Imagine working in an office and you’re working on the mundane task of photocopying. You’ve spent all day refining your craft on this boring repetitive work but everything is pristine and you’re proud of how it’s all gone, you may even have some pride in your work.
Sadly you happened to do this the day before the office Christmas party where some witless Neanderthal has decided to take your pristine work and use it as ammunition for the ultimate prank, scanning photocopies of his lower regions.
So you come in after Christmas, waiting for your acknowledgment of all the hard work you’ve done and everyone points the finger, wanting an explanation of why this atrocious, seedy, strangely dark and non-funny joke as it were was created and why you’ve gone out of your way to ruin a perfectly good thing prior.
Metaphor over; The Hangover Part II.
Two years ago, the highest grossing R Rated comedy in film history was unleashed and boy howdy was it a fun ride. Four friends go to Las Vegas for an unforgettable stag-do which results in everyone forgetting a chaotic night with the groom missing.
What sounded simple on paper was a total riot with all the hall markings of a modern classic. It had the iconic characters, the fantastic jokes, possibly one of the most surreal cameos in film history (topped only by Bill Murray’s appearance in Zombieland) and on the whole, it was a fun, unpredictable film.
Naturally this being the worst recession for a century and it being a comedy, a sequel has been released for what I initially hoped would be an expansion on the characters in a brand new situation which could test new comedic situat…hahaha
Just kidding!
Simply put The Hangover Part II will forever be seen as the benchmark of copying and pasting the exact same movie. You could go so far to say that Part II is a remake since the premise is practically identical from the original.
For those who never saw the original (in which case; why?), The Hangover Part II has Stu the dentist (played by Daily Show alumni Ed Helms) is getting married to someone who isn’t Heather Graham but rather Lauren. Lauren and Stu’s wedding is set to take place in Thailand and the wolf pack in reunited (with Lauren’s younger brother Teddy played by Mason Lee added to the mix)
After deciding not to chance another Vegas, the gang decide to have one beer to celebrate Stu’s impending third marriage and subsequently wake up in a Bangkok hotel room with no memory of the night before, Teddy missing and a number of strange occurrences taking place in the room. The gang have to piece together the night before, find Teddy and get to the wedding on time.
So yes, tweak the names and add a new locale, the film is exactly the same as the original minus minor alterations. So naturally, your guessing that even if the film a carbon copy of the original, surely it would have all the humour from the original despite, you know, already seeing and hearing these gags once before.
And this is where the film falls flat. The jokes from two years ago are generally the same this time around, although the film makers have upped the ante so to speak by making everything much darker and depraved from before to add a sense of escalation.
The problem is the film pushes the envelope so far, it leaves the room and ends up on a different planet altogether. The original was a fun picture with likable characters finding themselves in multiple surreal but ultimately resolvable scenarios whilst the sequel finds the same characters in scenarios that simply aren’t funny and for nealy 90% of the time, are simply there to inflict punishment on those of us stupid enough to invest in the characters.
Two examples of this (and spoilers ahoy for the next paragraph); The gang finds themselves in a stripper bar trying to find where they went next (much like the wedding chapel from last time, it even had the same actor playing the owner), here we discover that Stu again proposed to a stripper (again like last time) which he said no and instead had sex with the stripper who turns out to be a ladyboy. There’s another example of this where the gang is attacked by gangsters (this time Russian as opposed to Chinese) and Phil is shot in the street (which is quickly glanced over throughout the film as simply a graze).
Whilst the original did have its raunchiness and placed our characters in often difficult situations, there was never any overt cruelty and our characters were only punished temporarily. Here they are constantly pushed to their limits and are patience is tested time and time again. The payoff at the end of the film for all the suffering simply isn’t worth it and the ending also provides another surreal celebrity cameo, although it’s simply there again to join the dots to the far superior original.
All in all, The Hangover Part II is a dark, immensely cruel and most offensive of all, unfunny carbon copy of the distinctive and superior original. It’s insulting to think the filmmakers think they could get away with retelling the exact same film to the audience but hey, we’re all the more foolish for hoping for something special (and in my case, going to see it anyway).
For all three of you who never saw the original, you may get a kick out of it, it does have the occasional good line and full credit to all the leads for doing there best. For those who have already seen the original, await the inevitable Youtube mashup which will sync the scenes to show just how lazy a film can be.
You’ll get far more enjoyment out of that than watching this and consuming the amount
of mind bleach needed to forget this debacle.
3/10
H
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Arctic Monkeys - Suck It and See Review
2006 may not seem far away in the context of things but it seems like a lifetime ago when Yorkshire four piece Arctic Monkeys broke away from their rapid rise on MySpace to conquer the British charts with arguably one of the best debut albums of the past decade.
Evoking the lyrical styling’s of Jarvis Cocker with punchy basslines, thunderous drums and easy on the ears guitars, NME’s newest messiah’s looked set to conquer music and finally save rock and roll (despite The Strokes accomplishing this feat only five years earlier).
And while they’re not the best live band (actually scratch that, FAR from the best live band), a year later they released their follow up Favourite Worst Nightmare, which while terrifying a substantial amount of their fanbase for changing their sound (more on that irony later), FWN was a surprisingly good follow up album, one which I personally think surpasses Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not.
