolves into more of an epic battle between good and evil. And while it appears at one point to be shaping up into a Nazi deathwish fulfillment fantasy, the movie has some secrets yet in store. The special effects are admittedly primitive, but the monster, such as it is, has an effectively unique (and imposing) appearance. The music, meanwhile, contributes to an almost Lynchian atmosphere. I consider The Keep to be an unexpected gem, and an example of the positive effect that creativity can have when it is not unduly restrained by adherence to formula, as seems to be a frequent problem with modern cinema.
And what follows is far from predictable. Rather than a conventional monster movie, this film evolves into more of an epic battle between good and evil. And while it appears at one point to be shaping up into a Nazi deathwish fulfillment fantasy, the movie has some secrets yet in store. The special effects are admittedly primitive, but the monster, such as it is, has an effectively unique (and imposing) appearance. The music, meanwhile, contributes to an almost Lynchian atmosphere. I consider The Keep to be an unexpected gem, and an example of the positive effect that creativity can have when it is not unduly restrained by adherence to formula, as seems to be a frequent problem with modern cinema.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Salem's Lot (1979)
September is winding down, and October is fast approaching. The days are beginning to grow shorter and cooler, and the leaves have just begun to change. You know what that means: Halloween season is upon us again!
Following my viewing of that other Stephen King adaptation over the summer, The Stand, I resolved to watch Salem's Lot, as I had heard that it was one of the better quality Stephen King adaptations in existence (directed by Tobe Hooper, whom you might remember as the director of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre). The first thing that should be said about this movie is that it is not about the witches of Salem, as I had thought (and, actually, kinda hoped...). It's actually about vampires, in a small town in Maine called 'Salem's Lot (short for Jerusalem's Lot). And this is classic Bram Stoker's Dracula mythology we're dealing with here, with a head vampire, and ghouls floating outside people's windows at night, and stakes and holy water and everything.
The story begins with a published author returning to his home town to write his next book about a local house with a torrid past and a reputation around town for being haunted. A very suspicious antiques dealer from Europe has just moved into the house, and, as it eventually becomes clear, his conspicuously absent partner is actually a creature of the night. As his victim list grows, the townspeople become more and more panicked, until the aforementioned author takes it upon himself to stop the problem at its source.
If this film has a flaw, it's that it's very dated. And, watching it from a 21st century perspective, the plot develops pretty predictably for anyone with any familiarity with the Dracula mythos. However, it's very well put together, with clever dialogue and fleshed out characters - though at the expense of having a three hour runtime (as it was designed to be a television miniseries, though without convenient chapter breaks like The Stand had); it does tend to drag in parts.
But it constructs a pretty creepy atmosphere, and the makeup effects are excellent. The design of the head vampire obviously takes a page from Nosferatu - but to good effect; it's genuinely one of the creepiest movie vampires I've ever seen. Salem's Lot may not fare too well against modern tastes in this post-Twilight, post-Thirty Days of Night world, but if you don't mind the vintage atmosphere, and you're not bored of old-school vampire mythology yet, then you'd do well to give this movie a screening.
Following my viewing of that other Stephen King adaptation over the summer, The Stand, I resolved to watch Salem's Lot, as I had heard that it was one of the better quality Stephen King adaptations in existence (directed by Tobe Hooper, whom you might remember as the director of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre). The first thing that should be said about this movie is that it is not about the witches of Salem, as I had thought (and, actually, kinda hoped...). It's actually about vampires, in a small town in Maine called 'Salem's Lot (short for Jerusalem's Lot). And this is classic Bram Stoker's Dracula mythology we're dealing with here, with a head vampire, and ghouls floating outside people's windows at night, and stakes and holy water and everything.
The story begins with a published author returning to his home town to write his next book about a local house with a torrid past and a reputation around town for being haunted. A very suspicious antiques dealer from Europe has just moved into the house, and, as it eventually becomes clear, his conspicuously absent partner is actually a creature of the night. As his victim list grows, the townspeople become more and more panicked, until the aforementioned author takes it upon himself to stop the problem at its source.
