Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Phantom of the Paradise

    This next film takes its inspiration from a variety of sources, including Gaston Leroux The Phantom of the Opera, Goethe's Faust, and Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey. Director Brian de Palma had already made a name in the industry by this time, primarily with small independent films (many of which starred a young up-and-comer named Robert De Niro), before garnering acclaim for Sisters in 1972. Singer-songwriter Paul Williams, who stars as the film's villain Swan, also scored the film. The film had a number of legal issues, including having to change the title from The Phantom to avoid confusion with the comic strip character of that name, and the inital name of the evil record company, Swan Song, due to Led Zeppelin's label having the same, which delay pre-production, such that it released in 1975, despite being completed in 1972 (Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling did narration for the film before his 1972 death). The film was a massive flop (except, oddly enough, in the city of Winnipeg in Manitoba, where it play continuous for 4 months), and was received with mixed reviews, though has gone through a critical reappraisal. After this film, De Palma was given the job of directing a film based on a bestseller from a new author. The author was Stephen King, and the book was Carrie.

     In search of a hot new thing to do in rock music to open his new extravagant music palace The Paradise, prolific producer Swan (Paul Williams) comes across a struggling singer-songwriter named Winslow Leach (William Finley) performing, and convinces his underling Philbin (George Memmoli) to sign Leach on, while secretly stealing his work from under him. So, Leach, while trying to talk to Swan, ends up getting kicked out of Death Records (owned by Swan), and tries to confront Swan at his house. There, he meets Phoenix (Jessica Harper), who, based on her lovely voice, he deems his muse. Ultimately, he attempts to crossdress to sneak, but it caught, and Swan frames him for drug dealing. He goes to prison and has his teeth removed and replaced with metal ones. He escapes in a delirious rage after learning his song is to open the Paradise. He breaks into Death Records, and tries to stop the printing of the record, but ends getting his face (and vocal cords) destroyed by the record press. He then jumps into the East River to avoid the police. Now donning a costume that looks vaguely like the Midnighter's costume from The Authority (ask your comic fan friend), he now seeks justice, but Swan convinces him to become resident songwriter, with his muse Phoenix even performing the songs. Of course, Swan has an agenda on his mind.

   The only other De Palma film I've seen is Scarface, and that showed his love of neon lights as a mood enhancer in full force. That particular aspect helps with providing a subtly alien atmosphere to the film. It is set in the bizarre, waywire world of the music industry, and the bright neon colors, from the sterile whites of Death Records' waiting room to the dark colors of the prison to the rainbow coloring of the Paradise, all help give the film a feeling of uneasiness much as the titular Phantom is experiencing as he navigates through a world hostile to him and what he represents. The more fantasy elements are well-handled. Very subtle with its Faust allusion and the depiction of the Devil. It gives the film its own distinct atmosphere, and makes it very memorable in terms of visuals. The music is very good. Going from 50's doo-wop to early 60's beach rock to 70's arena easily and with ease. Jessica Harper was a highlight, having an excellent voice and presence, and Paul Williams is a villain who relishes being evil and is having a great time. Finally, I do legitimately love the look of the Phantom. Just the way all the elements comes together really helps sell him as a victim of a capitalist machine uninterested in the authencity he brings to the table, but appropriating part of it.

    It took me a while to really get into this film, and that is primarily because of its tonal inconsistency. It goes from whimsical to comedic to scary back to whimsical in its first 40 minutes, and because of that, it's really hard to follow or keep up with. There's a lot of parodies and homages that tend to slow the film. Eventually, it stabilized, and that's when it started getting particularly good, but it really struggled to maintain that sort of interest for its first half.

     I think I kind of love this film. It took a bit while watching for it to click with me, but when it did, it was a fun, enthralling ride that keep me on my toes. If you like 70's music or Paul Williams, this is a must-watch. Really, it's a great musical, so I think most people will be able to get into it. Again, it takes a while to gain its footing, but when it does, it was a memorable experience.

    Next week, we return to the world of Ray Harryhausen with Earth vs. Flying Saucers

Current Film Review- Bohemian Rhapsody

        The main criteria for whether I review a film or not is "Is there enough for me to say on it?" and "Is there an interesting spin to it?" There are films I strongly like or dislike, but don't really write a review, because I can't really find anything to really say about the film in detail, or say something that hasn't already been said before. In the case of this film, it has gotten notoriety ... actually for most of its production history. With the conflicts between original actor Sasha Baron Cohen and the surviving members of Queen, to the further conflicts caused by the notorious instability and unreliability of director Bryan Singer, it was not really an easy transition to the screen. Not helped by the fact that early versions of the script downplayed Freddie Mercury's bisexuality and AIDS diagnosis (I'll get into that later.) With this extremely troubled production, it really is something of a surprise that this is as banal and unremarkable as it is.

