Indiana Jones is back. It's been nineteen years since the last film and the only real marks of change are some CGI heavy scenes and cinematography that's ever so slightly slicker. It's just as fun and fast paced as any of the older trilogy of films. In fact the story and action moves on so briskly that one barely feels the two hours whiz by. I dare you not to grin during the majority of this movie. The banter is still so playfully bitchy and the action sequences so face-rockingly exciting that it makes it impossible not to feel the same way you did when you first saw the original movies (well, at least the first and third films).
In this film Indy finds himself fighting Commies instead of the Nazis and an occult obsessed Hitler is traded for an occult obsessed Stalin. Much like the Hitler of the first and third Indy movies, Stalin believes that the titular artifact (here the mystical crystal skull) will lead to great military victory. Stalin puts his top scientist Colonel-Doctor Irina Spalko on the hunt for the skull, and with a nudge from Mutt Williams Indy ends up on the hunt as well. Along the way we see that all of the elements that make Indiana Jones great are there. There's the car chase/fight sequence (two actually) á la "Raiders of the Lost Ark". There's the pre-requisite creepy crawly this time in the form of scorpions and killer ants. There's the love story and aforementioned playful banter. And of course there's the mystical ancient treasure and a clue driven treasure hunt á la "Last Crusade" and "Raiders".
However it's not all fortune and glory for this film. There are a couple of clunky lines and the denouement of the film almost comes off like some sort of cheesy fan fiction. The last act of the film in general starts to dip into wacky sci-fi territory and the climax is a little hard to swallow partly because of a very distracting CGI set piece. The films were always a little cheesy and supernatural, but this film almost pushes it over the top. It's not as cheesy or ungainly as "Temple of Doom" but the ending doesn't do it any favors.
Speaking of the CGI, there are a few other moments where it becomes somewhat distracting. Big computer generated elements really stand out in a film that is based so much on the raw action of adventure serials. Thankfully most of the action is still done the good old fashioned way and the sequences are just as enthralling as they ever were, if not slightly more so (e.g. a car chase AND a swordfight). You're pretty much hooked as soon as you hear the first whip crack punch sound effect in the opening of the film.
The cast also does a great job of pulling the story together. It seems almost an insult to even bring it up but, for the doubters, Harrison ford is just as agile and badass as he was twenty years ago (when his hair was already starting to turn gray). The chameleon-like Cate Blanchett transforms into the very epitome of a menacing adventure movie villain. I know there are some Shia LaBeouf haters out there, but he gives a great performance and fits right in with the Indiana Jones world. He displays the right mix of humor and vulnerability and is pretty handy with a switchblade and a sword. The haters may as well get used to LaBeouf as he's got a huge career ahead of him now (he's got his foot in the Indiana Jones franchise and is already signed on for two more "Transformers" films as well as another upcoming Spielberg production, a suspense thriller called "Eagle Eye"). The rest of the cast is also fantastic and I was surprised that even the minor roles were played by actors that I could recognize (though, who wouldn't want to be in an Indiana Jones movie?). This film also marks the return of (my favorite of Indy's ladies) Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood who is still as spunky as ever (though it would've been nice to see her utilized a little more).
As I said earlier, Indiana Jones is back. The way you feel about this film will most likely depend on how you read that sentence. Do you err on the side of a sarcastic reading partly because of the advertising blitz that has come before the film's opening? Are you a hardcore fanboy who reads that sentence and adds three exclamation points to the end? The person that's going to enjoy this film the most is someone that falls in between these two extremes, i.e. someone looking for the fun of the last movies and isn't so obsessed with the series or so cynical that they're going to pick it apart and debate each moment. It’s definitely worth the price of admission and despite the outlandish climax, it seems to have been worth the wait as well.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Go "Speed Racer" Go (away)
Speed Racer comes across as candy for the senses. The constantly dynamic visuals are a rainbow sherbet, hyper, pop-art assault on the eyes that is stunning and, at times, almost overwhelming. Unfortunately, much like candy the rush starts strong yet ultimately leaves the viewer unsatisfied.