If this film has a flaw, it's that it's very dated. And, watching it from a 21st century perspective, the plot develops pretty predictably for anyone with any familiarity with the Dracula mythos. However, it's very well put together, with clever dialogue and fleshed out characters - though at the expense of having a three hour runtime (as it was designed to be a television miniseries, though without convenient chapter breaks like The Stand had); it does tend to drag in parts.
But it constructs a pretty creepy atmosphere, and the makeup effects are excellent. The design of the head vampire obviously takes a page from Nosferatu - but to good effect; it's genuinely one of the creepiest movie vampires I've ever seen. Salem's Lot may not fare too well against modern tastes in this post-Twilight, post-Thirty Days of Night world, but if you don't mind the vintage atmosphere, and you're not bored of old-school vampire mythology yet, then you'd do well to give this movie a screening.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers - Hypnotic Eye (2014)
The new album by Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, Hypnotic Eye, is getting a lot of good press (and for good reason, it turns out). Even Entertainment Weekly is singing its praises, and as a person who is mostly a fan of non-contemporary music, I usually find EW's music coverage to be largely irrelevant to my tastes. Among the things I've read about Hypnotic Eye is the claim that it is a quality Heartbreakers record in the classic style. And so that was my mindset going into it on first listen.
It's not often that a decades-old band puts out a record to rival their youthful output. Obviously, this is probably the goal of a lot of bands on a lot of records (whether they're trying to recapture old lightning, or outshine it with a new sound), but it's not easy to accomplish. Take The Rolling Stones, for example, who have released a lot of iffy records since their heyday in the '60s, and '70s. In 2005, with A Bigger Bang, they finally put out a solid record worth perking your ears up and listening to. At the same time, it doesn't so much sound like a new classic Rolling Stones album, as it sounds like The Rolling Stones in the 21st century recording some good music that doesn't embarrass their monumental legacy.
On the other hand, take Black Sabbath's album from last year, ingeniously titled 13. Nobody would have faulted you for doubting that Black Sabbath was a band that could put out a record that effectively captured the sound on their classic albums (well, I wouldn't have, at least). But to my surprise, that's exactly what they accomplished with 13, which to me is every bit as good as their self-titled debut, or Paranoid, or Master of Reality, or what have you - and maybe even better as a matured, consistent product.
So where on the spectrum does Hypnotic Eye lie? When I first started listening to it - skeptic that I am - I was doubtful that it could be as good as people were saying. As the first couple songs played through, I caught myself thinking, it's good, but can it really compare to a classic Heartbreakers record? But, lo and behold, by the time I got to the end of the album, I found myself digging the songs enough to put it back on from the top. I ended up listening to it three times in a row before I had to get up and do something else, and at that point, I was convinced that I liked the record enough that I wanted to buy my own copy of it.
Truth be told, and as cynical as this is going to sound, I didn't think Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers had another album of this quality in them still. They put out a good album in 2010 (titled Mojo), but if I were to be honest, I think I like Hypnotic Eye even more. Mojo was more akin to The Rolling Stones' A Bigger Bang, in that it sounded like a modern Heartbreakers recording good music that didn't embarrass their legacy. It's also a longer album, in the modern format. Hypnotic Eye is a short 45 minutes, like albums of the old days, but it's a lot tighter as a result, with hardly any filler. I like an album that doesn't take the risk of overstaying its welcome. If it's that good, you can always put it on repeat, but if there's too much filler, you're bound to start reaching for the skip button.
And the quality of the music is fantastic. Like Black Sabbath's 13, I think it's as good as any Heartbreakers album I've listened to, including their self-titled debut and Damn The Torpedoes (both from the '70s). And in spite of my strong personal connection to the band's 2002 release The Last DJ, which was probably responsible for me finally taking Tom Petty seriously as an artist and not just a musician who put out some good radio hits, I think that, on a purely musical scale, I like Hypnotic Eye even better.
The Songs
The album opens with American Dream Plan B, which is very clever and gets you thinking - even before the song starts playing! It starts off in a lo-fi sort of way that may be a little off-putting at first - I'll admit it had me scratching my head the first time I listened to it. But it clears up quickly, and on repeated listens I think it's actually a really neat effect. It's a solid song that includes a crunchy guitar solo, which is typical of the album on the whole - and something that I, as a guitarist, absolutely appreciate, and also something, I think, that ties it in to the old classic Heartbreakers songs, written and recorded in the days before people forgot how important a good guitar solo was in a rock song.
