Film Review: You Only Live Twice (1967) B-

Date Viewed: 7/21/06
Venue: DVD

You Only Live Twice is the final James Bond film to star Sean Connery in the 1960s, and to many people it represents the last of Bond in its purest form. Before anyone else played the part and before the series got a case of the sillies.

Bond again tangles with the uberterrorists in SPECTRE, this time in Japan. The whole endevour is nicely set up, with the Brits elaborately faking Bond's death in Hong Kong, freeing him to investigate the abduction of several U.S. and Russian spacecraft before escalating Cold War tensions can lead to World War III.

The Japanese locales (including a real sumo match!), landscape, and (admittedly) women really help the film stand out from it's nascent Bond bretheren.

However, You Only Live Twice suffers from an absolutely glacial second act. By the end of act one, everyone, you, me, even Bond knows pretty much where SPECTRE is and what they're doing. But it takes us for-ever to actually get up and go after them. Instead we waste a lot of time watching Bond go through a wholly unconvincing attempt to make him look more Japanese (he's basically given Mr. Spock's hair-do). The second's act's only saving grace is a helicopter dogfight with Bond in a tricked-out (thanks, Q) mini-copter.

The final act finally arrives and things pick back up. The face of SPECTRE (the never-before-seen Blofeld) is revealed to be Donald Pleasence, whose appearence would go on to inspire (or basically be copied by) Mike Myers' Dr. Evil. We're also treated to a giant hundreds-of-ninjas-attack-underground-lair climax. There's just something cool about seeing dozens of ninjas onscreen all at once. Although I've got a problem with ninjas wielding pistols and rifles...there's something rather un-ninja about that.

You Only Live Twice is two-thirds of a really good James Bond film. The first and third acts are everything a Bond film should be. There's intrigue, exotic locations, beautiful women, and exciting action. But I just can't get over the grinding halt that is the second act. You Only Live Twice isn't the yawnathon Thunderball is, but its just not quite good enough to be on par with the likes of Goldfinger, From Russia With Love, or even Dr. No.

FIlm Review: Life Of Brian (1979) B-

Date Viewed: 7/15/06
Venue: DVD

Life Of Brian is British comedy troupe Monty Pyton's return to the big screen after the immense success of 1975's Monty Python & The Holy Grail. This time, the satirical bunch introduce us to Brian (Graham Chapman), who has the misfortune of being born on the original Christmas and spends the rest of his life (and the film) being mistaken for a messiah.

Absurdity abounds in this parody as Brian must continually deflect the admiration and adoration of misguided Jews while avoiding the wrath of bumbling Romans in ancient Jerusalem. The Montys are here in full force, making light of the origins of Christianity, torture, and even the crucifiction itself.

Admittedly, I'm not a huge British comedy fan (see my review of Holy Grail), but Life Of Bryan does have some inspired moments; such as John Cleese's abundantly daft Roman captain who gives poor Brian a lesson in graffiti grammar, and the exploits of Brian's followers, who take his every step or stumble to be a divine message of some kind.

I enjoyed Life Of Brian, but not too much. It lacks Holy Grails' sense of complete whimsy. Too many scenes run long, dependent on a one-note joke that wears its welcome quicikly. I hesitate to call this a disappointment, but it just can't quite live up to its predecessor. Not that much could.

Self Promotion Time!

If you haven't checked out my podcast yet...what the hell is wrong with you?!

Just go to The Auditory Display Of Power and copy this link into iTunes to get your dose of metal madness.

What? Are you too uptight and snobby to listen to heavy metal? Get with the program and rock out. I want to see 1987-style headbanging, people.

Album Review: Powerman 5000 - Destroy What You Enjoy (2006) C-

Sounds like: AFI, Good Charlotte

I admit, I had completely written off Powerman 5000 after two pretty terrible records (Transform and Anyone For Doomsday?). Well, I'm still ready to write them off in terms of creative integrity, but commercially, Destroy What You Enjoy will keep Rob Zombie's little brother (frontman Spider-1) employed for a few more years.

Up to this point, Powerman 5000 inhabited a funky electro-metal niche. Transform was a bit more of a straight-forward, Linkin Park-type record. And now Destroy What You Enjoy takes the band into an entirely new direction: pop-punk.

The songs here might as well be on A Simple Plan record. The songcraft is proficient without being original, just innoculously catchy punk song after another.

There's certainly plenty for modern rock radio to sink their teeth into, and I'm sure Powerman will see a popularity surge. But the band that made such confections as 'When Worlds Collide' and 'Supernova Goes Pop' might as well be dead and buried.

