ALBUM REVIEWS
BOOKS
MUSIC IN MEDIA ARTICLES
.
Saturday, November 9, 2024
Cars
I'm not a Car Enthusiast (tm) in that I particular care about how fun a car is to drive. I'm more of a traditional styling guy. Then again as long as a car works, styling is no more subjective that "fun."
MY CARS
VARIOUS ARTICLES
GENERATION RANKINGS
*But Not Really
Alice Cooper – Trash
1989
Rating: A+
Taking some inspiration from a friend’s blog, I’ve decided to start doing an album review or two. Since Alice Cooper is one of my favorite musicians, I’ve decided to start with one of his high points.
There are many names in the music industry that are not household, yet have crucial significance. One of these names is Desmond Child, held by one writer and producer of some of the most iconic hits of the 80’s. In fact, if there’s a good chance that if an osmotic song from a certain band is actually worthwhile, he had a hand in writing it. It's one of those little nuances that experts are apparently too autistic to clarify to the masses in their criticisms of artists who seem to have done their share of good works.
But this is Alice Cooper we’re talking about: a revolutionary who had already established himself as one of the greats, plus he had already settled into this 80's high point with Raise Your Fist and Yell. And one thing that can define a visionary is an eye for talent to collaborate with. Just as one revolutionary hit upon the idea of having a cabinet, our own founding father of metal was not above working with talent. With this powerful combination, we have Child’s knack for effective composition combined with Cooper’s edge in Trash, an album truly great enough to avoid deserving the predictable snark concerning any allegedly apropos nomenclature (although that is definitely true for the title track).
 |
| Alice Cooper realizing that he has another election to carry on his back. |
written by Alice Cooper, Desmond Child, John McCurry
Something tells me that Alice might be kindred spirits with a certain other victim of toxic sexual relationships. Along with “Bed of Nails,” this is Cooper’s most popular song, and not without reason. A surprisingly great subgenre that thrived in 80’s hard rock is the break-up song, and this is its crown jewel thanks to its raw, uncompromising sound. A common attribute among this class of song is how gut-wrenching a toxic relationship is and how painful its memory was. The prevealing theme in these is that men are the true romantics and women are disappointingly cold, but that’s an unfair assessment based on a limited and biased point of view. That female break-up songs tend to be empowering and celebratory could only be shrugged off as a coincidence.
The video portion is nothing much to write home about. Shots of Alice Cooper's singing in an effectively moody B-Movie scene interspersed with shots of some woman and then his band playing against an absurdly bland background of Democrat Blue with the obligatory orange thing for contrast. About a minute and a half in, we do get some legitimate metal visuals in the form of torture chamber full of hanging chains.
It would be hilarious if the aforementioned Hazbin song video somehow got a 900% views boost, triggering 9/11 for haters when Alice Cooper congratulates Viv & Co, only for her to backpedal on the reciprocation when the incident puts some of his wrongthink in the spotlight.
RATING: A+
Alice Cooper, Desmond Child
Songs about sex should be smooth and sultry or energetic and edgy, with an acknowlegment that there might be something perverse about it if overdone. “Spark in the Dark” is a very successful version of the latter. This is one of the more underrated tracks on the album and one of the four that made the cut on the ClipJam collection that I use for roadtrips. The composition is melodic enough while also having enough of a rhythm to shake your body too, and the harmonization of vocal tracks during the crescendo is beautifually executed. A hidden gem.
RATING: A+
Wriiten by Alice Cooper, Desmond Child, Joan Jett
The first forgettable track on the album, a problem most likely explained by the negative musical value contributed by Joan Jett. A bland tune which holds only slight ironic, esoteric appeal to me thanks to humorous synapse misfire in which I picture cats standing proud to it.
The video is too good for the song, with classic haunted house visuals and some charmingly goofy and dated color negative flashes.
RATING: C
Alice Cooper, Desmond Child
Another great break-up song of the 80’s, but this one has the added appeal of karma. The cathartic energy of calling out backstabbing pieces of trash whose bullshit have finally caught with them cannot be denied. The song is particularly relatable because, thanks to the ambiguity/obscurity of the lyrics, it can be easily applied outside of romance in reference to the type of person who used to be refreshingly sane, relatable friend until they sold out to the woke mind virus for furry clout while shunning you or at least screwing you and other commoners out of paid-for commissions because you weren’t some voice actor in a DotA that Cooper himself might approve of, but I digress.