The next song, Fault Lines, is a little bit more traditionally pop-Petty, but it's saved by a very rough-around-the-edges guitar part. I really can't over-emphasize the importance of guitar tone and playing to the quality of a song. I may be biased as a guitarist, but in a more general sense, the sound of the instruments on this album contribute in no small part to how good the songs on this album are.
Red River opens up sounding an awful lot like something you might hear on Mojo (which is no criticism), and sports a chorus that is very classic Petty-sounding. It's no obscure secret why people are calling this an album in the classic Heartbreakers vein. It's got a nice instrumental bridge that starts off sounding very pretty, but only for so long until the screaming electric guitar charges in.
The sound of Full Grown Boy is very distinctive, with a unique guitar tone that makes me think of something like Pink Floyd's Biding My Time, or The Doors' Cars Hiss By My Window, or something else esoteric like that. It's very difficult to find a clean guitar tone that's tasty and not too tinny, but the band nails it on this track. The song's a bit laidback, but it's got a nice swing and a groove to it.
To be fair, a Tom Petty album should really probably be evaluated for its lyrics among everything else, and there are glimpses here and there that tell me that the lyrics on this album have some depth (take the title of the opening track, for example), but as anyone who knows me knows, I listen to instrumental music first and foremost, and tend to view the vocals in a song more as a musical instrument and not for the words that are being sung. That having been said, the fact that I like this album so much is a testament to its instrumental achievement.
All You Can Carry is a much more upbeat track, with a far more liberal spattering of guitar leads. A lot of my favorite Tom Petty songs are of the guitar-heavy sort - tracks like Refugee, Runnin' Down A Dream, Mary Jane's Last Dance, and, even more recently, Good Enough. This song fits snugly in that category.
Power Drunk slows down a bit, but maintains an emotional intensity. It's one of those songs where Petty's voice has an edge to it, which is also reflected in one of the guitar tracks. It's also another song that has a bit of a Mojo feel to it, which leads me to suspect that this album is actually a pretty good bridge between Petty's classic and modern sounds, almost in the sense of it being a perfect distillation of the musician (and, absolutely, the band)'s talent and potential. Power Drunk is also one of the songs on the album that leaves an early impression on you. You know how some songs just stick out in your mind right away, and others take some time for you to really notice them (popularly known as "deep cuts")? This is the former.
Forgotten Man seems to sit firmly in the Bo Diddley camp of rock beats, but is just another example of how the excellent sound on this album contributes to its overall feel. It's almost as if it doesn't matter which song on the album you're listening to, because each one has a bit of each of the parts that makes the album overall so good. I wonder who's responsible for that cohesion of aural landscapes; I suspect it has as much to do with the production of the album than the musicians' individual approaches. Whoever is responsible, they deserve major kudos.
Sins Of My Youth is another one of those songs that leaves an impression, maybe as much due to the catchy chorus as anything else. It's a mellow, moody track though, with another appearance of that very smooth guitar tone, like we heard on Full Grown Boy. I absolutely love it.
I suspect that U Get Me High may be an attempt at reaching out to a younger generation of fans (although I probably only say that because of the choice of spelling "you" with a single letter). Not that the song is in any way out of character for Tom Petty - I think that You Don't Know How It Feels, with the infamous line "let's roll another joint" is one of his enduring hits, both in concert and on the radio, even if, to me, it's not one of his most musically interesting songs. In any case, this song, like everything else on the album (not to sound like a broken record), has a good sound to it, with a nice guitar part, that almost (if not quite) reaches Runnin' Down A Dream levels at the very end.
Burnt Out Town is the song on Hypnotic Eye with the most direct blues influence in its sound, including a great harmonica part. I also noticed in the liner notes that Tom Petty takes the guitar lead in this song, although it's not very extensive. He employs Mike Campbell for good reason, but a little variety is always fun. The focal point of this song definitely seems to be on the lyrics, as it is very much a story-telling kind of song (and if I'm saying that, you can probably believe it).