Album Review: Beyond Fear - Beyond Fear (2006) C

Sounds like: Judas Priest, Halford

Rob Halford soundalike vocalist Tim 'Ripper' Owens, fresh from his work on Iced Earth's 'The Glorious Burden,' returns with a new band with an old sound, Beyond Fear.

If you've heard Owens' Judas Priest albums, then you'll have a pretty good idea what Beyond Fear sounds like. Kind of a classic 80s metal sound updated with modern production.

Songs range from speedy, fast paced shredders to plodding mid-placed rumblers. The faster numbers fare better as the middling tracks have very little to offer in the song-writing department. At least the fast songs are...well, fast.

Ripper sounds like Rob Halford, as usual. There's no breaking of new ground or even an attempt on any level to try anything different. Total middle-of-the-road album.

Album Review: Ankla - Sleep Trails (2006) B

Sounds like: Puya, Soulfly

You might remember Ramon Ortiz's previous band, Puya, as the heavily latin-influenced purveyors of nu-metal. Well, Ortiz is back with Ankla. Their debut, Sleep Trails, isn't that much of a departure from the Puya material.

Latin beats mixed with nu-metal syncopations is the heart of Ankla's sound. However, there are more than a few metalcore-style breakdowns and a few interesting solos to keep things moving. There are some wild tempo changes and occasional blast beats. Vocals range from gutteral shreiking to clean passages. It's a wild ride.

Overall, it's not a bad record. More varied than Puya, and less reliant upon Latin influences (hey, English lyrics!), a good album if you're looking for a sort of post-modern nu-metal sound that'll keep you on your toes.

Film Review: Thunderball (1966) B-

Date Viewed: 7/15/06
Venue: DVD

Thunderball is the fourth James Bond film to hit the silver screen, and unfortunately takes a step backward from the great Goldfinger and From Russia With Love.

Interestingly enough, Thunderball was set to be the first Bond film while in development, but was eventually pushed down the line, leaving Dr. No to come first. That explains the similarities in tone and pacing between Dr. No and Thunderball. There’s very little of Goldfinger's gadgetry or playfulness found here. Thunderball is much more reminiscent of the first two Bond films.

Thunderball’s setup is good one. Evil terrorist group SPECTRE steals two nuclear bombs from the RAF and holds the world hostage (sound familiar? Austin Powers directly parodied this, along with much else from Thunderball, including SPECTRE’s numbering of members (“Number 2,” etc.) and even the villain’s eyepatch!). Of course James Bond is sent to track down the missing bombs, and his investigation leads him to the Bahamas (echoing the tropical Jamaican setting of Dr. No).

But the film really bogs down in the second act as Bond tracks down the bombs via the villainous Largo. There’s really not much intrigue as we the audience already know Largo has the bombs, it’s just a matter of Bond figuring out where they are. And Largo himself is a rather blah entry to the Bond rogue’s gallery. He doesn’t have outlandish flair like Auric Goldfinger, nor is he a physical threat like Red Grant. Largo doesn’t even have the ubercool mysteriousness of Dr. No. He’s just a chubby middle-aged eyepatch guy in a wetsuit.

What few action scenes there are mostly take place underwater in scuba gear. The underwater photography is cool the first time, but gets very tedious very quickly.

Claudine Auger’s turn as Bond girl Domino is a nice one, but her character arc is telegraphed halfway through the first act, and she doesn’t have much to do until the third act.

Released at the height of the 1960s spy craze, Thunderball was the first Bond film to be shot in anamorphic 2.35:1, it’s just too bad it can’t fill the extra space with something more worthwhile.

Film Review: From Russia With Love (1963) A-

Date Viewed: 7/14/06
Venue: DVD

In light of the impeding release of Casino Royale this Fall, I've decided to be ultra-geeky and watch (or re-watch in many cases) the available James Bond films in order. I'll be reviewing any I'd hadn't seen before. From Russia With Love is the first of these.

From Russia With Love is the second of the James Bond films, and definitely one of the best. It's a complex spy vs. spy thriller, pitting Sean Connery's Bond against the shadowy SPECTRE organization in efforts to obtain a valuable Russian decryption device.

There are very few of the usual Bond 'gadgets' in this film, and to be honest, that's quite refreshing. Bond must outhink his opponents and relies far more on cunning than any sort of nifty Q-provided gadget. And despite the film's slowish pacing, it's this cerebral element that carries the film.

That's not to say there's no action in From Russia From Love. Stand-out scenes include a gypsy camp shootout which begins with a perfectly mysogynistic girl on girl fight to the death, and a climatic battle with Red Grant (Robert Shaw) on a train.

