I found this at Badass Digest and felt it needed to be shared by readers of my blog.
This movie is one of the great unknown left field wonders of all time. People who love this movie are my friends, people who don’t, have something wrong with them. If you are lucky enough not to have seen this yet, search it out but make sure that you sit down in the mood to pay attention because it is a weird ride. The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension came out in 1984 near the end of Summer in August. I don’t think there was a great deal of confidence in the movie because the release was relatively small. Last night at the podcast that we attended, someone threw out the number $600,000. I am not sure if that was for opening weekend or the full run. Actually I checked, that was just the first weekend, and it was from under 300 theaters. Once it was finished in theaters it had brought in about six million by December (remember, in those days a movie might stay on screen for several months, not just a couple of weeks.)
I saw this with my friend Dan Hasegawa on opening weekend and the next weekend, I took my wife. Both of them enjoyed it nearly as much as I did, and that says something because they do not have very similar taste. From your opening moments, you know that something about this movie is just different. The music is a little different, and the lighting of the film seems natural but maybe a little over saturated at times. There is nothing particularly distinctive about the camera work, if feels flat and static for most of the movie. When we get a chance to see anything that could charitably be described as a “special effect”, it is so basic and down to earth it is hard to imagine. Compared to all the CGI effects that you see in even the cheapest of movies today, Buckaroo looks primitive, and that is one of the reasons it is loved by those of us who drink the Kool Aid for this movie. The flying saucers of the aliens seem to be sea shells, and the internal layout of both Buckaroos campus and Yoyodyne Propulsion, the headquarters for the rouge Red Lectroids, appear to be an endless series of hallways and tunnels, most of which were likely part of a DWP facility in the Valley. Duct tape and heating and cooling conduit pipes are used to make the environment otherworldly. The set decorator for this movie must have had a budget equal to an early episode of Trading Spaces.
So if the movie is shot in a non-dynamic manner, and the effects are chintzy, and the music is off, what is the attraction? THE SCRIPT!!!. This is one of the most logically off the wall concepts ever committed to film. The dialogue is a hoot and it is filled with memorable one sentence jokes and comments that stick in your head for no particular reason. “It’s not my goddamn planet. Understand, monkey boy?”, who writes stuff like that? “Lithium is no longer available on credit.” Someone was warped and saw that if you can get people to pay attention to the actors and the dialogue, the crappy sets don’t really matter. There was no way they were going to compete with the sci-fy extravaganzas of the day. Even the Star Trek Movies which were done on modest budgets were going to make this look like a weak attempt, so they shoot off in a different direction altogether. These are not visitors not just from another planet but from another dimension. Their presence here was covered up by Orson Wells with the “War of the Worlds” broadcast. Buckaroo is a neurosurgeon, zen master, rock star with his own fan clubs and comic books. The movie seems to be one of a series of stories that have been told with these characters and they are just dropped whole into the story without much background. Peter Weller is so dry, you could pour water on him and steam would come up. His delivery rarely sounds stressed or excited. Everyone else is over the top and playing with stereotypes.
Oh, and speaking of over the top, this movie has the greatest mad scientist, evil villain, John Lithgow performance ever. His look is insane, his accent is ridiculous, and his eyes will haunt you with how crazy good he can be with his facial expressions. I was laughing every time he was on screen. He says some of the most arcane insults and orders to everyone around in such a way that he cant help being the center of attention. He chews the scenery, then does a handstand and waves his arms over his head to say “Look at me!”. And he sells every single minute of it. This was a comic performance for the ages. Credit the dialogue, make up and costumes, but don’t ever forget the actor who was possessed by Lord John Whorfin.
The event we attended was also a live podcast featuring stand-up and quick-draw improv comic Greg Proops. I found his material before the show to be very entertaining although he wanders off on tangents so often that it would be easy to lose interest. After the movie he riffed on the film even more, however it did take a negative political turn and you could feel the wind come out of his sails. No matter how much louder he got or how emphatic his language was, he strayed away from the funny over to the political at a substantial cost to the audience and the event. The event was not up yet but it should appear at his site on i tunes “The Smartest Man in the World” . Lots of F-bombs and a load of bombast toward the end, but 80% entertaining.