There is no denying the fact that the movie is fun to watch. Its style is both retro kitsch and avant garde, utilizing the best of modern computer animation to play up to its cartoon roots. More to that point, the majority of the film is composed with CGI backgrounds and only maybe 3 or 4 practical sets. It’s exactly the kind of cool-looking film that one would expect from the team that gave us The Matrices and V for Vendetta. The action sequences are exciting, frenetic and, just as was mentioned earlier, are sometimes hard to follow. I began to feel almost a bit motion sick as I watched the final race sequence, surprisingly not because of the race itself, but because of the constant movement to the multiple points of view of the other race observers.
Almost as hard to follow is the film's vague plot. It's hard to see what stake the many villains have in ruining the Racer family other than the evil, capitalist dollar. The heroes and villains are broadly drawn archetypes that lack unique character. Certain subplots, such as the one involving Snake Oiler in the Casa Cristo rally race seem shoehorned in merely because they appeared in the cartoon. A good amount of footage seems merely stuck into the film for purely humor or entertainment value, dragging the viewer away from the main action (for example, any of the moments featuring Spritle and Chim Chim or the extended ninja fight sequence). Some of these moments are welcome distractions, but others come off more like non-sequiturs which do nothing for the movie. These moments pander to the young demographic that they are aiming this movie toward, but leave the casual viewer scratching his head. At a length of over two hours, the movie could have stood to edit out some of these scenes and also edit down many of its over-long dramatic scenes (which no doubt leave their young viewers as bored as I was).
Another confusing element is the constant flashback and flash forward narrative structure. One flash forward in particular flashes to a future race, then goes back to the characters talking about the race that has yet to happen, then jumps forward to a moment after the race has finished before the viewer has any chance of re-orienting themselves as to where they are in the film.
Ignoring the clichéd and convoluted plot points, the movie was still fairly fun to watch, especially when not taking itself particularly seriously. The cast worked well and Roger Allam comes off like a great James Bond-esque maniacal villain. Unless you're a big fan of the series or are under 12 years of age, I'd suggest waiting until the movie comes out at the dollar theatre.
There is no denying the fact that the movie is fun to watch. Its style is both retro kitsch and avant garde, utilizing the best of modern computer animation to play up to its cartoon roots. More to that point, the majority of the film is composed with CGI backgrounds and only maybe 3 or 4 practical sets. It’s exactly the kind of cool-looking film that one would expect from the team that gave us The Matrices and V for Vendetta. The action sequences are exciting, frenetic and, just as was mentioned earlier, are sometimes hard to follow. I began to feel almost a bit motion sick as I watched the final race sequence, surprisingly not because of the race itself, but because of the constant movement to the multiple points of view of the other race observers.
Almost as hard to follow is the film's vague plot. It's hard to see what stake the many villains have in ruining the Racer family other than the evil, capitalist dollar. The heroes and villains are broadly drawn archetypes that lack unique character. Certain subplots, such as the one involving Snake Oiler in the Casa Cristo rally race seem shoehorned in merely because they appeared in the cartoon. A good amount of footage seems merely stuck into the film for purely humor or entertainment value, dragging the viewer away from the main action (for example, any of the moments featuring Spritle and Chim Chim or the extended ninja fight sequence). Some of these moments are welcome distractions, but others come off more like non-sequiturs which do nothing for the movie. These moments pander to the young demographic that they are aiming this movie toward, but leave the casual viewer scratching his head. At a length of over two hours, the movie could have stood to edit out some of these scenes and also edit down many of its over-long dramatic scenes (which no doubt leave their young viewers as bored as I was).
Another confusing element is the constant flashback and flash forward narrative structure. One flash forward in particular flashes to a future race, then goes back to the characters talking about the race that has yet to happen, then jumps forward to a moment after the race has finished before the viewer has any chance of re-orienting themselves as to where they are in the film.
Ignoring the clichéd and convoluted plot points, the movie was still fairly fun to watch, especially when not taking itself particularly seriously. The cast worked well and Roger Allam comes off like a great James Bond-esque maniacal villain. Unless you're a big fan of the series or are under 12 years of age, I'd suggest waiting until the movie comes out at the dollar theatre.