Grant makes for a particularly satisfying villain; physically imposing but also one step ahead of Bond nearly the entire film. And Daniela Bianchi's Tatiana Romanova is most certainly in the upper echelon of Bond ladies;cooly seductive, but with a strong vulnerable side.

I enjoyed From Russia With Love quite a lot. It makes me wish many of Bond sequels had eschewed their more cartoony nature and stuck with the serious tone found here.

Album Review: Stone Sour - Come What(ever) May (2006) A

Sounds like: Stone Sour, Slipknot, 90s Metallica

Stone Sour's second release improves upon the already strong framework of their self-titled 2002 debut. The side project of Slipknot members Corey Taylor (vox) and Jim Root (guitar), Stone Sour is straight ahead, no nonsense metal for no-nonsense people.

In some ways Come What(ever) May compares to Metallica's self titled Black Album. While Stone Sour doesn't give us any arena-ready epics, there is a concerted effort to walk the tightrope between forceful heaviness and commercial sensibilities. It's a well-done balancing act. Taylor drops his semi-gutteral Slipknot growls for more traditional singing. The tracks manage to be sufficiently heavy and catchy at the same time. Guitar solos and tight arrangements are plentiful and welcome. There's a good variety of tracks, some fast, some mid-paced, and no matter what do not think that Nickelback-sounding first single "Through Glass" is indicative of the rest of the record. It's a one-off.

I was impresed although not blown away with Stone Sour's debut four years ago. There was a lot of promise there. Come What(ever) May is that promise kept.

Podcast!

Hey everyone, sorry for the lack of updates the last week or so, but I've been readying my very first official podcast!

Here's the story: back in college at USC, I used to co-host a weekly heavy metal radio show (dubbed 'The Auditory Display Of Power') with my good buddy Mike. Well, Mike and I have kept in touch and finally decided to revive ADOP in podcast form. It's a two hour show showcasing the best new bands and metal classics along with our witty commentary.

Mike and I are going to try and record a show a week, but that might slip to every other week, depending on our schedules. We'll see.

Anyways, here's the The Auditory Display Of Power website.

And here's the direct link to the podcast.

We're trying to get officially listed by itunes, but in the meantine, just manually 'subscribe to podcast' (it's under the 'Advanced' menu in itunes) and copy in the podcast link.

Enjoy!

Film Review: Superman Returns (2006) A

Date Viewed: 6/29/06
Venue: AMC Burbank 16

Superman Returns is not quite a remake (of Richard Donner’s 1978 Superman), not quite a sequel (the events in Donner’s Superman are considered a ‘loose history’), but is simply an brilliantly rousing film that transcends comic-book conventions and updates the Superman mythos into the twenty-first century.

Director Bryan Singer of X-Men fame certainly knows how to cast a film. He brought us the incredible Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and now he brings us Brandon Routh as Superman. Routh’s subtle Chris Reeve impersonation is nearly perfect, but Brandon makes the role his own, a little less boyish perhaps, and a shade darker. Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor is about as obvious a casting choice as you can get, but Spacey eliminates the cheese factor of Gene Hackman’s 1979s Luthor and replaces it with harsh malevolence. Kate Bosworth is good as Lois Lane, certainly a relief from the grating-what-does-Superman-see-in-her Margot Kidder. James Marsden (Cyclops!) is here as well as Lois’ fiancée, and does a nice turn himself.

The story is simple: Superman returns to Earth after a five year absence to discover his love has a child, is engaged to another man, and that she, and the rest of the world, might have just moved right along without him. Oh, and of course Lex Luthor schemes a mad plan to take over the world.

There’s a lot of nit picking that can be done over the mechanics of the plot, especially Luthor’s storyline. And in a lesser film, I would attack these savagely.

However, Singer’s other strength is in his characters. I didn’t notice or care so much about some the of stickier logic points because I was too busy enjoying the plethora of emotive character moments, most of which are more about what is not said than what is said. Singer is a master at portraying real human emotion in a real, human way that no comic-book movie rightfully deserves.

And oh yeah, the kid, I almost forgot. Lois’ child is in quite a lot of the film. Now don’t cringe and run away, moviegoer, this isn’t the kid from the Zorro or Mummy sequels. It’s not Jake Lloyd. Calm down, have faith in Singer. He (thankfully) isn’t saddled with much dialog, but the kid is great, and is utterly believable.

The visuals in Superman Returns are stunning. Undoubtedly the best CG effects I have ever seen, the film leaves other superhero epics in the dust (yeah, Spider-Man, I’m talking to you!). Coupled with this is some truly iconic camera work, this is truly a spectacle.