RATING: A+
Alice Cooper, Bruce Roberts, Andy Goldmark
This tedious and misguided foray into country/western, the only one in the album not partially written by Child, is probably one of my least favorite Alice Cooper songs. The lyrics are okay, but I generally don't care if the song itself is unenjoyable. The video is predictable in its content with the exception of some nicely-lit high-grain blank-and-white shots.
RATING: D
Alice Cooper, Desmond Child, Kane Roberts, Diane Warren
A true classic. Hardcore, edgy, and sexy. Alice Cooper at his most twisted and sinister. I really don’t have much to contribute to the conversation on this one. The video is decent, mixing some high contrast black-and-red silhouettes along with helpful visual aids to clear up any potential confusion that might arise over the song's subject matter.
RATING: A+
7. THIS MANIAC’S IN LOVE WITH YOU
Alice Cooper, Desmond,Child, Bob Held, Tom Teeley
RATING: B
Alice Cooper, Desmond Child, Mark Frazier, Jamie Savier
Presumably to preserve the iconography of the album, the appropriately titled “Trash” carries on the proud tradition of title tracks’ being so utterly forgettable and bland I'm surprised I don't constantly hear it on classic rock stations.
RATING: D
Alice Cooper, Desmond Child, Jon Bon Jovi, Richie Sambora
A solid angsty break-up song that thankfully completes the minimum quota legally required of rock albums during the 80’s. Bon Jovi's influence produces a song almost on the par with "You Give Love a Bad Name."
RATING: A-
Alice Cooper, Desmond Child, John McCurry
Not much to say about this one except that it’s a passably peppy song that there's not much to say much about it.
RATING: B
Often a work can be greater than the average of its parts. Trash may split between great songs and decent-to-mediocre ones, but it's responsible for some true classics that stand as Cooper's most iconic. It doesn't have the greatest videos, and not too many of them: only four and half of those were for its lesser songs.
There may be some who feel the need to dismiss Trash as trendy 80’s slumming from Alice Cooper, but if anything it took his music to the next level in away that demonstrates that 80’s metal, for all its supposed banality, has the hardest, edgiest genre of rock music by default to the point where everything since has been softer. The best examples of it end up being the original metal artists like Cooper and Judas Priest updating and creating above average works for the genre. Cooper was pragmatic enough to join forces with a proven collaborator, but immediately followed up wonderfully with Hey Stoopid, even though Desmond Child did contribute that album what happens to be my favorite Alice Cooper song.
OVERALL RATING: A+
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
Roles That Were a Waste of Good Casting
I have absolutely no intention of seeing the new Crow movie, but they did seem to cast an actor (Bill Skarsgard) who could probably pull it off. Unfortunately, judging by the trailer…and the reviews, he looks pretty bland. I’ve been thinking of making a post about this, so here it is.
To clarify, this is not about the actors’ being wasted by being in a bad movie, but rather having their style wasted. Cast in very fitting roles, but due to poor direction, lack of screentime, or a bad interpretation of the character, their performance is disappointing in itself.
14. JIM CARREY as THE RIDDLER
Batman Forever (1995)
As I said before, Jim Carrey has a baseline hamminess that is quite amusing, but he often crosses the line into insufferability. There are times in which he fits like a glove in the role of the psychopathic Edward Nygma, but he’ll often go too far when trying to be funny, sometimes right in the middle of a sentence. It's not a complete waste but there's negative value to parts of his performance.
13. BOLAJI BADEJO as THE DRONE
Alien (1979)
This seems like a strange choice, but I think it’s appropriate. I generally agree with the conventional wisdom that less is more when showing a monster (especially where Wampas are concerned), but I honestly think it’s a shame that something like this screen-test wasn’t included in the movie. It’s subtle enough, and Badejo’s body language is simultaneously graceful and unsettling. It’s also strange that there are no shots that effectively take advantage of Badejo’s lanky 6’10” frame; they could have put anyone in that suit with what they kept.