       The film follows the life of Queen frontman Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek), from his origins as  Zanzibar-born Parsi immigrant Farrokh Bulsara joining a band named Smile with guitarist Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and drummer Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy) in Imperial College (later joined by bassist John Deacon ( Joseph Mazzello), to their rise under the new name Queen, to the seminal album A Night at the Opera (or rather, just "Bohemian Rhapsody"), eventually ending at their iconic performance at Live Aid in 1985. All the while, Mercury deals with various relationships, both romantic, including Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton), Paul Prenter (Allen Leech), and Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker), and professional, with the other band members dealing with his more ostentatious, volatile nature.

       The hype is true: Rami Malek is absolutely fantastic in this role. He manages to get the accent down, he gets the stage presence so perfectly, it's a tad unnerving, and manages to imbue his performance with both loud rocker style and the quiet, nervous presence Mercury was reported to have in private. The physical resemblance also helps. If there is one reason to see this film, it's for his performance alone, especially during the Live Aid segment. That segment is also probably the best scene in the film, a near perfect recreation of the event, where we actually get to focus on Malek's performance as a musician and Queen playing music ....

      Which brings me to my first problem: there isn't really a full Queen song until the end. They play some of their iconic songs, sure, but not in full or they're background music. You'd think they'd focus on the various innovative, memorable songs that are still played and remembered today, but the film basically rushes through them, going from one to the other without really exploring them or having the decency to play the whole song! Even the titular song (while its production is explored in full) isn't played in its entirety. Seriously, in a Queen biopic, you'd think they'd play more Queen in it. The point about how they rush through their discography is really emblematic of the film's central problem. It is so standard and by-the-numbers that one can predict how it'll go even with the bare bones synopsis I provided. Filmmakers ought to be screened Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story before they make music biopics, because they haven't really learned to go beyond the tropes and plot structure that film satirized very acutely. This film is very Walk Hard in how its plot is structured and how it portrays its lead figure. It doesn't help that the other band members are cyphers that just don't have personalities and largely exist to just react to Mercury's antics. John Deacon especially, who barely gets anything to do. (This might be because Brian May and Roger Taylor are producers, so the filmmakers might not have wanted to offend them). The script for this is really overcompensating for the controversy centering around it, to the point of changing the sequence of events to fit it all in. I understand the controversy around straight-washing his bisexuality (and, to the film's credit, it does explore his complicated sexuality, but since the characters aside from him aren't fleshed out, it still doesn't fully work), but, since his AIDS diagnosis came years after Live Aid and they were always planning on ending its there, it does make sense that they wouldn't really cover it except for an after epilogue text(unless they were planning on ignoring it entirely, which is pretty bad). Minor spoiler, but the film moves his diagnosis to before Live Aid, and portrays his performance as some last testament. Also, the band broke up years before and Mercury gravels to them to reunite and Live Aid is their big comeback (something that never happened, and Queen had toured regularly in the years prior.). I understand that liberties need to be taken in order to make an entertaining story, but this level of revision seems only to exist as to get another cliche "musician is too difficult, band breaks up, band makes up" moment that feels like a scene straight out of Walk Hard, and again, feels like it's overcompensating for not dealing with it in the original drafts.

    I'm a huge Queen fan, so this being as boring and cliched as it is is disappointing, given how versatile and ecletic Queen was and the massive influence they've had on music. Even if you just want to hear Queen songs, they don't play a full one until the end, and the film is two hours! Just stay home and play those songs online. Still, Rami Malek's performance is good enough that I kind of recommend it if you're interested in seeing that. However, the rest of the film is just mediocre and really doesn't deserve his performance or the great Live Aid scene towards the end.