After the disappointment of last years Cars 2, Pixar comes back with a fresh story and a return to their high standards of movie making. “Brave” easily avoids the missteps of the last Pixar picture, and creates a series of instantly recognizable characters to populate the world that they are exploring in the new story. This is the first time that Pixar has strayed into traditional Disney territory. There is a story focusing on a Princess, there are enchantments gone wrong and witches and will-o-wisps and all sorts of anthropomorphic animals. In a twist, Disney’s “Tangled”,from a couple of years ago, is a much more free spirited and Pixar-like movie and “Brave” could much more easily sit on the shelf next to “Pocahontas”, “Cinderella” or “Beauty and the Beast”.
The movie is simply gorgeous from the start. Scotland as a setting give a wide latitude for scenery, including lakes and forest and mountains and snow covered peaks. These images are all lushly rendered with the attention that you would expect from the perfectionists at Pixar. The movie was created for a 3D presentation, and we only saw it in a 2D format. There were a few spots where it seemed to me that the image was fuzzy because we were not using the polarized glasses. Most of these segments were establishing shots of canyons and landscapes that in a traditionally filmed movie would have been done with helicopters. In computer animation, it is hard to figure how this might go wrong and I think it is simply that the detail is so thick that if you are not seeing it in 3D it blends together a little faster than you would want. I only noticed this effect a couple of times in the movie, but instead of irritating me, I simply want to return and see it in the other format. The characters are also designed so that we can relate to them immediately. Merida, the heroine of the story, is easy to understand. She is a beloved first born of an impetuous King and his wiser wife. She has the fiery personality of any Scottish maiden combined with the stereotypes of red headed women. Her Mother and Father are voice by actors who we are familiar with, and convey the right attitude toward her within just a few seconds. Her young brothers do not speak but are clearly set up as impish offspring with fearless personalities and ultimately good hearts.
For the first act, we get a very traditional set up of royal family conflict. A teenage daughter chaffs under the expectations of her parents. Her fearless personality and great athletic skills dwarf the potential suitors that have arrived to make a politically expedient marriage. The vast majority of the first act is given away in early trailers, so anyone going in has a clear expectation about how the story is going to develop. Where things change in a pretty innovative manner is in the second act. In a moment of frustration she makes a deal with a witch that goes completely in a different direction than is traditional. This is not simply “The Little Mermaid” revisited. I won’t say how things turn out, but I will say that it all fits with what was set up in the first act and it creates a very emotional resolution at the end of the third act. I don’t know that I was always satisfied with the turn of events. The “magic” element seemed to me to be something that needed a little more set up in that first act. I did not think there was anything wrong with it, but it felt somewhat abbreviated to me.
The best element of the movie is the heroine’s story arc. She is willful and headstrong and certainly has difficulty seeing her Mother’s point of view. The way events unfold allow her to understand her Mother a lot more clearly and in a way that seems realistic. Merida never stops being who she is, but she does become something more than she was. In the third act there are moments of heroism and contrition. I thought the traditional race against the sun rise was cliched, but it still works every time. There were some rather risque bits of visual humor and innuendo that might be a little over the edge for very small children, but I did not think any of it was offensive and most of it fit with the primitive Scottish setting that the story takes place in. The main conflict of selecting a spouse is handled in a different way than traditional Disney fare. There is no handsome prince that rises to the occasion and resolves things with a smile that turns our heroine’s knees to jelly and finishes off the story. Instead we are left hanging on what may yet come. The path that brings us to that point is an honest one and I don’t feel cheated by the ambiguity of the outcome.