I suppose I’d give an honorable mention to Wilt Chamberlain and Andre the Giant in Conan the Destroyer for a similar reason, though they don’t make the list because their acting ability may have been moot. They cast two athletes for the specific reason that they tower over Arnold, but there’s not a single shot in the actual movie that conveys the height difference as well as this photo of them just chilling on the set. Hell, the final fight with Dagoth is shot like it was Tom Hardy inside that rubber suit.
12. CHRISTOPHER WALKEN as EMPEROR SHADDAM IV
Dune, Pt. 2 (2024)
Aside from some mild grumpiness, he seems underwhelming, and the lack of screen-time does not help. Then again, it was a trend that these new Dune movies neglected the supporting characters to the extent that Kangaroo Jack made better use of Christopher Walken.
11. DAVID DASTMALCHIAN as PITER DE VRIES
Dune, Pt. 1 (2021)
Despite being a psychopath in the source material, Piter is depicted as a straight man here Dastmalchian holds his own in spite of this, but he can only do so much when he’s barely in the movie. It also raises the question of why they’d cast such a greasy-haired goonie when if they’re going to turn him into an anonymous cueball.
Remember, kids: It’s always better to look like Cezare than Orlok.
10. ROBERT PATTINSON as BATMAN
The Batman (2022)
Having seen Pattinson’s charisma in at least one other movie, I was disappointed to see a mopey one-note parody of an angsty Batman. And here I was thinking he was trying to distance himself from Twilight! Despite my reaction, it seems that a lot of others were pleasantly surprised by him. I guess the Batman casting spell adjusts to individual subjectivity…
9. JARED LETO as THE JOKER
Suicide Squad (2016)
Yes, the Batman Casting Spell: the casting always seems to go the opposite of how you’d expect. Michael Keaton, Heath Ledger, and Ben Affleck all worked surprisingly well…and then there’s Jared Leto. I thought he would be great, but his own personal interpretation of the character ended up being a bit…off. They should have reined him in.
8. JOHN BOYEGA as FINN
The Star Wars Sequels (2015, 2017, 2019)
Boyega is a solid actor, but as many have complained, his character was reduced to a border-line minstrel role who shows little empathy towards his former stormtrooper comrades
. He should have been the Jedi, but everybody says that. It’s even more frustrating because they actually used this as misdirection in the promotional material.
7. TOMMY LEE JONES as TWO-FACE
Batman Forever (1995)
Despite the offense of not letting Billy Dee Williams return, Jones is perfect for the tragic character of Harvey Dent. Unfortunately, Harvey is not so tragic in this movie. At least Tommy looks like he’s having fun. It also gave us the best on-set takedown this side of Laurence Olivier.
6. AUSTIN BUTLER as FEYD-RAUTHA
Dune, Pt. 2 (2024)
After killing a tragic role as Elvis, Butler is then cast as an over-simplified version of Feyd-Rautha in Dune. He has fun, but it’s a one-note crazy person performance that I imagine anyone could pull off. At least we got some amusing gif memes out it.
5. KEVIN CONROY as BATMAN (EARTH-99)
Batwoman, 2019
I’d want to avoid the typical complaints about some quasi-feminist deconstruction of traditional heroism, but it seemed like a betrayal that Kevin Conroy, the definitive voice of Batman, finally got a live-action role only to be turned into a cynical, nihilistic, and villainous parody of the Dark Knight.
3. ROGER ALLAM as ILLYRIO MOPATIS
Game of Thrones (2011)
Originally the role was going to played by Ian McNeice (an even better casting choice), but that fell through, and they cast Allam instead. Appearances aside, Allam is actually very fun in roles like this. Unfortunately, he must not have liked being involved with the series, because he spends most of the time looking as if he’d rather be somewhere else and is conspicuously absent after first few episodes.
TYRION: Where am I?
VARYS: You are in Pentos, in the house of Illyrio Mopatis
TYRION: Ok where is he?
VARYS: I don’t know.
2. BRENT SPINER as THE JOKER
Young Justice (2011)
Joker is definitely a voice role that I know Brent Spiner can do well, but good night it's like a horribly-fandubbed Hazbin character. Not only is his voice acting flat, it doesn’t even sound like it’s coming from the character on the screen.