The album closes with Shadow People, which might not be all that assuming at the start, but as it develops over the 6+ minutes of its length (being the longest song on the album), it eventually proves itself to be probably the best song on the album. The lyrics, again, are evocative, with much to say, it would seem. And the outro that finishes the song (and the album) faintly recalls in my mind the close to that other Heartbreakers album I love so much, The Last DJ, with its reference to the shining sun.
Hypnotic Eye manages to do what every great album in the annals of rock history does: become something more than the sum of its parts. You could talk about the songs, but in the end, there's just something about the album that sounds groovy from start to finish, and somehow it makes you want to put it on in the car and turn the volume up. And then, when it's over, play it again. What more could you ask for from a rock album?
It's not often that a decades-old band puts out a record to rival their youthful output. Obviously, this is probably the goal of a lot of bands on a lot of records (whether they're trying to recapture old lightning, or outshine it with a new sound), but it's not easy to accomplish. Take The Rolling Stones, for example, who have released a lot of iffy records since their heyday in the '60s, and '70s. In 2005, with A Bigger Bang, they finally put out a solid record worth perking your ears up and listening to. At the same time, it doesn't so much sound like a new classic Rolling Stones album, as it sounds like The Rolling Stones in the 21st century recording some good music that doesn't embarrass their monumental legacy.
On the other hand, take Black Sabbath's album from last year, ingeniously titled 13. Nobody would have faulted you for doubting that Black Sabbath was a band that could put out a record that effectively captured the sound on their classic albums (well, I wouldn't have, at least). But to my surprise, that's exactly what they accomplished with 13, which to me is every bit as good as their self-titled debut, or Paranoid, or Master of Reality, or what have you - and maybe even better as a matured, consistent product.
So where on the spectrum does Hypnotic Eye lie? When I first started listening to it - skeptic that I am - I was doubtful that it could be as good as people were saying. As the first couple songs played through, I caught myself thinking, it's good, but can it really compare to a classic Heartbreakers record? But, lo and behold, by the time I got to the end of the album, I found myself digging the songs enough to put it back on from the top. I ended up listening to it three times in a row before I had to get up and do something else, and at that point, I was convinced that I liked the record enough that I wanted to buy my own copy of it.
Truth be told, and as cynical as this is going to sound, I didn't think Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers had another album of this quality in them still. They put out a good album in 2010 (titled Mojo), but if I were to be honest, I think I like Hypnotic Eye even more. Mojo was more akin to The Rolling Stones' A Bigger Bang, in that it sounded like a modern Heartbreakers recording good music that didn't embarrass their legacy. It's also a longer album, in the modern format. Hypnotic Eye is a short 45 minutes, like albums of the old days, but it's a lot tighter as a result, with hardly any filler. I like an album that doesn't take the risk of overstaying its welcome. If it's that good, you can always put it on repeat, but if there's too much filler, you're bound to start reaching for the skip button.
And the quality of the music is fantastic. Like Black Sabbath's 13, I think it's as good as any Heartbreakers album I've listened to, including their self-titled debut and Damn The Torpedoes (both from the '70s). And in spite of my strong personal connection to the band's 2002 release The Last DJ, which was probably responsible for me finally taking Tom Petty seriously as an artist and not just a musician who put out some good radio hits, I think that, on a purely musical scale, I like Hypnotic Eye even better.
The Songs
The album opens with American Dream Plan B, which is very clever and gets you thinking - even before the song starts playing! It starts off in a lo-fi sort of way that may be a little off-putting at first - I'll admit it had me scratching my head the first time I listened to it. But it clears up quickly, and on repeated listens I think it's actually a really neat effect. It's a solid song that includes a crunchy guitar solo, which is typical of the album on the whole - and something that I, as a guitarist, absolutely appreciate, and also something, I think, that ties it in to the old classic Heartbreakers songs, written and recorded in the days before people forgot how important a good guitar solo was in a rock song.
The next song, Fault Lines, is a little bit more traditionally pop-Petty, but it's saved by a very rough-around-the-edges guitar part. I really can't over-emphasize the importance of guitar tone and playing to the quality of a song. I may be biased as a guitarist, but in a more general sense, the sound of the instruments on this album contribute in no small part to how good the songs on this album are.