Iron Man Lives Again
Iron Man contains everything that not just superhero movies, but summer blockbusters in general aspire for. It's a fun blend of adventure, humor, emotion, romance, and (it wouldn't be a summer movie without) explosions. Before being made, the movie spent more than fifteen years in development hell bouncing back and forth between different studios, writers, and directors. The bright side of this is that they have seemingly found just the right creative team to tell the Iron Man story. The direction, cast, and dialogue are all solid contributors to the success of this film. The cast at first seems unconventional, but after seeing them in action, each of the main players fits perfectly in their roles. Everyone right down to the helper robots in Tony Stark's workshop comes off as being largely likeable (or, in Jeff Bridges's case, surprisingly menacing for a man most famous for playing someone known as "The Dude"). Robert Downey Jr. in particular seemed like an ironic bit of casting, given Downey's past substance abuse problems and Iron Man's history in the comics of being an alcoholic. However, despite any sort of doubts about his past, age, or abilities as an actor, Downey manages to make Iron Man alter-ego Tony Stark seem at times rakish, self-deprecating, hilarious, vulnerable, and bad-ass. In Director Jon Favreau's own words, Downey makes Stark a "likeable asshole". Iron Man has always seemed like Marvel's answer to DC's Batman, but here Tony Stark is portrayed as a completely unique character who is just as complex, but half as emo.
There are a couple updates to the origin story that help the film resonate with modern audiences. They've swapped the Vietnamese communists from the comic book origins for Afghan terrorists, which works surprisingly well. Also instead of a British butler named Jarvis, Jarvis in the film has been turned into a home security system/onboard computer for the Iron Man suit with a British accent (robots seem to always have British accents).
The plot seems to be meticulously planned out to hint towards the movies looming in the future. The film hints towards Tony Stark’s military liason/BFF James Rhodes becoming War Machine and it can't be a coincidence that Tony Stark seems to be holding a glass of alcohol in most of the scenes that he appears in. The cast and crew have already signed on for two more sequels (as is customary these days). Robert Downey Jr. also has a cameo in the upcoming Incredible Hulk film, which hints toward the eventual Avengers movie and if you stick around after the credits of Iron Man you'll see another big nudge toward an Avengers feature. Iron Man is likely to be Marvel's next big franchise, stepping into the void left in Spiderman 3's disastrous wake. The film took in approximately $32.5 million on its opening day which is the 14th biggest opening day of all time.
Iron Man is just a good, clean fun movie. While Tony Stark is a bit of a womanizer, his relationship with his assistant Pepper (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) comes off rather sweet and innocent. The action sequences are cool enough to satisfy the manly men while still containing enough emotional depth to keep it from being a superficial story. This film is the best Marvel superhero film since 2004’s Spiderman 2 (sidenote: in terms of DC comics films, they have recently focused more on quality than quantity and their 2006 Superman Returns was the last great superhero movie). We’ll have to wait until June to see if the new Incredible Hulk film continues this trend. If you’re looking for fun way to beat that good old Irvine boredom, Iron Man might just be the film for you. I’d say it’s worth the ridiculous price to see it now, and worth seeing again once it makes it to the dollar theatre.
There are a couple updates to the origin story that help the film resonate with modern audiences. They've swapped the Vietnamese communists from the comic book origins for Afghan terrorists, which works surprisingly well. Also instead of a British butler named Jarvis, Jarvis in the film has been turned into a home security system/onboard computer for the Iron Man suit with a British accent (robots seem to always have British accents).
The plot seems to be meticulously planned out to hint towards the movies looming in the future. The film hints towards Tony Stark’s military liason/BFF James Rhodes becoming War Machine and it can't be a coincidence that Tony Stark seems to be holding a glass of alcohol in most of the scenes that he appears in. The cast and crew have already signed on for two more sequels (as is customary these days). Robert Downey Jr. also has a cameo in the upcoming Incredible Hulk film, which hints toward the eventual Avengers movie and if you stick around after the credits of Iron Man you'll see another big nudge toward an Avengers feature. Iron Man is likely to be Marvel's next big franchise, stepping into the void left in Spiderman 3's disastrous wake. The film took in approximately $32.5 million on its opening day which is the 14th biggest opening day of all time.