So, in the space of over a year, the band somehow had established itself as a favourite of mine and countless others and I eagerly awaited what their next evolution would bring. Unfortunately, this evolution spouted numerous unnecessary limbs and brought the former beast to a slow halt, drooling away like it’d been given too many hits of stupidity.
Humbug (named after a sweet which you ironically suck or an ole English term for something fraudulent) changed this once energetic, youthful band into Sheffield’s equivalent of Queens of the Stone Age. Gone were the punchy basslines and thunderous drumming, instead replaced with slow, generic stoner rock which would require a bong the size of a tower block to get any sort of enjoyment. Gone were the innuendo filled yet creative lyrics, replaced with clangers such as “Which came first; the chicken or the dickhead?” A lyric neither big nor clever; but incredibly stupid.
Whilst FWN took a while to accept it for the masterpiece it was and terrified those who didn’t immediately get it, Humbug still infuriates me to this day and looked like a death knell. Although there were glimmers of hope (Dance Little Liar, Crying Lightning and Dangerous Animals were standouts), the band’s new direction was, simply put, boring.
Two years later, the band returned by “leaking” Brick by Brick, a song built for sing-a-longs but lacking any cohesion and was quite generic. So naturally I presumed Humbug 2 was on the cards and the band would go the way of Kaiser Chiefs or Hard-Fi.
Then, all was fine again with the release of Don’t Sit Down ‘Cause I’ve Moved Your Chair. Although still lacking the social observations of yesteryear and instead featuring random statements that happened to rhyme (including “Go into business with a grizzly bear”), the track was a roaring beast with loud guitars, short but sweet riffs and a welcome return to form whilst being something new.
So with cautious optimism, the aptly title Suck It and See leaked (as all Arctic Monkey albums do) a month early and I hoped for something good. Thankfully, it is a good album, miles better than Humbug and possibly up there with their first two.
For the most part, the dreary, generic sounds of Humbug is replaced with a amalgamation of all three albums prior(although if anything, it sounds far more in common with FWN). For those who want something to headbang to, Library Pictures is two minutes of pure fun. Stupidly fast with Turner’s vocals crooning playfully along before shouting at himself for being indecisive.
For those who want something a bit steadier with more of a flavour to the tracks on Humbug, Black Treacle and The Hellcat Spangled Shalalala brings a return of the social commentary with nice backing tracks which while not too creative, are nice enough. Think Florescent Adolescent, except not getting tedious after a single listen.
For those who want something a bit slower and dramatic (like Only Ones Who Know or Riot Van), Piledriver Waltz is your answer with Turner vocals lament on easing a difficult situation with an almost operatic backing from the band. It’s obviously more complete and fuller than the previous incarnation fount on the Submarine EP and much better for it.
Arguably Humbug’s biggest sins was the lack of a decent finalé, thankfully Suck It and See continues the proud tradition. First is the titular track, a lovely pop melody with possibly one of the best lyrics to be spouted from Turner. It’s in the same vein as Cornerstone last year but has a lot more longevity and is easier on the ears.
Finally this brings us to our triumphant conclusion with That’s Where Your Wrong. Similar musically to A Certain Romance but slightly shorter, our downtrodden protagonist recounts moments of vulnerability as guitars play out an enjoyable four minute suite which is probably the album’s best song.
When all is said and done, Suck It and See is a highly recommended and enjoyable album that brings the Sheffield foursome back to their routes while incorporating their trip to the states on weed and Josh Homme into a groovy bend of mixing the dregs of society with strange yet funny imagery backed with loud, focused guitar riffs and catchy bass and percussion.
Whilst the days of seeing the band get to number one by singing about downtrodden prostitutes, fights at night clubs or a strange man called Brian maybe over, the album is a welcome return to form from a band that some may argue never dipped in quality in the first place.
Suck It and See, you may just learn to love it.
8/10
H
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Attack the Block - Review
Ever since I saw the trailer for Attack the Block a few months ago I’ve been waiting anxiously to see this film. Being a Londoner myself I have always asked myself the question… What would happen if aliens tried to invade Earth and started in a South London council estate? Well thanks to Joe Cornish (of Adam & Joe fame) I now have my answer.
We start off with our protagonist Sam (the awesome Jodie Whittaker) leaving Oval Underground station on her way home to “The Block” a tower block in South London, on her way home she meets the rest of the films main characters whilst they are at work, by work I mean whilst they mug her. You see, the main characters of this film are ghetto teens, chavs, street rats, hoodlums, hoodies or whatever you choose to call them.
The gang is lead by Moses (played by newcomer John Boyega) a mixed up teen who will act hard in front of his posse at all times. After the gang are attacked by an invading alien life force he takes it upon himself to lead the earth’s defences, which sets up the rest of the movie. These characters aren’t very likeable at the start of the film but their heroism and even their vulnerabilities do something to win you over, we see them learning that actions have consequences. I doubt David Cameron will want to give them a hug and some may find it hard to like them but I was on their side coz’ im frm da streetz init?