Red River opens up sounding an awful lot like something you might hear on Mojo (which is no criticism), and sports a chorus that is very classic Petty-sounding. It's no obscure secret why people are calling this an album in the classic Heartbreakers vein. It's got a nice instrumental bridge that starts off sounding very pretty, but only for so long until the screaming electric guitar charges in.
The sound of Full Grown Boy is very distinctive, with a unique guitar tone that makes me think of something like Pink Floyd's Biding My Time, or The Doors' Cars Hiss By My Window, or something else esoteric like that. It's very difficult to find a clean guitar tone that's tasty and not too tinny, but the band nails it on this track. The song's a bit laidback, but it's got a nice swing and a groove to it.
To be fair, a Tom Petty album should really probably be evaluated for its lyrics among everything else, and there are glimpses here and there that tell me that the lyrics on this album have some depth (take the title of the opening track, for example), but as anyone who knows me knows, I listen to instrumental music first and foremost, and tend to view the vocals in a song more as a musical instrument and not for the words that are being sung. That having been said, the fact that I like this album so much is a testament to its instrumental achievement.
All You Can Carry is a much more upbeat track, with a far more liberal spattering of guitar leads. A lot of my favorite Tom Petty songs are of the guitar-heavy sort - tracks like Refugee, Runnin' Down A Dream, Mary Jane's Last Dance, and, even more recently, Good Enough. This song fits snugly in that category.
Power Drunk slows down a bit, but maintains an emotional intensity. It's one of those songs where Petty's voice has an edge to it, which is also reflected in one of the guitar tracks. It's also another song that has a bit of a Mojo feel to it, which leads me to suspect that this album is actually a pretty good bridge between Petty's classic and modern sounds, almost in the sense of it being a perfect distillation of the musician (and, absolutely, the band)'s talent and potential. Power Drunk is also one of the songs on the album that leaves an early impression on you. You know how some songs just stick out in your mind right away, and others take some time for you to really notice them (popularly known as "deep cuts")? This is the former.
Forgotten Man seems to sit firmly in the Bo Diddley camp of rock beats, but is just another example of how the excellent sound on this album contributes to its overall feel. It's almost as if it doesn't matter which song on the album you're listening to, because each one has a bit of each of the parts that makes the album overall so good. I wonder who's responsible for that cohesion of aural landscapes; I suspect it has as much to do with the production of the album than the musicians' individual approaches. Whoever is responsible, they deserve major kudos.
Sins Of My Youth is another one of those songs that leaves an impression, maybe as much due to the catchy chorus as anything else. It's a mellow, moody track though, with another appearance of that very smooth guitar tone, like we heard on Full Grown Boy. I absolutely love it.
I suspect that U Get Me High may be an attempt at reaching out to a younger generation of fans (although I probably only say that because of the choice of spelling "you" with a single letter). Not that the song is in any way out of character for Tom Petty - I think that You Don't Know How It Feels, with the infamous line "let's roll another joint" is one of his enduring hits, both in concert and on the radio, even if, to me, it's not one of his most musically interesting songs. In any case, this song, like everything else on the album (not to sound like a broken record), has a good sound to it, with a nice guitar part, that almost (if not quite) reaches Runnin' Down A Dream levels at the very end.
Burnt Out Town is the song on Hypnotic Eye with the most direct blues influence in its sound, including a great harmonica part. I also noticed in the liner notes that Tom Petty takes the guitar lead in this song, although it's not very extensive. He employs Mike Campbell for good reason, but a little variety is always fun. The focal point of this song definitely seems to be on the lyrics, as it is very much a story-telling kind of song (and if I'm saying that, you can probably believe it).
The album closes with Shadow People, which might not be all that assuming at the start, but as it develops over the 6+ minutes of its length (being the longest song on the album), it eventually proves itself to be probably the best song on the album. The lyrics, again, are evocative, with much to say, it would seem. And the outro that finishes the song (and the album) faintly recalls in my mind the close to that other Heartbreakers album I love so much, The Last DJ, with its reference to the shining sun.
Hypnotic Eye manages to do what every great album in the annals of rock history does: become something more than the sum of its parts. You could talk about the songs, but in the end, there's just something about the album that sounds groovy from start to finish, and somehow it makes you want to put it on in the car and turn the volume up. And then, when it's over, play it again. What more could you ask for from a rock album?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)