From a technical point of view the most is top notch. The story is well worn but has some major modifications to it that allow it to feel very distinctive. I think the Scottish setting added a good deal to the humor of the movie as well as the look. Once again, Pixar shows us how character and story are the keys to a good film. This film should have a broad audience, but I do fear the usual resistance of little boys to a story that features a girl at it’s center. If Madagascar 3 ends up being more successful, be assured it it not due to quality but rather the fickle nature of an audience for films aimed at children. By the way, stick with the movie through the credits, there is a brief stinger which should get a good laugh and is worth the three minutes of your time to get to.
Brave is preceded by another fantastic Pixar short. It is a lesson in story telling using no dialogue at all. We understand the characters and their points of view and function simply by observing their actions and appearance. Within a five minute span, we are introduced to three character, a whimsical setting and a nice morality tale on individualism. I love that Disney and Pixar have committed to animated shorts being part of the movie going experience. It gives added value to the memory and the heart.
This is the follow up to last weeks post on the Paul Williams event, tonight we saw the documentary film itself. The film is playing at the Nuart this week and depending on it’s success will find more venues around the country. The screening we went to was sold out but that may be because the director and the subject were both appearing after the movie. There was another Q and A session and some of the same issues were discussed that were covered the week before, although it was less intimate and the time was much shorter. Here I want to focus on the film itself, rather than just the event. I have seen enough documentaries in my lifetime to be able to recognize their formats and styles. In the last twenty years, film makers have dramatically changed the way they choose to present their subjects in these kinds of films. Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock have inserted themselves into their films as a way to tell their stories. Each of them has outsized personalities and egos that tend to serve their story telling skills quite well. The Director of “Paul Williams Still Alive” is Stephen Kessler, and he is following in the path blazed by those other two. Kessler though is not a willing “star” of his own feature however. He became a screen presence largely because he had a very resistant subject and a theme that was not going in the manner that a traditional film of this ilk would take.
While Paul Williams is the subject of the film, and his career trajectory and celebrity descent are a part of the story, they are not the focus. This is not a story in the MTV style of “Where are they Now?”. Paul Williams it seems is not suffering from a lack of being the center of attention that he was for such a long time in the 70s and 80s. He has changed in ways that will probably seem odd to our fame obsessed, celebrity driven culture. While he may have been one of the founders of that culture, he has come out the other side a wiser and more satisfied human being. Kessler pursued Williams to make the movie and Williams was largely indifferent. Even after he was given permission to film, Williams was uncomfortable being observed so closely, and self conscious of the camera and film maker. There were several years of contact and filming that went on before it strikes each of them how awkwardly the process was going. It is not until Paul directly confronts the elephant in the room that the story finally starts to take shape. Paul confronts Kessler and basically puts the director in the film as a central character.
Instead of a movie about the life of Paul Williams, we get a mediation on the expectations of the director on his subject and on the way his biases are challenged by Williams. For instance, there is one sequence in which Kessler rides with Williams and his wife Marina to a gig in Las Vegas. There are some awkward moments between the three of them over mundane things like where to stop for lunch. She is acting as his manager for the weekend and is shown in what might be an unflattering and unprofessional few moments trying to clear up band comps for the shows while the band is trying to rehearse. Sure the musicians got annoyed, because they were working at the moment and she interrupted them in a seemingly unconscious manner. But guess what, the show went on and there was no other big tension during the performances except for the directors intrusiveness. It is an incident in a professional career, it is not a story indicative of that career. Later on, there is a long trip to a dangerous part of the Philippines. The director is expecting the worst but for the most part Williams just plays the complications as they come up and he is unruffled by minor inconveniences. There is no diva here to focus on and again, the directors expectations become the story rather than the actions of his subject.
Kessler seems to be a nice guy who was moved to this subject matter by a sincere admiration for the song writing skills of his subject. Once he encounters his subject and wrestles with the difficulty of pinning him down for the traditional show and tell of a celebrity film, he realizes that his own voice needs to be a part of the movie. Because the opening section of the movie focuses on his connection to Paul Williams as a kid, the average viewer might think this is a little narcissistic. I suspect that this became the opening of the film only after Kessler saw where his material was taking him. He does give a brief list of his bonafides, but he does not dwell on himself. He is as a reluctant a focus of the film as Williams was, and this is one of the charms of the story that is told here. The end result is a film that explores intimacy in a celebrity show it all world. Brittany Spears flashing her whohah for paparazzi is not intimacy. Getting someone to reveal a moment from their past might be a moment of intimacy, but seeing how another persons mind works and how emotions are not always easily manufactured to me are real moments of intimacy. This film manages to do this although not in the way you would have expected.