The plot is tight and has plenty of good gags (most of which are based around the language used by hoodies and white guys acting like Ali G) the alien invaders are also great, think Critters meets Predator and you have the ultimate alien threat… furry stalkers. The film moves along at a good pace and the 88 minutes go pretty quickly. A lot is made of “The Block” where most of the film takes place. Being from an area of London where tower blocks still remain I can understand the way the building is given an almost legendary, holy status in the film, some other viewers may not see the big deal. There are clichés thrown in but the film does surprise you sometimes. The ending is great; it’s corny but ends with Moses living up to his namesake and the people of South London hurling abuse at their biggest enemy… the Police.
The cast is made up of newcomers mainly, Cornish had to draft in some experience and came up trumps with Nick Frost (Spaced, Shaun of the Dead, Paul) who plays a drug dealer henchman for the films non-furry bad guy. You don’t see much of Frost but he’s presence gives the film an almost authentic feel, which says a lot about how his career has come along in the last few years and helps establish the film further with his name and image on the poster.
The young members of the cast do a great job playing the lovely gang of hoodies, the banter is great and they also do a great job of reminding you of hanging around with your friends as a child. Their friendship feels real; when they are met with hard times and challenges they pull off the emotions well and the film benefits from their efforts. The squabbles over who has credit left on their mobile phone or who sends the last ditch text message are excellent and well written. Some gags are hindered by weak line delivery and one minute a character may be in horrific pain, the next they are running up the stairs fleeing the aliens without a grimace, that’s me nitpicking.
Jodie Whittaker plays Sam, a very important character as she is the normal person surrounded by a gang of wannabe Tupacs. Her performance is good and she does a good job of interacting with the gang members as they try to win her trust and as she tries to understand the codes and conventions of living in “The Block”.
An honourable mention belongs to Luke Treadaway who plays Brewis, a middle class stoner down on his luck during the alien invasion; he has some great scenes where he tries to be one of the boys and when he is singing along to his iPod waiting for the lift.
The special affects are very good, the aliens are original and look the part, the puppetry is great and you never see the aliens long enough to make out any flaws, this just adds to their mysterious yet relentless ways. Their glowing blue mouths add tension when we are in the darker parts of “The Block” and the best use of SFX are used during a slow motion scene near the end of the film.
The film gets a bit gory in places, some of which comes as a surprise but a welcome one. It gets bloody and it gets messy, these aliens aren’t here for a cuddle (although you do want to…) They are ruthless in their search for our teen heroes and they will rip off your face if you get in their way. It’s this kind of aggression that forces our band of thieves further up “The Block” cornering them and forcing them to fight.
To conclude I must admit that I loved the movie, it is uniquely British. The way the estate is portrayed is well done, it’s urban and it’s gritty. The lighting and use of car headlights works a treat and it’s portrayal of a London council estate is authentic. Not all hoodies and tower block occupants are muggers and they don’t all carry knives and deal drugs, the hoodies in the film are caricatures of those we see on our street corners, with their trousers hanging halfway off their arse and their boxer shorts on display. It’s easy to get laughs off of these guys and the film does a great job of that.
The film could have been funnier but what it lacks in laughs it makes up in action and Sci-Fi delights. Most laughs in my screening were generated by the odd piece of slang that made the viewers remember how they spoke when they were 15 and a “baddaman” which showed good research by Cornish.
It’s the small things that impressed me most, the use of language, fireworks and a Pizza Go-Go delivery moped that nailed home this very well thought-out ode to the youth of London and its old decrepit tower blocks, which still rise and dominate the skies of London.
Joe Cornish has cited influences from films such as Predator, Gremlins and Critters, films he saw growing up in the 80’s, Attack the Block does a great job of taking you back to those film experiences, it's easy to spot other influences in the mix too. To me it felt like a Sci-fi Goonies, with riddles replaced with a non-working lift and the gadgets replaced with baseball bats and fireworks.
The film has all the makings of a cult classic, I fear it won’t be appreciated fully in other countries but its great to hear it has been picked up for US distribution later this year. Hopefully it can do as well as Shaun of the Dead did over the pond.
You better just hope that there is a gang of hoodies near by when the aliens come knocking. Ya’ get me Blud?
8/10
RB
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Thor Review
OK, let's get to the point, The Avengers is here next year, we're at the homestretch of origin stories for our keyplayers, how does Marvel's Norse incarnation Thor stack-up against his allies?
After the disappointment that was Iron Man 2, I wasn't particularly bothered by Thor. It wasn't something I grew up with as a kid, it was something I barely had any knowledge of and any comic crossovers involving the hero basically told the same thing; he's mighty, he has a hammer and he's blonde.
To it's and Marvel's credit, I should have had more faith, given Marvel's track record of origin stories, the film is very entertaining. The fish out of water premise is as old as time itself but it works well in the movie.
The story in a nutshell is Thor is banished from Azgard by starting a war with the Frost Giants by his father Odin. He lands on Earth and ran over by Natalie Portman and crew who are chasing strange storms. They think he's crazy, he simply wants to find his Mjolnir (the hammer in the post-credit scene in Iron Man 2) and a shitstorm is taking place in Azgard curtosy of Thor's brother Loki.
A beefy Chris Hemsworth plays the titular character to all degrees. At the beginning, he plays a king in waiting, arrogant, non-caring and wishes to cement a legacy like his father (played by Anthony Hopkins). By the time he defends New Mexico, he's discovered love in the form of Natalie Portman, betrayal, grief, loss and eventually hope.