Dailles and Nightlies- Across the Universe

        About two months ago, during a visit to Las Vegas, my Dad and I saw the Love show at the Mirage. It was a Cirque du Soleil production which utilized Beatles songs to score some impressive acrobatics and dance sequences. While I was watching the performance, I thought a bit to the use of Beatles songs in other films. Two very notable examples came to mind. One was Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band , a 1978 film using music from the titular album and Abbey Road by producer Robert Stigwood, famed for his other '70's musicals, Grease and Saturday Night Fever. That film featured several prominent artists of the 70's (Peter Frampton; Earth, Wind, and Fire; Aerosmith; the Bee Gees) performing these songs in a plot loosely based on Sgt. Pepper. The film was a critical and financial flop, and doesn't seem to be remembered fondly today. Of course, the other was the film in the title. Directed by famed stage director Julie Taymor, who is probably most famous for directing The Lion King on Broadway, and in terms of film credits, had directed an adaptation of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, this 2007 feature is not based on any particular album or song, but is a simple jukebox musical, with a plot and characters centered around the songs, as well as the 60's period that Beatlemania emerged in. The surviving members of the Beatles seemed to enjoy it. Everyone else seems ... mixed on it. It seems to be brought up as a strange failed experiment on Taymor's part. Does it deserve this reputation? I decided to start a new series separate from my current film or horror reviews, where I just talk about whatever film I want to, whether it be a fairly obscure flop or a classic for the ages, and anything in-between. It'll be infrequent, mainly to pad out months I have little to no material on, and will range from first impressions to films I've probably seen a dozen or so times. So, without further delay.

       Jude (Jim Sturgess, and yes, that name is intentional. The song is played at one point) is a young shipyard worker in Liverpool, who decides to come to America to find his birth father, an American GI from the war. He finds himself in Princeton, where he has a brief discussion with his father (Robert Clohessy), before befriending Max (Joe Anderson, and the name is another Beatles reference), a Princeton student and bohemian, who introduces him to his family, including his sister Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood, and yes, another reference. Look, it's clear where this is going). Lucy is saddened by her significant other being drafted to fight in Vietnam. Max decides to drop out of Princeton, and join a group of Bohemians including Sadie (Dana Fuchs), JoJo (Martin Luther McCoy), and Prudence (TV Carpio). As her boyfriend is killed in action and Max is drafted, Lucy becomes more involved with the anti-war movement, and her relationship with Jude blooms, as the 60's gradually become more radical.....

      There are a number of good renditions in her. "Let It Be", "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Blackbird", "Hey, Jude", "Come Together", and "All You Need Is Love" are all very well-done and memorable renditions, distinct from their original recordings. All the actors do a fine job of singing. The film's plot is simple, but relatively easy to follow, especially with its various characters and their storylines. It also has good, high quality production design, with little CGI, making it feel more real than your average musical. Just generally, it was never boring to watch. It always had something interesting to watch, whether it be actually good or bizarrely bad, and I was never bored by the film.

     I talked about the good renditions, but there are some.... weird ones. "Being for the Benefit of Mr.Kite", (with Eddie Izzard as some sort of ringleader), and a mash-up of the titular song and "Helter Skelter" are two examples. The former is competent and true to the spirit, but comes out of nowhere, and is incongruous with the rest of the film. The latter just doesn't work, with the two songs competing for attention. There was also "She's So Heavy", which features military trainers in Max Headroom masks, and "Revolution", where Jude literally points to a Mao portrait when he says a line. Another problem this film has is it feels too much like a cliched late 60's period piece. Like, of course the characters become involved in the counterculture, of course the lead girl becomes anti-war, of course there is a Vietnam subplot, and of course, the anti-war movement grows more radical as times goes on. It feels too cliched in regards to the period, and feels eeriely similar to Forrest Gump (which originated many of these cliches).

     I enjoyed this feature, even if parts of it didn't work for me. It's fun, looks nice, and the songs are well done. Honestly, that's all it needed to be. If you like the Beatles or like the songs of the Beatles, this will very likely appeal to you, especially with all the other little nods and references made throughout the film.

    I hoped you enjoyed this inaugural entry, I don't know when and what the next entry will be, but stay tuned to find out. I also don't know what my next review will be. 

Current Movie Reviews- La La Land

       First and foremost, what first attracted me to this movie was the jazz score. As someone with some musical training, I noted the more bebop, improvisation style of the score automatically set it apart from the more swing score that most Broadway musical follow. If you can point out other scores that also utilize that style, sure, but I'm not really into musicals. I've enjoyed a couple musical films over the years, but I can't say that I am well versed in this particular field. That said, I did know what I was expecting out of this, and coming out of it, it gave me exactly what I expected. That's not a bad thing. In fact, I expected this to be quite good, and it was quite good.  Not exceptional or groundbreaking, but good overall and very enjoyable.