We do get to see archival footage of Williams on all those TV shows he did. Sometimes we get brief moments of pleasure at hearing his distinctive voice turn some of those phrases in his lyrics into moments of sublime brilliance. There are also the embarrassing, over the top moments that make us pause and think to ourselves, “why would he ever do that?” Williams alcoholism and drug abuse are part of the story, and at times it seems that is the focus that Paul himself wants to spin for this film. While his recovery is central to his life and a part of the film, this is not where we linger. The truth is Paul Williams is as clever and talented as he was forty years ago. The difference is that he is not as needy. He is both celebrity and everyman. Signing autographs for fans and being cheered on stage, but also eating squid at a nondescript Asian restaurant and carrying his own luggage when he travels. When he is confronted by an embarrassing, drug fueled, grandstanding clip of himself hosting Merv Griffin’s show, the current Paul Williams is mortified. Here is where we really get to know him. Someone in the movie put it well, I can’t remember if it was Kessler or Williams, but it seems that Kessler wanted to look back, whereas Williams wants to look forward. The achievement of the film is that it succeeds in doing both of these things at the same time.
Both the film maker and the subject have aspects of themselves that are unflattering, revealed for us on the screen. They also have moments of warmth and honesty and success as the movie comes together. The coda of the film reminds us that Williams has been sober for twenty years, that he has been a certified drug counselor for sixteen years, and that he is has been President of ASCAP, the most important musicians rights organization since 2009. All of those things are important accomplishments, but to me the most important thing the movie showed me was that Paul Williams has become a person that he would not be embarrassed to introduce to his own kids.
“There’s not a word yet, for old friends who’ve just met…”
After Prometheus, this was my most anticipated movie of the summer. My daughter bought a copy of the original book for Christmas a couple of years ago at the U.S.C. bookstore (where she does most of her shopping), and when she got it home she noticed that they were signed editions so that was a nice extra. She also knows that Lincoln is a personal hero of mine and that I have a warped sense of what might be entertaining. It turns out she was right in making the choice, I loved the book. I found it very clever the way the that history was woven into the myth of Lincoln as a killer of vampires and I was highly entertained. When we saw that there was a film being made, we started counting down the days. Her only complaint was that Adrian Brody was not cast as the destroyer of bloodsuckers. In the long run it doesn’t matter too much that there are no big stars in the film because the concept is the star of this movie.
The author of the book also wrote the screenplay for the movie. He has made some substantial changes to the story in order to make this work as a piece of pop cinema. Gone is the framing device of an author taking Lincoln’s journals and turning them into a book. The life story of Lincoln is also highly condensed so that we get to him in an adult state very quickly. I did miss the tension and creepy factor that came with the Lincoln’s moving frequently and the drunken revelation from his father about the reality of vampires. I understood immediately the necessity of moving through this material for time purposes and to propel the story more rapidly for a visual audience. There are several additions that the script makes to the story that allow it to sustain a single focus and stay visually interesting. The biggest change is having Lincoln engage in hand to hand combat with vampires after becoming President. This is the arena most viewers will come to the story knowing about Lincoln, so it would probably seem strange (if you can use that phrase in a movie about our 16th President being a vampire hunter) to not set much of the story during the Civil War itself. I think it worked pretty well and it gives us a more iconic image of Abe with a full beard kicking ass with his axe.