It's a very tight picture and full credit to director Kenneth Branagh for delivering a film with no filler at all. We constantly travel back and forth to Azgard and New Mexico and constantly are told new advancements in the plot which eventually come together in an explosive third act which wraps the film up in time for it's inevitable sequels and major crossovers.
There are a few problems with the film but to be honest it's nitpicking. The most annoying thing is, as mentioned before, the constant cuts between Azgard and New Mexico. After five minutes of story, we cut back and then we cut back again. This work's fine in something like Lord of the Rings were each action in it's respected region is within the same world, or even The Matrix were despite they're being a real world and a computer world, they're so vastly strange and unique, it's easier to take in. In Thor, it's too distracting at times and you can't help but feel they were perhaps terrified the audience would get bored by staying in one setting for more than a few minutes.
Although Thor himself is a well developed character, when you look at the maths at it all, he's pledge to save the Earth takes place in the space of two days. You could argue and say he's a god, it's what he's supposed to do and it gives the film escalation, but it just happens far quickly. Same with Loki's inevitable uprising, which takes place in the same amount of time.
Finally, the 3D isn't too fantastic and there were occasions where the film looked like a pop-up book. You don't lose anything from watching the film in standard 2D and if anything, the experience is fortified by not being constantly distracted how certain things stick out (Thor's cape being the major one).
Of course, this it nitpicking in an otherwise highly recommended debut for those who want to know more on the principal players of next year's biggest competitor to The Dark Knight Returns.
It ranks up there with the original Iron Man (which is all the more impressive considering Thor doesn't have Downey Jr. to fall back on) but, like Iron Man, just falls short of Batman Begins and Spider-Man. The settings, whilst cutaway far too many times are distinctive and Azgard and the Frost Giant's realm look especially fantastic. It has a very believable and likeable cast, great action sequences and brings new life to an old tale of Earth's "mightiest hero".
Comic book fans will love it, but if you're someone who's came by this nerdy blog and doesn't care for references to the Hulk or the odd Stan Lee cameo, it's a very good popcorn flick.
7/10
H
After the disappointment that was Iron Man 2, I wasn't particularly bothered by Thor. It wasn't something I grew up with as a kid, it was something I barely had any knowledge of and any comic crossovers involving the hero basically told the same thing; he's mighty, he has a hammer and he's blonde.
To it's and Marvel's credit, I should have had more faith, given Marvel's track record of origin stories, the film is very entertaining. The fish out of water premise is as old as time itself but it works well in the movie.
The story in a nutshell is Thor is banished from Azgard by starting a war with the Frost Giants by his father Odin. He lands on Earth and ran over by Natalie Portman and crew who are chasing strange storms. They think he's crazy, he simply wants to find his Mjolnir (the hammer in the post-credit scene in Iron Man 2) and a shitstorm is taking place in Azgard curtosy of Thor's brother Loki.
A beefy Chris Hemsworth plays the titular character to all degrees. At the beginning, he plays a king in waiting, arrogant, non-caring and wishes to cement a legacy like his father (played by Anthony Hopkins). By the time he defends New Mexico, he's discovered love in the form of Natalie Portman, betrayal, grief, loss and eventually hope.
It's a very tight picture and full credit to director Kenneth Branagh for delivering a film with no filler at all. We constantly travel back and forth to Azgard and New Mexico and constantly are told new advancements in the plot which eventually come together in an explosive third act which wraps the film up in time for it's inevitable sequels and major crossovers.
There are a few problems with the film but to be honest it's nitpicking. The most annoying thing is, as mentioned before, the constant cuts between Azgard and New Mexico. After five minutes of story, we cut back and then we cut back again. This work's fine in something like Lord of the Rings were each action in it's respected region is within the same world, or even The Matrix were despite they're being a real world and a computer world, they're so vastly strange and unique, it's easier to take in. In Thor, it's too distracting at times and you can't help but feel they were perhaps terrified the audience would get bored by staying in one setting for more than a few minutes.
Although Thor himself is a well developed character, when you look at the maths at it all, he's pledge to save the Earth takes place in the space of two days. You could argue and say he's a god, it's what he's supposed to do and it gives the film escalation, but it just happens far quickly. Same with Loki's inevitable uprising, which takes place in the same amount of time.
Finally, the 3D isn't too fantastic and there were occasions where the film looked like a pop-up book. You don't lose anything from watching the film in standard 2D and if anything, the experience is fortified by not being constantly distracted how certain things stick out (Thor's cape being the major one).
Of course, this it nitpicking in an otherwise highly recommended debut for those who want to know more on the principal players of next year's biggest competitor to The Dark Knight Returns.
It ranks up there with the original Iron Man (which is all the more impressive considering Thor doesn't have Downey Jr. to fall back on) but, like Iron Man, just falls short of Batman Begins and Spider-Man. The settings, whilst cutaway far too many times are distinctive and Azgard and the Frost Giant's realm look especially fantastic. It has a very believable and likeable cast, great action sequences and brings new life to an old tale of Earth's "mightiest hero".