        La La Land centers around two dreamers in that hellish, post-apocalyptic landscape known as Los Angeles . Mia (Emma Stone) is a barista in a studio coffee house (apparently studio lots have those. Also that studio lots still existed), who aspires to be an actress, but is frustrated by often indifferent or incompetent casting directors. After getting lost after a party where she had hoped to find a casting director, she hears Sebastian (Ryan Gosling), a struggling Jazz musician who has extraordinary talent and dreams of opening his own jazz club, but is stuck doing simple tunes in restaurants. They have an awkward first meeting (right after Sebastian was fired by his boss Bill (J K Simmons)). However, after encountering each other again at another party, they slowly begin to build a relationship. Meanwhile, each is trying to build their own dreams. Sebastian convinces Mia to star in her own one-woman play to showcase her skills, while an old associate of Sebastian's, Keith (John Legend) convinces Sebastian to join his jazz band (which is increasingly influenced by modern R&B and electronic music). As they continue to work towards their goals, they encounter struggles which will ultimately test their relationship.

       Like I said in the introduction, the score was what attracted me to the movie in the first place. It was worth it. The upbeat jazz score is immediately memorable and interesting. It is easily the best part of the movie. The production value is very high, and none of it is wasted. It mostly succeeds as a classic Hollywood musical transplanted to the grungy modern day LA. The musical numbers are good, using the same jazz score to great effect. Some are actually very emotional to see. The choreography for the dancing (coming from someone with no dance skills) was very dynamic and fit the upbeat tone of the music. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are both well-cast, and have excellent chemistry, making their relationship very engaging and believable. Ryan Gosling has a good singing voice....
   
      ..... But Emma Stone doesn't. Oh, her singing voice is fine, and honestly, during the first few times she sings, she isn't that bad at it. But there's one point ( a bit of spoiler here), where she has to sing a song solo. Once again, her singing voice isn't bad, it just doesn't fit with the emotional tone of the song, and took away from that emotion. The plot isn't exemplar, and by the middle, I could kind of tell where it was going, and what was eventually going to happen. Also, any character that isn't Mia or Sebastian is not fleshed out, and just kind of go in and out of the movie with little mention. Yes, it is their love story, and it does focus sufficiently on that, but having other characters interact with the main couple more helps flesh out the setting more and get more perspective on their relationship. Finally, despite being a musical, there are actually long stretches where there are no musical numbers.

      Like I said, this was pretty good, and I had a good time watching it. It's not really a movie I will think about much, (aside from the songs and the melodies), but I'm glad I watched it. If you like musicals, jazz, or want to a musical that isn't made up of pop songs, this is the film for you. If not, well, you probably weren't planning to watch it anyway. Once again, it was good. Exactly what I expected. 