Iron Man is just a good, clean fun movie. While Tony Stark is a bit of a womanizer, his relationship with his assistant Pepper (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) comes off rather sweet and innocent. The action sequences are cool enough to satisfy the manly men while still containing enough emotional depth to keep it from being a superficial story. This film is the best Marvel superhero film since 2004’s Spiderman 2 (sidenote: in terms of DC comics films, they have recently focused more on quality than quantity and their 2006 Superman Returns was the last great superhero movie). We’ll have to wait until June to see if the new Incredible Hulk film continues this trend. If you’re looking for fun way to beat that good old Irvine boredom, Iron Man might just be the film for you. I’d say it’s worth the ridiculous price to see it now, and worth seeing again once it makes it to the dollar theatre.
"Run Fatboy Run" is as blandly humorous as its title
“Run Fatboy Run” is another in a string of schlubby-guy-doesn’t-really-deserve-to-get-the-girl-but-improves-just-enough-to-get-the-girl-anyway comedies (see also: “Knocked Up”). It also fits into genre of desperate guy must do X in order to get Y, in which X is some sort of ludicrous task that pretty much only makes movie sense as opposed to real life sense and is only vaguely related to his goal Y (which is usually equal to the affections of a lovely lady or, in the case of some teen comedies, is equal to some sort of rad gift from the character’s parents such as a car or something of equal value). In the case of “Run Fatboy Run”, the lead character must run the fictional Nike Product Placement River Marathon in order to prove that he actually can finish something in his life and win back his ex-fiancée/ baby mama. It was as if the plot of the film was made with wacky comedy mad libs. Guy who works as a security guard (profession) at a women’s clothing store (place) must run a marathon (unusual task) in order to win back a girl who works at a bake shop (place where cute girls work). The film’s turns also come as no surprise and you’ve guessed the ending before you’ve finished the film. The film seems to get more predictable as it gets closer to its conclusion, partly out of necessity, and partly out of laziness. The movie also ends up turning on Hank Azaria’s character so fast that it feels forced. Many of the jokes hit on the same notes as many other sophomoric comedies, e.g. jokes about erectile dysfunction, penis size, farts, and a particularly gross bit of gross-out humor involving a nasty blister.
However, the difference in this film (and its near-saving grace) is the highly likeable cast. While many of the characters may fall into specific archetypes, (e.g. humorous ethnic neighbor, loveable libertine, slacker hero) the actors bring a certain depth and charm to the characters that still make them fun to watch. Further to the point, I feel that Simon Pegg is setting up to be the type of leading man who isn’t just a great comedian, but is also a great actor (see also: Steve Carell, Hugh Grant, and Will Ferrell when he’s not being an idiot about his career). Every bit of anguish and joy can be read on his face better than any bit of dialogue could convey and any scene with Pegg and the actor playing his young son are sure to make your heart grow three sizes that day. The film also does a good job (at least in the first half) of setting up nice, sweet moments that come to an abrupt halt with a bit of humor in order to keep them from getting too saccharine. The film seems to shine whenever it goes against the tropes that form the base of its plot and lets the characters breathe, but it unfortunately doesn’t do this as often as it should. Mostly the film doesn’t contain many rolling-on-the-floor-laughing (-copter) moments, but it does leave you smiling much of the time. The film seems to teeter just on the edge of brilliance, but its lackluster scripting holds it back. Overall I’d say the film is definitely worth seeing, but it might be worth waiting to see it at the dollar theatre in its second run.
However, the difference in this film (and its near-saving grace) is the highly likeable cast. While many of the characters may fall into specific archetypes, (e.g. humorous ethnic neighbor, loveable libertine, slacker hero) the actors bring a certain depth and charm to the characters that still make them fun to watch. Further to the point, I feel that Simon Pegg is setting up to be the type of leading man who isn’t just a great comedian, but is also a great actor (see also: Steve Carell, Hugh Grant, and Will Ferrell when he’s not being an idiot about his career). Every bit of anguish and joy can be read on his face better than any bit of dialogue could convey and any scene with Pegg and the actor playing his young son are sure to make your heart grow three sizes that day. The film also does a good job (at least in the first half) of setting up nice, sweet moments that come to an abrupt halt with a bit of humor in order to keep them from getting too saccharine. The film seems to shine whenever it goes against the tropes that form the base of its plot and lets the characters breathe, but it unfortunately doesn’t do this as often as it should. Mostly the film doesn’t contain many rolling-on-the-floor-laughing (-copter) moments, but it does leave you smiling much of the time. The film seems to teeter just on the edge of brilliance, but its lackluster scripting holds it back. Overall I’d say the film is definitely worth seeing, but it might be worth waiting to see it at the dollar theatre in its second run.
