Hard-Fi - Killer Sounds Review

It seems like a dog's age since Stars of CCTV unleashed itself from it's humble and troubled beginnings in a taxi office turned recording studio. A modern day record that told the world that it was off to cause trouble and we should embrace it's loutish behaviour like the docile parents we were and treat it's pitiful attempts at love and fun as a rites of passage with the backdrop of loud and stupidly addictive indie rock. To me, it was one of the best debut albums of the past decade and even now, I still think of it as a benchmark for a debut album for a band that get's hyped to buggery by the NME.

Two years later, Hard-Fi's follow up album did everything possibly wrong to make sure it would also be a benchmark for how not to do a second album. Once Upon a Time in the West was basically more of the same, but lacked the surprises and staggering punch of it's predecessor. Although focused on an individual sound of basically watering down The Clash's back catalogue, it had too much filler compared to the single-heavy, almost pop album approach of CCTV, it reached it's peak around the second song and had possibly the most pretentious, mind-bongingly awful cover art ever made.

To many, this was the self-proclaimed Staines' finest death kneel and another example of bands hitting it big and then crashing and burning with the follow-up album. So, it comes as a somewhat strange situation where Hard-Fi's third album, the almost laughably pretentiously titled Killer Sounds finds itself on the shelves with no massive single, relatively no hype and no rubbish art work.

It's strange because after the way OUaTinW flopped so bad critically. the band could have upped sticks and tried something completely new and, to it's credit, Killer Sounds is nothing like it's forefathers. Gone are the social observations of a wider community for a return to some of CCTV's formula of your average loutish twenty-something, lovestruck and violent. The Ennio Morricone blended indie rock stylings have been replaced with Africana beats, synths and sampling.

it is, like Stars of CCTV, attempting to make an album of singles rather than tracks that would only work on an album with a unique theme. Stand out tracks Fire in the House, Give It Up, Bring It On and Excitement would have made ideal summer songs had they not been released so late in the season. They're stupidly catchy with some excellent drumming and basslines, short on meaningful lyrics and easy on the ears. In fact, minus the disappointing opener Good for Nothing, for the first four tracks, it's clear the album is a step-up and might be one of the surprises of the year.

Then it keeps going and somehow, beneath the party atmosphere and euphoria, it stagnates. It's difficult to tell when exactly the dreaded boredom takes hold and for brief blemishes, the album gets good again; like a friend buying you a Jägerbomb on a night out where the music has gone from good to cheese and the only thing you've pulled is a Chupa Chup from the urinal.

By the time the title tracks finishes the album (which oddly takes a step backwards in time and now feels incredibly out of place), it's only then you notice that the album feels like a jumbled mess with no structure. What initially sounded fun is now like trying to piece together what was so good before. And like all records, you'll give it another listen, embrace the good and await to get past the bad before finally selecting only three or four tracks for your iPod whilst forgetting the rest.

On the whole, Killer Sounds is ok. I feel as if I've given it a hard time when there is far worse out there. But, as embarrassing at it sounds, I liked Hard-Fi years ago and as mentioned before, I love Stars of CCTV. I was willing and hoping something great would come from four years of being out of the limelight but instead, Killer Sounds is the archetype of confusion being the byproduct of an album.

On occasion it works and when it does work, it works an absolute treat. As mentioned before, there's some very good tracks on here which rank up there with Stars of CCTV and I Shall Overcome and on the whole, it's a better record than OUaTinW.

But when it doesn't, it falters, it crashes, it burns and worse of all; it bores. It's worth a listen if you still like the band but, predictably, it pales in comparison to their debut and will only provide further ammunition for those who couldn't stand the band back in 2005 and wonder why this brand of 'Lads Rock' did so well in the first place.


6/10

H

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part Two Review

Lets get this out of the way; reviewing Harry Potter is as useless as a chocolate teapot because lets face it, you’re either in Camp A: The large, vocal and rabid fanbase whose admiration for Harry and chums can range from playful fanboyism to the terrifying depths and depravity of slash fiction authors.

Or you’re in Camp B: People who sneer and roll their eyes at the thought of the most successful series of books for the past twenty years being the mind-numbingly simple yet overwrought tale of good versus evil which has somehow been accepted into the world of adult adulation and said books have now also become the highest grossing film series of all time.

But avoiding the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part Two is avoiding the proverbial elephant in the room. It is, as mentioned earlier, the highest grossing film series ever and yes, I not only have seen each film (in a marathon session with the missus prior to this review), I fount them to be relatively decent (despite only reading half of Prisoner of Azkaban as a youngster and being bored to tears).

And it slightly pains me to say this but; Deathly Hallows Part Two is the best summer blockbuster of 2011.