1. ANDY SERKIS as ULYSSES KLAUE
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), Black Panther (2018)
So let me get this straight. you got a character from the comics who is transformed into this strange humanoid manifestation of living sound, you cast a guy most known for his mastery of motion-capture acting, and then you kill the character off without ever having him transform into living sound? Perhaps this is because Serkis is trying to distance himself from this now that motion-capture is standardized and he wants more serious roles, like MCU movies and Batman. I’ve heard he’s good in Andor, but I think this new direction is a bit bland and I miss weird old Andy Serkis.
I might add more if I forgot any
Friday, September 20, 2024
Bond Books Ranked
While the Bond books lack many of the memorable visual gimmicks of the movies, they tend to be quick reads, while the latter are slow watches. I’ve pointed out before that I’m not the biggest fan of many of the “classic” Bond movies: the characterization tends to be weak, the action is dated, and the often pacing is unjustifiably sluggish. I’d like to say they make me know what it feels like to not like genre fiction, but not really because I’m bored despite the cool stuff, not because of it. Ian Fleming’ sharp, dry wit helps as well. One thing I will point out is that the books’ version of M is my favorite: a crusty old man with a jaded military experience that makes him amusingly flippant. Also of note is how fire the cover art for most of these books are, with Richard Chopping as the dominant artist.
I have not read some of the short stories, and I admit there are a couple on this list I don’t have the best memories of.
12. The Spy Who Loved Me
1962
Fleming intended this story to be a more explicit cautionary tale about how you’re supposed to view Bond, but instead it comes off like a bad self-shipping fanfic with an unlikable female protagonist named Vivienne Michel. Fleming makes up a story in the introduction about how he was given the draft from a female fan, who had apparently been lucky enough to get her notice-me-senpai an official release simply because it was the early 60's and bad fanfics had not been fully established as cringe yet. Classic case of a creator’s getting frustrated with people’s misreading of his work and throwing all subtlety to the wind only to fail at that (people actually think the book was an expression of perversion based on Viv's assertion that everyone likes being semi-raped). Fleming seemed disappointed enough to ask that the film adaptation only use the title, and the result ended being one of the best films of the series, setting the trend of good luck involving Bond titles that are inspired by tangential Fleming lore (the movie even changes the title character). I suppose its deconstructive nature somewhat justifies it. That Bond is not supposed to be a sympathetic role model improves the reading of these books, especially the next entry…
WINNER: MOVIE
11. Moonraker
1955
The movie is one of the lesser entries: an inaccurate attempt to ride the coattails of Star Wars that only succeeds in imposing upon one the subjectivity of the type of joyless Puritan who does not like Star Wars. The book is a little more down to earth. The villain, Hugo Drax, is a German refugee from World War II posing as a philanthropist who is willing to provide Britain with the rocket technology needed for ballistic missiles, but is secretly planning to nuke London with warheads donated by the Soviets. Bond’s first major confrontation with this communazi arises from an amusing chapter punchline in which M vaguely grumbles about how Drax cheats at cards after an exposition dump about the character. Bond, having been taught this subtle art by a card shark, finds out that Drax’s strategy is just dealing over a reflective surface in plain view (when Drax demands how he was found out, Bond simply deadpans, "My eyes"). The plot is engaging, the wit is good, and this book would be one of the better ones if not for Bond’s questionable answer to a Trolley Problem at the end. He initially intends to sacrifice himself in order to sabotage the missiles armed to launch, but Gala Brand convinces him to redirect them to the sea, killing only a few innocent people instead of millions. The book also contains an interesting in memoriam for a contemporary disaster.
WINNER: BOOK
10. Diamonds Are Forever
1956
One of the more fun classic Bond movies whose camp does work (it helps that it’s a Connery Bond), but the book is relatively bland. No gay hitmen, none of the cool SPECTRE stuff. Just a wannabe-cowboy millionaire villain.
WINNER: MOVIE
9. The Man with the Golden Gun
1965
The book starts off with an intriguing follow-up to You Only Live Twice: Bond attempts to assassinate M after having been brainwashed by SMERSH because just bumbled into Russia to sort out his amnesia. After being de-brainwashed by MI6, he is sent out to assassinate SMERSH collaborator Fransisco Scaramanga. One could say the book misses the opportunity to capitalize on the paranoia of Bond’s being brainwashed twice, but then again the tragedy is that Bond just goes with it. It’s a tough call since the movie contains a lot of what I hate about the Roger Moore era, plus the infamous JW Pepper, but also has Christopher Lee, Nick-Nack, a lot of cool gimmicks.