Comic book fans will love it, but if you're someone who's came by this nerdy blog and doesn't care for references to the Hulk or the odd Stan Lee cameo, it's a very good popcorn flick.
7/10
H
Saturday, 26 March 2011
The Strokes - Angles Review
A decade ago, The Strokes saved Rock and Roll from the clutches of an unknown evil and have been on a steady downward spiral ever since. While I wasn't blown away by Is This It like NME or the rest of the universe was, I knew it had some notable tunes and was a fun record.
Two years later, The Strokes remixed and released the same album and called it Room on Fire. OK, that's not strictly true but the album, while praised at the time, lacked the same ambition as it's predecessor and showed no evolution between records. It didn't have as many tunes and a bit too much filler but the band were still in it's early days and many hoped for some real progression with the inevitable third album.
Three years later, First Impressions of Earth reared it's confused head, got an unjustified number one slot in the UK charts and was a record that, like Room on Fire, had a few notable excellent tracks (the first three) but far too much filler and went on for what seemed like a dog's age.
After this and touring non-stop for what seemed like an eternity (but what was actually just over five years), the band went on a fashionable hiatus and went on to pursue different projects. Then after much arguing and new creative directions, the band became whole again and here were are, a decade after Is This It with album number four; Angles.
Does it return the band to the wonder years of garage rock or have they continued the strange and bendy road of influences in prog rock?
Neither, they've embraced synthpop.
Like The King of Limbs, Angles has a lot in common with Jullian Casablancas' solo album Phrazes of the Young with it's synths and song structures. Of course it still retains the key elements of The Strokes (far more so than Radiohead's latest album) but the drive and ambition seems to have evaporated into something that has been released for the sake of being released.
The problem with the record is it lacks cohesion. The band revealed that their previous writing process was thrown out the window for Angles and it shows (and not in a good way). Casablancas lyrics sound like an after thought and the music sounds far too generic throughout. It's difficult to differentiate tracks like Games and You're So Right because they aren't memorable and once you've heard one of the tracks, you can rest assure you've heard them all.
Like it's predecessors, there's a few hints of something greater trying to emerge from the filler. Under Cover of Darkness is the best example of the band evolving but retaining the same spirit as their former selves.
Two Kinds of Happiness emerges immediately after; the music is rocky, the vocals are strangely quiet but then transform into a jumbled but strangely satisfying mess for the chorus and it's entertaining throughout.
The album really gets together by the end with Gratisfaction; a Thin Lizzy soundalike which shows the bands playful side (which takes far too long on a record which doesn't take itself too seriously).
Metabolism, like Under Cover of Darkness, shows us again the band can change and sound good doing it (with special credit to Casablancas for some truly great vocals). The album reaches a close with Life is Simple in the Moonlight, with bizarrely depressing lyrics and a lot more in common with songs off of First Impressions of Earth. It's a great closing track that really sticks out on the album.
But minus these little moments of fun; Angles is a thankfully short and generic album nowhere near waiting for five years. It's a strange (though heavily hinted) direction for a band that want to change but have no idea how to, but with a fanbase who simply want the glory days of the band who made being in a rock band fun reignited.
Only time will tell if The Strokes will go beyond the strange year of 2001 when their simplistic but memorable debut was the soundtrack of the indie kid. I just hope we don't have to wait another five years for something this disjointed and disappointing again.
5/10
Two years later, The Strokes remixed and released the same album and called it Room on Fire. OK, that's not strictly true but the album, while praised at the time, lacked the same ambition as it's predecessor and showed no evolution between records. It didn't have as many tunes and a bit too much filler but the band were still in it's early days and many hoped for some real progression with the inevitable third album.
Three years later, First Impressions of Earth reared it's confused head, got an unjustified number one slot in the UK charts and was a record that, like Room on Fire, had a few notable excellent tracks (the first three) but far too much filler and went on for what seemed like a dog's age.
After this and touring non-stop for what seemed like an eternity (but what was actually just over five years), the band went on a fashionable hiatus and went on to pursue different projects. Then after much arguing and new creative directions, the band became whole again and here were are, a decade after Is This It with album number four; Angles.
Does it return the band to the wonder years of garage rock or have they continued the strange and bendy road of influences in prog rock?
Neither, they've embraced synthpop.
Like The King of Limbs, Angles has a lot in common with Jullian Casablancas' solo album Phrazes of the Young with it's synths and song structures. Of course it still retains the key elements of The Strokes (far more so than Radiohead's latest album) but the drive and ambition seems to have evaporated into something that has been released for the sake of being released.
The problem with the record is it lacks cohesion. The band revealed that their previous writing process was thrown out the window for Angles and it shows (and not in a good way). Casablancas lyrics sound like an after thought and the music sounds far too generic throughout. It's difficult to differentiate tracks like Games and You're So Right because they aren't memorable and once you've heard one of the tracks, you can rest assure you've heard them all.
Like it's predecessors, there's a few hints of something greater trying to emerge from the filler. Under Cover of Darkness is the best example of the band evolving but retaining the same spirit as their former selves.
Two Kinds of Happiness emerges immediately after; the music is rocky, the vocals are strangely quiet but then transform into a jumbled but strangely satisfying mess for the chorus and it's entertaining throughout.