I’ll mention a couple of scenes that added to the movie version of the story that did not exist in the book. Each sequence is designed to carry forward action in a visual manner that will work with a big popcorn movie. When Lincoln finally goes after the vampire responsible for his mother’s death, there is a dramatic chase sequence. The vampire leads Abe on a action packed chase through a herd of stampeding horses. The horses are used sometimes as stepping stones, sometimes as vehicles and sometimes as weapons. It was a very original way to go and showed the determination of both sides in the future war. We saw the movie in regular 2D and there may have been even greater value in this set piece if it had been viewed in 3D. Late in the film, there is another elaborate set piece that takes place on a train. The slo-mo, high energy, twisting viewpoints are typical of most contemporary action films. None of it is meant to seem realistic, it is all in aid of giving the audience an adrenaline high and it works. There are fights on top of the train, in the box cars themselves and the train is threatened by a fire burning collapsing bridge. The reason Lincoln and his friends are on the train is another element that was invented to make a movie work. The concept is a good one and I am surprised that more vampire stories don’t take advantage of silver bullets in the same way. Of course that may have to do with the confusion over the fact that you kill werewolves that way, not really vampires. On the other hand, most of these vampires seem to function in the daylight, so I guess a lot of creative license is acceptable.
It probably will sound a little silly for me to say, but the book actually had a nice philosophical take on the idea of vampires and slavery, the movie stays away from this for the most part. Screenwriting 101, keep it simple. Movies are for showing not telling, so some of the political philosophy gets shortchanged. That’s OK because the vampire killing takes it’s place and becomes the reason that this movie exists. There are many creative images of vampires being destroyed as well as a couple of gruesome visions of how the vampires use people. Another way that dramatic tension is added is by creating a conflict between Lincoln and his benefactor Henry, It worked in the movie but it was another important change from the book. One more change that I appreciated was the use of Mary Todd Lincoln in the film. She gets a very satisfying chance to make a contribution to Abe’s cause and extract a bit of revenge. It was one moment that I could actually hear the audience react to the movie they way the film makers envisioned.
If the title does nothing for you except bringing derisive snorting, then you should stay away. If you are a fan of the book, I think you will be very satisfied despite some major changes. Those of us who like the silly (as an alternative sometimes to the serious) and appreciate “Big Screen” entertainment (as counter-programming to artistic endeavors) will eat up this tale of revenge, vampires and ass kicking Presidents. To paraphrase Lincoln, “You can entertain some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can entertain all of the geek audience for 95 minutes.” It’s a blast and pretty much what it should be, enjoy my friends.
Tonight I had a very special experience thanks to my friend and colleague Doug Kresse. Doug listens to NPR way to much and he enters contests all the time, and he often wins. Tonight I was the winner however because Doug’s prize for the most recent contest was an event scheduled tonight, and he bailed out on an event he had a ticket for. When I saw the event he was offering to me I leaped at the chance to go. It was a Tribute to Paul Williams, with a concert featuring the music from his musical score to “The Phantom of the Paradise”. Many of you may be unfamiliar with the movie. It was not a big success when it came out in 1974 although it has a cult status among many film lovers. Paul Williams on the other hand should be extremely familiar to anyone over the age of thirty and truth be told, most under thirty probably know his work even if they don’t know him.
You can look up a biography and see the list of accomplishments of Mr. Williams, it will be quite lengthy. In the 1970s he was a ubiquitous presence in pop culture. He was a frequent guest on most of the talk shows of the times including; The Tonight Show with Johnnny Carson, Mike Douglas, Dinah Shore, and Merv Griffin. Notably he wrote pop songs that were number one hits for “The Carpenters”, “Three Dog Night”, and Barbara Streisand. His songs appeared in dozens of movies and he was an actor as well. He can be seen in dozens of old TV shows, and movies. He was one of three leads in “The Phantom of the Paradise”, playing Swan, the Satan based character that the Phantom has sold his soul to. Basically, Phantom is a rock and roll version of Faust.