Bat Nipples and Other Pointed Issues in Comic Book Cinema
Comic books seem like easy targets for movie treatments. You've already got the storyboards, setting, and costumes laid out for you; and, on top of that, you've also got a built-in fanbase. So perhaps it's not surprising that there are around twenty movies based on comics that are in various stages of production this year. As you read this article, someone somewhere in Hollywood is out there trying to make Ant-Man into a film (the amount of excitement that you would feel for this film is inversely proportional to how long you've waited in line for a Star Wars film).
So what is it that separates the “Sin City”s from the “Daredevil”s? The “Batman Begins”s from the “Catwoman”s? The "X2"s from the "X3"s?
Comic books, just as with any other medium adapted to film, are subject to the quality of their adapters. The problem with comic books, specifically superhero comics, is that because so many of them are inherently flashy and action-packed that many adaptations also focus on big action sequences and forget about things like plot and character development. For example there’s the Joel Shumacher helmed Batman Forever in 1995 introducing the creep-tastic notion of "bat-nipples", and the even more farcical Batman & Robin in 1997; a disaster of a film that was panned by both critics and internet bloggers living in their parents' basements alike. Just like many superhero comic adaptations, Batman & Robin was rife with cheesy dialogue and jokes that give a nod and a wink to their origins. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his role as Mr. Freeze has 24 different lines related to the fact that he has a freeze-ray (my favorite: "What killed the dinosaurs? The Ice Age!"). These terrible bits of dialogue are the worst kind of fan service. An even more egregious example of this is the internet meme-inspired “I’m the Juggernaut, bitch” awkwardly inserted into the dialogue of X-Men: The Last Stand.
However, there clearly is a way to be true to the comics, please fans, and achieve critical acclaim as movies like Batman Begins, Sin City, Superman Returns, and V for Vendetta exist. The difference here seems to be the care given to these stories by their filmmakers. All of these movies are well-shot, well-cast (Batman Begins gets a pass for trading Katie Holmes for Maggie Gyllenhaal), and well-scripted. These films show a trust for their source material, and in movies like Sin City, V for Vendetta, and 300 also go as far as to take many visual cues from their panels (most notably in the case of Sin City).
It really seems to come down to this dichotomy: Which statement are the filmmakers saying to themselves as the movie goes into production? "Man, this is going to be a great film!" or "Man, this is going to make lots of money!” Are the producers looking for which directors and actors are hot and hip, or are they looking for individuals that believe in these stories and can best bring them to life? In the case of big budget comic book films (and big budget films in general), casting often seems to come down to whoever is the biggest star they can get to play the part. This problem plagues films like Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and Spiderman. Does anyone believe that Nicholas Cage is a bad-ass biker on a mission from the devil?
Comic book movies are subject to the same problems as any other big blockbuster studio film. The added problem seems to be that comic books, superhero comics especially, are treated like kids stuff and aren’t given the same care as a film adapted from a novel from say, Oprah’s Book Club, which seems to be a real shame. There is a whole world of comic books (aka graphic novels if you’re feeling smarmy) that are just as much of a literary achievement as any other piece of writing. For example, Art Spiegelman’s Maus earned a special Pulitzer Prize for fiction, an award that usually excludes the comic medium. Further, 2002’s Road to Perdition was nominated for 6 Academy awards AND was based on a comic, so maybe there’s hope for comics yet.
So what is it that separates the “Sin City”s from the “Daredevil”s? The “Batman Begins”s from the “Catwoman”s? The "X2"s from the "X3"s?