WINNER: MOVIE
8. Thunderball
1961
I don’t remember much about this book outside its general plot, but I generally found the movie to be dull and slow in spite of some cool visuals.
WINNER: BOOK
7. Live and Let Die
1954
The book lacks some of the cooler aspects of the movie like Geoffrey Holder’s Baron Samedi and this scene. Tee-Hee is also a more generic character in the book. On the other hand it lacks the movie’s typical Roger Moore era flaws, particularly JW and the tortuously long 20-minute boat chase.
WINNER: BOOK
6. Casino Royale
1953
An intriguing premiere that’s outdone by a great movie that features more plot, characterization, action, and some (strangely coincidental) detective work.
WINNER: MOVIE
5. Goldfinger
1959
Contains a surprisingly good amount of what made the movie cool while establishing the trend of Bond’s foiling villains’ plans of being bad at card-cheating and somehow getting away with it. Perhaps I should reconsider my criticism of the obvious Ted Tuner/Ruper Murdoch references in Tomorrow Never Dies since Fleming went and literally named one of his most iconic villains after an architect he didn’t like. The again, I may have a soft spot for Brutalism, but Trellick Tower is an overrated building even among Brutalism fans whose mangy appearance invites the obvious alliteration). The elements are there, only to be enhanced by the film. The DB III had some practical gadgets and was improved upon by the DB5. The book’s circular saw is replaced by a laser. One strange thing about the book is that, for no apparent reason other the meta consideration that they are associated with this story’s villain, Bond has an inexplicable hatred for Koreans. Overall the book is witty and lacks the typical flaws of an earlier Bond movie.
WINNER: BOOK
4. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
1963
A solid continuation of the Blofeld trilogy. The movie isn’t so bad, despite George Lazenby’s struggle to succeed Connery. My one complaint is that MI6 finds out about Blofeld’s plan, which involves exploiting the naivete of liberal white women, because our villain had the bright idea of having a side quest in which he uses his real name to find out if he was nobility in some egomaniacal reason.
WINNER: BOOK
3. You Only Live Twice
1964
The movie may have its cool, iconic visuals, but it also has the typical flaws of an old Bond movie (I must agree with my friend's assertion that Austin Powers is an example of a spoof that is far better than the original movie). The culture contrast between Bond and Tanaka is developed better in the book as well, not that the movie completely forgot about Japanese culture. The book is a satisfying finale to the Blofeld Trilogy in which our villain gets a satisfying death (unlike in both movie continuities!). The story ends with Bond’s losing his memory and washing ashore to some local village, where he lives a simple life until his nagging memories drive him to search for the truth. Unfortunately, he decides that his best bet to find them is Russia…
WINNER: BOOK
2. From Russia, with Love
1957
While I found the movie a bit slow, this complaint does not apply to the book. The characters are far better developed to the point of actually being characters. Fleming originally planned to kill off Bond at the end here, but his ambiguous demise is repudiated by…
WINNER: BOOK
1. Dr No
1958
MI6 decides to ease Bond back into service after his difficult recovery from an almost-death in From Russia, with Love, while an MI6 agent fails to make his routine proof-of-life communique after getting assassinated in Jamaica. Assuming that the man just eloped with his secretary, MI6 figures it would a pretty chill mission so they send Bond. Bond thinks that doesn’t sound like his target and he turns out to be right. The plot plays out the same until Bond’s capture, in which he is sent through a torture chamber until he escapes and buries Dr. No under a giant pile of literal bat shit. This may seem somewhat less poetic than Dr. No’s death in the movie, in which his cybernetic hands lack the articulation to pull him to safety, but it’s surprisingly satisfying after what No put Bond through. Despite the lack of SPECTRE, it’s one of the few books that has more over-the-top style than the movie: the “Dragon” is more of more interesting design, and the Dr. No’s character design is definitely more out there.
WINNER: BOOK
 |
| Dr. No's design in James Bond, Jr. is arguably more accurate to the book than that of the movie. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)