Some time in the late eighties or early nineties, he seemed to disappear from the public spotlight. Admittedly fashions change and styles move along, but it does seem strange that someone so talented would vanish from the public consciousness in such a brief time. Well it turns out that in addition to changing public tastes, he had an extreme cocaine and alcohol addiction that was eating away at his life. Several years ago, a film maker Stephen Kessler, who had been a fan of his music, discovered Williams was not dead as he apparently thought, but was still very much alive and working in his now quiet way. Kessler managed to convince Williams to let him do a documentary on him, despite Williams reservations about drinking from the fame cup again. Williams was content with his life and did not want to come across as a fame whore again. Kessler was persistent and the result is a film opening in Los Angeles next week.
The evening tonight consisted of a Q and A managed by the programmer of Cinefamily, the sponsoring organization, with Stephen Kessler and Paul Williams himself. Everyone was quite lively and they covered a number of subjects, but the focus was primarily on the documentary, “The Phantom”, “Ishtar” and “The Muppet Movie”. There was one oblique reference to “Evergreen” the Academy Award winning song that Williams wrote with others, but they stayed away from insider Hollywood and focused on the music from these films.
The conversation was great and it was punctuated by film clips from the new documentary and a couple of compilations put together by the Cinefamily. The director of the event particularly likes “Ishtar”, a movie I have championed since it came out in 1987. It was a critical bomb but I have always thought it is one of the funniest films I ever saw. The songs are supposed to be just professional enough to be believable, but also so off target that they are funny.
Williams pointed out that there are dozens of songs, he wrote more than fifty for the movie, and that the director Elaine May, wanted complete songs so she could choose the parts that she wanted to use. I remember when the film came out that there was talk of an album featuring the songs, but when the film crashed that went away and we have been denied that pleasure.
After an hour of conversation, there was a half hour break. Tickets to the documentary were being sold on the patio, but they were using laptops to make the purchase and it was moving slow so I will just have to show up at the Nuart next week. During the break there were several clips running of Paul Williams TV appearances, from talk shows to soap operas. I took a couple of quick pictures of two of those clips that were particularly amusing to me.
The above is an appearance on the Mike Douglas show, promoting the movie Bugsy Malone. In those days on a talk show, the guests frequently talked with each other. It was fun watching the diminutive Paul Williams kibitz with the larger, very scary looking Charles Bronson and his wife Jill Ireland. They shared a story about a dinner tribute they went to for Groucho Marx, where Groucho ended up falling asleep during the proceedings. The second shot is Paul Williams in the Make-up he wore in “Battle For the Planet of the Apes”. I think he sang “Me and You Against the World”.
When we returned, a band had taken the stage. The musicians were all locals that seemed to be famiar to many in the audience. I was very impressed with the way they managed to turn these songs into a pretty effective concert. Sometimes there was a cue from the film used to set up the song, but they often just went right into the music when the singer was ready. The songs featured were from Phantom of the Paradise.
This is not from last night but it is very similar to the experience we had. This video is from Phantompalooza and performed by the original cast.
There were several songs from Phantom, including “Upholstery” which may have been a forerunner to the songs in Ishtar. The singer did complain a little because he did this song, right after a lovely performance of “Rainy Days and Mondays”, which seems to be accepted as one of the great pop tunes of all times. Paul Williams frequently shouted out encouragement to the performers from his seat in the front couches. Everyone had a marvelous time. The theater was screening “Ishtar” and if I had known ahead of time, I would have planned on staying for it, but I was expected home. I did linger long enough to speak to Mr. Williams and tell him of my admiration for his song writing. He was gracious to everyone that night and shook hands with everyone who came up to him. He also made a point of asking everyone their name so when he spoke to you it was even more personal. He signed posters and took pictures with dozens of guests. I am really looking forward to seeing the documentary next week.
The event took place at the old “Silent Movie Theater” in the Fairfax district of Los Angeles. As I was leaving the parking lot across the street, Mr. Williams was crossing in front of me and gave me a wave as a drove out in my flagship. It was a terrific evening with a musical genius and an appreciative crowd of admirers. I will try to add a full post on the Phantom movie some time this summer, and if events allow, I will see the new film in the next couple of weeks. Again, thank you Doug and thank you NPR for taking Doug somewhere else so I got to enjoy this.