The album really gets together by the end with Gratisfaction; a Thin Lizzy soundalike which shows the bands playful side (which takes far too long on a record which doesn't take itself too seriously).
Metabolism, like Under Cover of Darkness, shows us again the band can change and sound good doing it (with special credit to Casablancas for some truly great vocals). The album reaches a close with Life is Simple in the Moonlight, with bizarrely depressing lyrics and a lot more in common with songs off of First Impressions of Earth. It's a great closing track that really sticks out on the album.
But minus these little moments of fun; Angles is a thankfully short and generic album nowhere near waiting for five years. It's a strange (though heavily hinted) direction for a band that want to change but have no idea how to, but with a fanbase who simply want the glory days of the band who made being in a rock band fun reignited.
Only time will tell if The Strokes will go beyond the strange year of 2001 when their simplistic but memorable debut was the soundtrack of the indie kid. I just hope we don't have to wait another five years for something this disjointed and disappointing again.
5/10
Monday, 21 March 2011
Radiohead - The King of Limbs Review
2011 is the year of the entity. Oh sure, you could say that like every other year there might be one record that stands head and shoulders above the rest, chest pushed out, standing tall like a god whilst it’s contemporary counter-parts cower behind the mountains of shit, hoping for a breakthrough or crack to appear that they can fill the void.
I say this as the aptly titled The King of Limbs, the long awaited release from alternative band Radiohead finally saw release two weeks ago to the screams and adulation of its increasingly devoted/demented fanbase. As always (well, since Kid A), no one had any idea what to expect other than perhaps the greatest thing released ever.
So, now that time had past and we can get past the confetti and deafening screams, what does The King of Limbs bring to the table?
Minimalism, no structure and the least accessible album since Kid A.
So yeah, what was hinted as a heavily acoustic-piano based record with around twenty known songs in the pipeline has evolved into eight (count ‘em, eight) tracks, running just over half an hour and with no real instruments prevalent.
It’s a strange scenario as The King of Limbs has more in common with Thom Yorke’s solo debut than any Radiohead album before it. Opening track Bloom, a scattery, non-structure relative to OK Computer's Airbag begins our strange journey through the proverbial woods. It’s a decent opener, if a bit too long.
From there, the songs get gradually easier on the ears. Morning Mr. Magpie; an Amnesiac left-over which began as a Beatles-esque acoustic pop song has morphed into a nervous, jittery wreck. Little by Little, one of the only radio-friendly songs on the record brings themes raised in Jigsaw Falling into Place from In Rainbows with Yorke’s strangely playful voice telling a lover how they work well together.
The album gets to the halfway point with Feral which in an album of relations, is a much more pleasant descendent of The Gloaming. Although there are vocals, they’re incomprehensible and utilise Yorke’s previous comments on using his voice as an instrument.
Finally, five songs in, we reach Lotus Flower, the first song with a common structure of verse, pre-chorus and chorus and it’s hear the record finally becomes to the same standard of Radiohead we’ve come to know and love.
In the theme of keeping things similar but different, we come to Codex (or Pyramid Song part two). It’s a slow, sombre piano song with the occasional French horn. Give Up the Ghost, a live favourite finally makes its studio appearance, Another slow but sombre song with Yorke’s voice sampled throughout.
The album quickly reaches a close at Separator (or formally known as Mouse Dog Bird). The song starts off slowly but picks up around the middle with lyrics hinting at a continuation (or what isn’t clear at this stage but optimists are hoping for new tracks).
So, upon first listening, The King of Limbs isn’t anything particularly special. It sounds intentionally difficult to listen to and even after an eleven year gap, Radiohead have somehow made Kid A easier on the ears.
If however you’re like me, you’ll give it a second listen immediately and from here, the record sounds different and far more pleasant. It’s a strange experience as the album isn’t droning enough to be classified as drone music but the ambience and brief breaks beyond the repetitive beats and difficult structures are far more noticeable. Eventually after multiple listens it becomes easier on the ears and can be looked in a favourable light.
The biggest problem with The King of Limbs is it doesn’t feel like a band effort. There’s nothing here that suggests the band is working as a cohesive unit and anything here could have just as easily been used as a follow up to Yorke’s solo effort The Eraser.
Another is anyone who’s listened to electronica recently will see similarities between songs on the record and the sound of other artists. Lotus Flower, one of the best songs on the record is an amalgamation of anything Four Tet have released and Feral sounds like a proverbial cover of The Gloaming by Burial.
It’s not the first time Radiohead have done this and to be honest, all music is basically inspired from one another but I can’t help but think, if this wasn’t a Radiohead album, it wouldn’t have received the same adulation and praise and simply would have been left in the dust.
So where does this leave The King of Limbs? Is it the best Radiohead album? Not by a long shot (that accolade will probably remain with OK Computer forever). Is it the best album they’ve released using a laptop? Only time will tell.
Is it good? No, it’s very good but it lacks the organics of In Rainbows or the revolution of Kid A and after a four year wait, it’s only just worth waiting for.
8/10
I say this as the aptly titled The King of Limbs, the long awaited release from alternative band Radiohead finally saw release two weeks ago to the screams and adulation of its increasingly devoted/demented fanbase. As always (well, since Kid A), no one had any idea what to expect other than perhaps the greatest thing released ever.