Beginning immediately after the events of Part One, Part Two continues Harry, Ron and Hermione’s quest to destroy Voldemort’s splintered soul and save the wizard and real world from his evil clutches. That’s the film’s plot in its simplest terms but obviously for the sake of time, I’m not going to explain how Daniel Radcliffe’s seven year education at Boarding School and Ralph Fiennes and co wanting to take over the world tie together (tl:dr; Wikipedia it!).

So naturally this being the final entry of a long running series; Deathly Hallows Part Two has the “joy” of not only wrapping up the story in a nice neat bow but also explaining any long running plot threads with a cohesive and satisfying conclusion. Normally, this is where said finale falls out of flavour with fanbase/audience as it can never live up to expectation.

But Deathly Hallows Part Two somehow does, partly due to the original source material being split into two films therefore giving Warner Brothers more revenue…I mean, allow the story to breath and not feel constricted to time restraints. Although the more hardcore Harry Potter fans still might be annoyed that “said character didn’t do such and such”, Deathly Hallows Part Two for the casual fan covers all the major bases and gives a satisfying conclusion to all the major character arcs.

It also addresses one of the biggest criticisms with Part One which was rightly summed up as “the one in the woods”. Part One was a necessary story in the long run but didn’t make action packed viewing. It was a build-up which crammed in some last minute character development and showed the effects and strains of the story on individuals rather than the world at whole.

Part Two however goes all LotR on us with huge, encompassing and visually stunning battles. Although no longer innovative as nearly every historical film has utilised some form of crowd capturing, but what helps is the audience’s attachment to the established setting and the characters involved. Ok, it helps that the film has a few moments of innovation (although as strange as it sounds, we’ve all seen large trolls knocking people off bridges), it’s the story that makes the action all the more exciting.

However, by far the best moments in the film are the intimate character moments. To avoid spoilers, the resolutions of two characters in particular (who you’ll know about when actually seeing the film) may potentially choke you up by playing on the emotions of unrequited love and the idea of death being something to acknowledge rather than fear.

It’s these moments where you can see why the series has become such a juggernaut but at the same time, when it all boils down to it, the story is relatively simple. You can argue that accusing a children’s story for lacking depth in terms of characterisation is about as easy as it gets but the fact the story boils down to good versus evil in such simple contrasts of black and white and where the only character with a shade of grey sticks out like another annotation lacking creativity in this review, one wonders why something like Harry Potter succeeds where others fail.

But if Michael Bay has taught as anything; story means nothing in the big picture. Visually, Deathly Hallows Part Two continues the grey and miserable setting established in Part One to evoke the enveloping evil that has spread across the land and credit to Warner Bros for allowing David Yates to continue his previously established motifs made with his previous three entries to the series. Composer Alexander Desplat returns from Deathly Hallows Part One and continues where Williams and Hooper left off with reimaginings of previous themes and creating sombre and dark themes that suit the picture.

Special effects are non-surprising but at least consistent with the tone of the film. The 3D is surprisingly effective and unlike other films, is not particularly distracting. I feel strange for saying this, but if you’re a fan of the previous films, definitely see this one in 3D as it does heighten the experience.

The principle players after have come along way since the almost farcical debuts in Philosopher's Stone and one can only hope they don’t find themselves typecast as wizards for the rest of eternity. The adult cast’s all star line-up are undeniably great and seem to have a lot of fun revelling in their roles. Ralph Fiennes in particular steals the show as the terrifying Voldemort which is made all the more frustrating as, like the previous films; only his presence is consistent, the character himself appears sporadically but when he does, it’s always memorable.

On the whole, after nearly nine hundred words, this review is pointless as you’ve no doubt already seen Deathly Hallows Part Two several times judging by it’s profit intake or mocked said individuals for giving this over-hyped drivel your precious monies.

Jumping on at this point is relatively pointless as the film is a pretty if very confusing tale which lacks any emotional punch and will show the film’s plot for all it’s simplicity despite going on for eight films.

For fans of the series, the accolade of “the best one” sums up Deathly Hallows Part Two nicely. It wraps up the story in a satisfying way, has a lot of great action and special effects and whilst no doubt lacking a few bits and pieces from the book, it’s as good as a Harry Potter adaptation on the big screen will ever get.

…Until the inevitable reboot takes place. Don’t say I didn’t warn you kids.

8/10 (for fans of the series)

6/10 – (for everyone else)

H

Blood Orange - Coastal Grooves Review

Dev Hynes’ repertoire has taken us from noise punk with Test Icicles (a band apparently ahead of it’s time) and Lightspeed Champion; a self confessed experimental project where Hynes can combine catchy folk tunes with lyrics that go from terrible hangovers to playing The Legend of Zelda.