Movie Reviews: Les Miserables

             (Note: I started writing this three months ago. I started writing it the 23th of February, but then life got in the way, and I became too busy finish it. Thus, why I make a reference to the Oscars being two days in the very first paragraph, because that was the day I started writing. Forgive me, if you're annoyed by this. Every thing up to the 6th sentence of the third paragraph was written in February. Anyway, enjoy, regardless of the time of writing.)
        In two days, the Academy Awards ("the Oscars") will occur in the Dolby Theater in Hollywood. In this ceremony, special awards are given to films that were critically, though sometimes not financially, successful films of the preceding year. Organized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, these awards have been a tradition since 1929, celebrating the best in cinema during that particular time. This year, the Oscar nominees include "Argo", "Lincoln", "Zero Dark Thirty", and other critically praised films. However, I am going to focus on one particular nomination: "Les Miserables."  Now, exploring the depths of youtube and Metacritic, I have found that a lot of people REALLY like this film. Some were blown away by it, and some were brought to tears by the performances. There are a lot of reviews declaring this film, "AMAZING", and "BRILLIANT", and "STUNNING". And that leads them to attack other reviewers for criticizing it. I refer you to the "What the Flick" review of Les Miserables. Now, the critics in that video were heavily criticizing the film, some very legitimate, but some somewhat harsh. The notable thing, however, was the comments. Most of the comments went to the effects of "Les Mes rocks, and these people don't like any movies, if they hate this film." This is of course indicates a high admiration for the film, and a confusion if one dislikes the film.There are a lot of people who like this movie. I'm not one of them. In fact, I think it is largely mediocre; let's see why, shall we?
     The story, based on Victor Hugo's 1862 novel and the stage adaptation of that work with music by
Claude-Michel Schönberg, is set in post-revolution France between 1815 to 1832. It revolves around Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a convict who has been paroled by prison guard Javant (Russel Crowe), but is rejected due to this. After being taken in by a priest, and moved by his kindness when Valjean steals some silver from the priest, and when two policemen confront the priest with Valjean and the silver, the Priest actually defends him, Valjean decides to skip parole and start his life anew. He becomes a respected factory owner. In his factory, one of his employees, Fantina (Anne Hathaway) is fired, despite having an illegitimate child to care for. To make ends meet, she becomes a prostitute. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean finds out that another man has been captured under the impression that he was Valjean. Whilst dealing with the implication, he comes across Fatina, who is being confronted by Javant, now a policemen and several others, over her assaulting a customer. After Valjean saves her and sends her to a hospital, he decides to come clean with the court about to convict the false Valjean, before visiting Fantine. After learning that Fantine has an illegitimate child, and narrowly escaping Javant, he finds Fatine's child, Cosette (Isabelle Allen), living as a virtual slave to a con man and his wife (Helen Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen), and after paying him in exchange for the child, decides once again starts a new life, with Cosette in tow. Skip forward another few years, and Jean Valjean has settled in Paris with the teenaged Cosette (not played by Amanda Seyfried.) However, their tranquil life is disturbed by a brewing revolution against the new king, lead by two young men named Marius ( Eddie Redmayne), and Enjolras (Aaron Tveit). On top of that, Marius falls in love with Cosette, and Javant, now a having a Captain Ahab-style obsession over Jean Valjean, wants to crush the rebellion. Can Jean Valjean help the rebellion, and approve of Cosette and Marius' romance.

First, I'll get all the things I like about the film out of the way. Most of the actors do well. Hugh Jackman does very well in the role of Jean Valjean, and the character himself is very likable, very noble, and very developed. Anne Hathaway does a terrific performance at the beginning of the film, and does a very powerful, emotional song. However, contrary to what the trailer show, Anne Hathaway is only in the movie for that amount of time. I really like the set designs, and how it easily conveys the setting of the piece, and creates an authentic atmosphere. Some of the other songs are also very nice to listen to, though I will elaborate later. Overall, there is many things to like about the film..

That said, there are some things I find distracting. The main one? EVERYONE SINGS THEIR LINES! No, literally, nobody says anything. They sing it. And to me, that is very irritating. Okay, maybe people like the innovation, but I was just annoyed that they were singing all the time. I didn't like it because there is no transition between musical number. That is to say, I cannot tell where one ends and the other starts. The musical number sort of all merge due to this, and thus individual songs lose some of their impact as a result. Also, it doesn't allow us time to calm ourselves, and get ready to enjoy the next musical number. Perhaps it's a pet peeve, but it just kept bothering me throughout my viewing of the film. This is my main problem with the movie. There are a lot of smaller problems I have. One is Russel Crowe's voice. Yeah, even people who like this movie don't really like Russel Crowe's singing all that much. The thing is, his voice always seems off tune every time he sings. I hear this is because he is a rock singer, and thus he is more adapted to that style of music then to opera, but I have never heard him sing rock, so I wouldn't necessarily know why. Also, he didn't really act that well. I suppose it's just that off-tune voice that keeps bothering me during his more emotional moments. Finally, I suppose the cinematography was crammed. I mean, these are very nice set designs, but we don't get time to enjoy it. Instead, the shots simply cram them into each shot, and it really is too much in one shot at times. It's hard to enjoy the scenery when its crammed into a single shot. Once again, probably a pet peeved, but these sets are very large and very nice looking, and the only time we get to enjoy them is the ending.

I suppose I don't necessarily dislike the movie. When I came out of the theater in December, My feeling was "meh..." It was largely okay in my opinion. Not a great film, but not one of the worst I've seen. I was only discontent with the reaction to negative criticism to the film, where people would blast anybody that has a negative opinion regarding the film. I don't know. If you like the film, fine, go right ahead. You are entitled to opinion, just like I am entitled to my opinion. If you read this, and you really disagree with me, leave it in the comments, explain why you like the movie, just be a little bit respectful about my opinion, alright. Anyways, if I were to give this a percentage of how good it is, with 100% being absolutely perfect, I'd give this a 70%. Some good things, some bad things. If you can tolerate the constant singing, then you'll probably like it alright.

Percentage :70%