So, now that time had past and we can get past the confetti and deafening screams, what does The King of Limbs bring to the table?
Minimalism, no structure and the least accessible album since Kid A.
So yeah, what was hinted as a heavily acoustic-piano based record with around twenty known songs in the pipeline has evolved into eight (count ‘em, eight) tracks, running just over half an hour and with no real instruments prevalent.
It’s a strange scenario as The King of Limbs has more in common with Thom Yorke’s solo debut than any Radiohead album before it. Opening track Bloom, a scattery, non-structure relative to OK Computer's Airbag begins our strange journey through the proverbial woods. It’s a decent opener, if a bit too long.
From there, the songs get gradually easier on the ears. Morning Mr. Magpie; an Amnesiac left-over which began as a Beatles-esque acoustic pop song has morphed into a nervous, jittery wreck. Little by Little, one of the only radio-friendly songs on the record brings themes raised in Jigsaw Falling into Place from In Rainbows with Yorke’s strangely playful voice telling a lover how they work well together.
The album gets to the halfway point with Feral which in an album of relations, is a much more pleasant descendent of The Gloaming. Although there are vocals, they’re incomprehensible and utilise Yorke’s previous comments on using his voice as an instrument.
Finally, five songs in, we reach Lotus Flower, the first song with a common structure of verse, pre-chorus and chorus and it’s hear the record finally becomes to the same standard of Radiohead we’ve come to know and love.
In the theme of keeping things similar but different, we come to Codex (or Pyramid Song part two). It’s a slow, sombre piano song with the occasional French horn. Give Up the Ghost, a live favourite finally makes its studio appearance, Another slow but sombre song with Yorke’s voice sampled throughout.
The album quickly reaches a close at Separator (or formally known as Mouse Dog Bird). The song starts off slowly but picks up around the middle with lyrics hinting at a continuation (or what isn’t clear at this stage but optimists are hoping for new tracks).
So, upon first listening, The King of Limbs isn’t anything particularly special. It sounds intentionally difficult to listen to and even after an eleven year gap, Radiohead have somehow made Kid A easier on the ears.
If however you’re like me, you’ll give it a second listen immediately and from here, the record sounds different and far more pleasant. It’s a strange experience as the album isn’t droning enough to be classified as drone music but the ambience and brief breaks beyond the repetitive beats and difficult structures are far more noticeable. Eventually after multiple listens it becomes easier on the ears and can be looked in a favourable light.
The biggest problem with The King of Limbs is it doesn’t feel like a band effort. There’s nothing here that suggests the band is working as a cohesive unit and anything here could have just as easily been used as a follow up to Yorke’s solo effort The Eraser.
Another is anyone who’s listened to electronica recently will see similarities between songs on the record and the sound of other artists. Lotus Flower, one of the best songs on the record is an amalgamation of anything Four Tet have released and Feral sounds like a proverbial cover of The Gloaming by Burial.
It’s not the first time Radiohead have done this and to be honest, all music is basically inspired from one another but I can’t help but think, if this wasn’t a Radiohead album, it wouldn’t have received the same adulation and praise and simply would have been left in the dust.
So where does this leave The King of Limbs? Is it the best Radiohead album? Not by a long shot (that accolade will probably remain with OK Computer forever). Is it the best album they’ve released using a laptop? Only time will tell.
Is it good? No, it’s very good but it lacks the organics of In Rainbows or the revolution of Kid A and after a four year wait, it’s only just worth waiting for.
8/10
Monday, 7 March 2011
The Social Network Review
Imagine a world without Facebook. It’s a premise that has set the standard for just about every review for The Social Network but it does create an interesting proposition.
The site, now in it’s eighth year of life has spawned a new medium of social interaction, a new ground to debate upon and has no doubt, brought you closer to people who you would have probably said farewell to at the end of High School.
But how did it all begin I hear you ask? This is where David Fincher's tale of betrayal, arrogance and hacking drinking games comes in with The Social Network. Based on the book The Accidental Billionaires, the film shows us how Facebook came to be and how you may never want to hear the term poking again.
The film’s framing device plays between two court cases. The accused is Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg; a borderline stereotype of Aspergers Syndrome who speaks a million words a minute and only finds consultation when using source coding.
In one case is Mark’s apparent best friend Eduardo played by future Spider-Man Andrew Garfield. Eduardo is by far the most likeable character in the entire film (which might come down to him being the only person to give information regarding the outcome of the suits) but doesn’t have any real negative traits.
The other case has our other two main characters, twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss played by Armie Hammer (yep, the same actor). The two are behemoths who enjoy rowing and are far too used to having things go their way. Unlike stereotypical twins who are basically the same person, the twins have different opinions but a common goal of acknowledgement, one that Zuckerberg can provide them with but ultimately, doesn’t.
To set-up the story, in a nutshell; Zuckerberg is dumped by his girlfriend and crashes the Harvard servers by creating a website that asks which campus students are better looking than their peers. The twins, impressed by Zuckerberg’s skills, enlist him of their venture to create a Harvard only site for connecting students called Harvard Connect.