I grew up loving the original Superman films, and perhaps it’s my nostalgia that carries me upward here. Superman Returns borrows music cues, main title design, Marlon Brando as Jor-El, and even some dialog straight out the 1978 movie. But there’s more to it than that. Superman Returns taps not only into Donner’s film, but also into the Superman myth as a whole for its inspiration. There’s a shot in the film that’s a direct lift from Action Comics #1 (Supes very first ever appearance), for goodness sakes!

Those looking solely for X-Men: The Last Stand-type action will be disappointed by the time and care Singer takes with his characters instead of action set pieces. That’s not to say Superman Returns is devoid of adrenaline (you cannot watch Superman save that 747 and not cheer, you just can’t, it’s that good), but is heavy on the human side. And as with any great myth, that’s always the best side to be on.

Addendum: I finally took C to see this and she had some interesting insight on the film. Superman Returns doens't necessarily do much to make you fall in love with its characters. It's sort of like the dark side Dagobah tree in The Empire Strikes Back. "What's in there?" Luke asks. "Only what you take with you," is Yoda's reply. If you walk into Superman Returns already in love with characters and situations from the Donner films, then you'll walk out in love with the characters in Returns. If you were never that crazy about the Donner characters, then you'll be puzzled upon leaving and wondering why James Marsden is leaps and bounds the film's most identifiable character.

Film Review: North Country (2005) C+

Date Viewed: 6/26/06
Venue: DVD

North County stars Charlize Theron as a single mother who fights sexual harassment at a Minnesota mine in the late 1980s. Based on a real life case, it plays out like a Lifetime movie with a bigger budget and an A-list cast including Woody Harrelson, Frances McDormand, and Sean Bean with a Minnesota(!) accent.

Not discounting the what the real women of North Country endured nearly twenty years ago, the film basically offers a variation on a story we’ve seen, read, or heard many times by now. If this film had come out in 1992, say, or even 1996, it would’ve carried far more relevance than it does now. Again, I’m not suggesting these women’s struggles are unworthy cinematically, I just believe sexual harassment is so firmly embedded in our national consciousness that this movie falls flat because of it.

The film’s structure doesn’t help. There are occasional flash-forward to courtroom scenes sprinkled throughout. You the viewer are always aware that eventually, Charlize is going to court. Hmm, let’s see, the men are sexually harassing her, what could she be going to court about later…hmm. And hmm, the movie is set in 1989, and sexual harassment was a big thing then…wonder who she’s taking to court? Oh, there’s Woody as her attorney, hey wait a minute, what’s the point of the scene where she has to convince him to take the case when we’ve already seen him in court!? And all the later scenes of Charlize trying to round up the signatures of harassed women and their fear of male reprisals are now officially worthless. We know they’re going to court! Where’s the tension?

That’s not to say there’s nothing good here. The cast is very good as a whole (Charlize even sports an appropriately 1989 fem-mullet), and there are some stirring speeches. But the whole procedure is too weighted down by the simple fact that we know happen long before it does.

Film Review: Transamerica (2005) B-

Date Viewed: 6/22/06
Venue: DVD

Transamerica is the much-ballyhooed film that features Desperate Housewife Felicity Huffman playing a pre-op transsexual. It’s a daring role that requires Ms. Huffman to shed any sense of ‘natural’ femininity and play a man desperately trying to be a woman.

But at its heart, Transamerica is a road picture. A week before her final sex-change operation, Bree (Huffman) discovers she (or…uh, I guess he in this case) had fathered a teenage son who hustles on the streets of New York City. Called upon to bail the boy out of jail, Bree drives cross-country to retrieve him at the behest of his/her therapist, who feels this loose end of Bree’s life must be taken care of before any operation can proceed.

The journey back from New York is full of discover as the unlikely pair get to know one another. As good as Felicity Huffman is playing an awkward man/woman, Kevin Zegers is even better as the son with a sweet sense of real-world naiveté coupled with a harsh street edge, a very rich and multilayered character.

My problems with the film begin with Bree. Felicity Huffman is great (as always), but Bree is not a consistently sympathetic character, she frets to the point of annoyance, and most importantly, and it really bothers me she takes so long (more than 2/3rds of the film) to tell her son her true relation to him. That’s…well, that’s chicken.

The film also seems to come to a dead halt about 2/3rds in as the pair, out of money, wind up at Bree’s parents house. Seeing Bree’s twisted family environment is worthwhile and necessary, it just takes too long.

I applaud the filmmakers for telling a story about characters and situations that are so rarely seen in mainstream film. But some irritating character issues and a crawl-like third act prevent me from endorsing this heartily.