After spending last year wallowing in self pity due to some unfortunate critical bashing (Life is Sweet! Nice to Meet You was for me, one of the best records of 2010), producing Diane Vickers new album, hanging out with Solange Knowles and Jay-Z, Hynes has still found time to release his debut album under new banner Blood Orange; which after two years of sporadic demos has finally seen full releases of several old favourites and new songs.

Captain America: The First Avenger Review

As we reach the final hurdle of preludes before Marvel unleash their tag team of Superhero movies to combat the incoming threat of a dark knight who might rise, one has to wonder; why has it taken nearly seventy years for a big budget version of Captain America to finally hit screens?

Excluding the Reb Brown TV specials which saw Cap battle Christopher Lee (which is not as fun as it sounds) and the 1990 debacle so bad it went unreleased for two years; Cap’s exploits of punching Hitler, battling the Red Skull and terrorists with possibly the strangest greeting since, well, the heil Hitler, Cap hasn’t been exactly a glowing example of Superheroics on the big screen.

This leads us back to The Avengers next year and our final member of the ensemble. We’ve already had Iron Man, we’ve had The Incredible Hulk re-imagined and even Thor, but where does Captain America: The First Avenger fit into this and, more importantly; does it attempt anything different from Marvel’s previous introduction films to its Avengers?

Beginning in modern day Alaska, excavators have discovered something trapped in the Ice which leads us on a flash back to 1942 where a weedy Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans in his fourth comic book based movie) desperately wants to join the army to battle the Nazi as they’re bullies and bullies suck. He meets a German scientist who takes an interest in using him for a super soldier serum which if you read the title of the film, would know how that turns out.

Meanwhile, Johann Schmidt (played by go-to bad guy Hugo Weaving) uncovers a powerful-almost cosmic cube (hint, hint) which he hopes to use for HYDRA’s war efforts (HYDRA being a terrorist force even Hitler finds a bit too much). During the film, Schmidt reveals himself as a subject of an earlier form of the serum and uses the alias the Red Skull to, I guess advance HYDRA to the role of World War II's true villains.

Cap’s rag tag team of freedom fighters battle The Red Skull’s HYDRA (complete with weapons stolen from District 9) over the course of the war with numerous explosions and long jumps before concluding to explain how Cap could be in a team of heroes if he was at his prime in the forties.

So yes, nearly all the movie (minus the bookends) takes place during World War II which makes a welcome change to the modern day setting of every superhero movie ever made and credit to director Joe Johnson for delivering a picture where despite the insane premise of a man dressed as the american flag being the front runner of a war and disintegrating weapons amongst other things, it actually looks like World War II. In fact, there's a scene where Cap and crew battle HYDRA in a snowy wilderness where I was expecting Easy Company to be supporting them (it didn't help that Neal McDonough was on Cap's side but hey ho). It's a welcome change and helps differentiate Cap's origins from his Avenger colleagues.

However, for those following the Marvel tie-in's to The Avengers next year, it's pretty much by the numbers now. The film introduces a member, shows him saving the world from an iconic villain from his back catalogue (less so on Iron Man for both movies) before Samuel L Jackson shows up to hype an incoming team-up and we get another tie-in to the next film in sequence (although in Cap's case, it's an actual teaser rather than something discovered that's tied to someone else).

It's not necessarily bad as, minus Iron Man 2, this formula has worked. The problem with Captain America is that it's a relatively safe picture that could have been truly great, but instead is simply good. It starts off well introducing Rogers as the "never say die" hero that embodies the American spirit despite his frail form but when Rogers becomes a key weapon in the battle against HYDRA, we get a few montages, a lot of explosions and are left to imagine all of the incredible battles that took place before the inevitable final showdown against the Red Skull.

This is half good as unlike Thor, there's a feasible amount of time for the character's to develop (case in point, Captain America takes place over the course of months if not years whilst Thor's journey of discovery took place over three days), but on the flipside, the middle feels like one long montage which throws out a lot of action, but doesn't really explain why it happens and it seems to go on forever. It's basically the opposite of Iron Man 2 but this is a much more feasible error; at least there's something happening rather than being told things will happen and then fleetingly passing it over for more of the boring plot.

By the time the third act comes back and brings the audience back to reality from the explosions, the film returns to the highs of the first act and just does enough to recover interest. The ending doesn't really explain why Cap survives in ice for seventy years whilst other people simply die from the cold but it's a nice lead-in for The Avengers.

There's not really a lot to fault minus the middle act being a bit too fillerfied and the 3D being useless (like Thor, watch it in 2D and fully immerse yourself rather than 3D and playing "spot the special effect"). Minus that, Captain America: The First Avenger is more of the same of Iron Man and Thor. It has a great cast (not mentioned in the review, but watch out for Tommy Lee Jones who more or less plays himself which is always fun), some good action sequences and does enough to make it a good (if relatively safe) popcorn flick to introduce a principle player in The Avengers next year.

7/10

H