So there are two reasons to see this movie. Both of those reasons appear to be controversial in the first place, so just ask yourself how you feel about music from the 80s and Tom Cruise? If you don’t care for at least one of them, you have no reason to be sitting in the theater. If both of them work for you, then there might be a reason to see the film but it might not be a strong enough reason to pull you in if there are other reservations. There is lots to see and listen to here, but most of it is innocuous fluff that would not be missed by fans of either Cruise or pop music from the 1980s.
I did not count all the songs, I’m sure somewhere on line that information is available. I was impressed with the number of songs and the frequency with which I recalled them fondly. They were not particularly obscure titles, but the shelf life on some of them was short in the beginning so they will be unfamiliar to anyone who has not grown up listening to oldies and classic rock. The performances of the songs cover a wide range, like one of those theme nights on American Idol. There are some standouts, usually done in a traditional manner on stage. There are some clunkers, usually used for exposition where the most tangential connection to the thin story is used to justify it’s placement in the film. Finally, and most frequently there are middling versions of mediocre songs that will not be remembered five minutes after the movie is done. Sometimes those moments were briefly fun, frequently they were embarrassing.
Tom Cruise acquits himself pretty well in the singing segments. He has enough of a voice and enough electronic assistance, that you can accept he is a “Rock God” in an 80s hairband. The more successful aspects of his performance encompass the characterization he makes of a “Rock God” living the lifestyle. He spouts the most irrelevant comments and nonsensical responses you can imagine, but they come across organically. He carries off the brain-addled, over pampered, narcissist with ease. You will not doubt that Stacee Jaxx is a star modeled on some of the big names of the day. He could party with those people and fit in without a second glance. He and Malin Ackerman share one of the best scenes in the film, and both play it for comic impact. She goes straight for the laughs and he stays in character, giving the line readings and expressions that make the scene funny.
The love story between the young leads of the film is fine, but it is so predictable that it makes it even more clear how much was being forced together to get some narrative out of the story. The movie is a big goof to begin with, so if you don’t see the humor in this when you are going in, it will probably irritated you coming out. I can accept the goof on the idea of this being a cliche ridden patchwork rock fable filled with cheesy 80’s songs and over the top drama. I’ll bet on stage, with an audience of theater lovers it works like gangbusters. Here, I don’t think it works so well. In my head I kept seeing this as an extended episode of “Glee”, only without the gay subtext. Imagine my chagrin when the gay subtext shows up, out of the blue and completes the concept as an elaborately staged episode from that TV series. As a hit or miss pop jukebox, video retrospective, it works fine, but as a story it is simply limp.
There are several performers who show up and mostly miss having any impact. Bryan Cranston is wasted, unless you think seeing him spanked in his underwear would be funny. Catherine Zeta Jones, does her best singing and dancing, and she is competent in both. The problem she has, is the part is thankless and dumb headed and plays to the worst cliches of a youth audience, about anyone who might think the music or lifestyles of these people are questionable. Paul Giamatti plays sleazy without having to think to hard, and so he doesn’t. We are at least spared him crooning a full song. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about Alec Baldwin, who not only sings once, he sings twice, and one of the songs is the strangest romantic duets imaginable. It was good for one brief laugh. Russel Brand and Mary J. Blige show up, sing or act their parts and move on with the careers intact, but not much to show talent wise in this movie.
“Rock of Ages” is made for people who like theatrical musicals but are too lazy or poor to go out and see one on stage. It feels like a nice little revue that could be a bit shorter, a bit funnier, and a bit more memorable. I can imagine a lot of people hating it from the get go, a few people loving it for what it is, and almost everybody else who does see it, yawning indifferently and rendering a judgement of “meh”. Tom Cruise almost makes it worth seeing, but that word …almost…is really important to pay attention to. If you can live without being a completest on Tom’s works, then you can probably live quite happily, just putting in an old CD and listening to the original versions of the music.