From here, the film takes many twists and turns as theFacebook (as it’s then known) takes off and quickly becomes an online phenomenon that turns co-workers into advisories and friends into enemies (as demonstrated by the quick cuts to the court scenes which shows how damaged the relationship between the characters is).
So yeah, a rip roaring tale about the joys of hacking, website building and dialogue so fast, you’ll wonder if the editors accidentally had the entire film on fast forward. It’s not exactly your stereotypical summer blockbuster and the only special effects seem to be making the computers look like actual computers running regular software.
But beneath the premise which only a small handful of people would be interested in a
character drama more in the mould of Wall Street than computer hacker films like…well, Hackers.
It’s a film built purely on exchanges. You can guess the outcome because Facebook is
still going strong and Zuckerberg occasionally shows his real life persona. What we do get however is a growing trend escalation. As the film continues from the first, brilliant ten minutes, the website grows quickly, finding our characters desperately trying to adapt to the changes that are spiralling out of control.
All goes well to begin with but when Napster founder Sean Parker, played ironicallyby Justin Timberlake enters the fray, everything falls apart and yet, gets better. By the end, we’re left with a film where two wronged but undeserving brutes are awarded compensation, the only likable character is rewarded for fighting back (literally) and Zuckerberg is left as the world’s youngest billionaire with no friends and only his laptop to keep him company.
It’s a strange but memorable film built on the foundations of interaction. While cinematography is minimal (dorms look like dorms and company offices look sleek and sexy), the soundtrack by NIN frontman Trent Reznor is another classic in a year where soundtracks reign supreme. Fans of NIN collection Ghosts I-IV will enjoy the slightly newer versions of older songs whilst the rest of us can enjoy a nice soundtrack of sampled rock and electronic beats.
When all is said and done, The Social Network is a strange but engrossing tale of greed and betrayal with fantastic acting and an engrossing plot. For anyone’s who’s been poked or wanted a reason not to, this one’s for you.
8/10
The site, now in it’s eighth year of life has spawned a new medium of social interaction, a new ground to debate upon and has no doubt, brought you closer to people who you would have probably said farewell to at the end of High School.
But how did it all begin I hear you ask? This is where David Fincher's tale of betrayal, arrogance and hacking drinking games comes in with The Social Network. Based on the book The Accidental Billionaires, the film shows us how Facebook came to be and how you may never want to hear the term poking again.
The film’s framing device plays between two court cases. The accused is Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg; a borderline stereotype of Aspergers Syndrome who speaks a million words a minute and only finds consultation when using source coding.
In one case is Mark’s apparent best friend Eduardo played by future Spider-Man Andrew Garfield. Eduardo is by far the most likeable character in the entire film (which might come down to him being the only person to give information regarding the outcome of the suits) but doesn’t have any real negative traits.
The other case has our other two main characters, twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss played by Armie Hammer (yep, the same actor). The two are behemoths who enjoy rowing and are far too used to having things go their way. Unlike stereotypical twins who are basically the same person, the twins have different opinions but a common goal of acknowledgement, one that Zuckerberg can provide them with but ultimately, doesn’t.
To set-up the story, in a nutshell; Zuckerberg is dumped by his girlfriend and crashes the Harvard servers by creating a website that asks which campus students are better looking than their peers. The twins, impressed by Zuckerberg’s skills, enlist him of their venture to create a Harvard only site for connecting students called Harvard Connect.
From here, the film takes many twists and turns as theFacebook (as it’s then known) takes off and quickly becomes an online phenomenon that turns co-workers into advisories and friends into enemies (as demonstrated by the quick cuts to the court scenes which shows how damaged the relationship between the characters is).
So yeah, a rip roaring tale about the joys of hacking, website building and dialogue so fast, you’ll wonder if the editors accidentally had the entire film on fast forward. It’s not exactly your stereotypical summer blockbuster and the only special effects seem to be making the computers look like actual computers running regular software.
But beneath the premise which only a small handful of people would be interested in a
character drama more in the mould of Wall Street than computer hacker films like…well, Hackers.
It’s a film built purely on exchanges. You can guess the outcome because Facebook is
still going strong and Zuckerberg occasionally shows his real life persona. What we do get however is a growing trend escalation. As the film continues from the first, brilliant ten minutes, the website grows quickly, finding our characters desperately trying to adapt to the changes that are spiralling out of control.
All goes well to begin with but when Napster founder Sean Parker, played ironicallyby Justin Timberlake enters the fray, everything falls apart and yet, gets better. By the end, we’re left with a film where two wronged but undeserving brutes are awarded compensation, the only likable character is rewarded for fighting back (literally) and Zuckerberg is left as the world’s youngest billionaire with no friends and only his laptop to keep him company.
It’s a strange but memorable film built on the foundations of interaction. While cinematography is minimal (dorms look like dorms and company offices look sleek and sexy), the soundtrack by NIN frontman Trent Reznor is another classic in a year where soundtracks reign supreme. Fans of NIN collection Ghosts I-IV will enjoy the slightly newer versions of older songs whilst the rest of us can enjoy a nice soundtrack of sampled rock and electronic beats.
When all is said and done, The Social Network is a strange but engrossing tale of greed and betrayal with fantastic acting and an engrossing plot. For anyone’s who’s been poked or wanted a reason not to, this one’s for you.
8/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