Comic books, just as with any other medium adapted to film, are subject to the quality of their adapters. The problem with comic books, specifically superhero comics, is that because so many of them are inherently flashy and action-packed that many adaptations also focus on big action sequences and forget about things like plot and character development. For example there’s the Joel Shumacher helmed Batman Forever in 1995 introducing the creep-tastic notion of "bat-nipples", and the even more farcical Batman & Robin in 1997; a disaster of a film that was panned by both critics and internet bloggers living in their parents' basements alike. Just like many superhero comic adaptations, Batman & Robin was rife with cheesy dialogue and jokes that give a nod and a wink to their origins. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his role as Mr. Freeze has 24 different lines related to the fact that he has a freeze-ray (my favorite: "What killed the dinosaurs? The Ice Age!"). These terrible bits of dialogue are the worst kind of fan service. An even more egregious example of this is the internet meme-inspired “I’m the Juggernaut, bitch” awkwardly inserted into the dialogue of X-Men: The Last Stand.
However, there clearly is a way to be true to the comics, please fans, and achieve critical acclaim as movies like Batman Begins, Sin City, Superman Returns, and V for Vendetta exist. The difference here seems to be the care given to these stories by their filmmakers. All of these movies are well-shot, well-cast (Batman Begins gets a pass for trading Katie Holmes for Maggie Gyllenhaal), and well-scripted. These films show a trust for their source material, and in movies like Sin City, V for Vendetta, and 300 also go as far as to take many visual cues from their panels (most notably in the case of Sin City).
It really seems to come down to this dichotomy: Which statement are the filmmakers saying to themselves as the movie goes into production? "Man, this is going to be a great film!" or "Man, this is going to make lots of money!” Are the producers looking for which directors and actors are hot and hip, or are they looking for individuals that believe in these stories and can best bring them to life? In the case of big budget comic book films (and big budget films in general), casting often seems to come down to whoever is the biggest star they can get to play the part. This problem plagues films like Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and Spiderman. Does anyone believe that Nicholas Cage is a bad-ass biker on a mission from the devil?
Comic book movies are subject to the same problems as any other big blockbuster studio film. The added problem seems to be that comic books, superhero comics especially, are treated like kids stuff and aren’t given the same care as a film adapted from a novel from say, Oprah’s Book Club, which seems to be a real shame. There is a whole world of comic books (aka graphic novels if you’re feeling smarmy) that are just as much of a literary achievement as any other piece of writing. For example, Art Spiegelman’s Maus earned a special Pulitzer Prize for fiction, an award that usually excludes the comic medium. Further, 2002’s Road to Perdition was nominated for 6 Academy awards AND was based on a comic, so maybe there’s hope for comics yet.
Wilkommen
This blog's all about making fun of popular culture in whatever way catches my fancy at the moment. So you know, pretty much every other blog out there. The first few are re-postings of articles I wrote for my college paper. They were my first attempts at entertainment journalism and I was subject to the restraints of a page min/max so please do bear with me.
Friday, April 11, 2008
R.E.M. - Accelerate
In 2003 R.E.M. released In Time: the Best of R.E.M. 1988-2003. Then in 2006, another “best of” CD was released based their pre-major label work. So how strange it must be as a close to thirty-year-old band who has released two greatest hits albums to release a new CD. It’s like each album after has to challenge the title of best of. It directly challenges a band to show that the best is not behind them and that they are still relevant to today’s scene. Unfortunately for R.E.M., the very next year after releasing their major label “best of” CD found them releasing Around the Sun which was an album met with poor critical and commercial reception. So have one of the pioneers of alternative rock burned themselves once again?
The band’s fourteenth studio album sees an R.E.M. that is decidedly more engaged and fresh than the R.E.M. that released Around the Sun. The album opens with the fast paced “Living Well Is the Best Revenge” which sets the brisk tone of the rest of the CD. The title of the album alone seems to suggest its breezy tempo as Acceleration clocks in just under the thirty-five minute mark. Mostly the album prods along with songs that are empirically good, but seem to lack that extra something to make them stand out in my mind. The only track on the album that I’ve made sure to uncheck on my itunes playlist is the track that stands out for the wrong reasons. “I’m Gonna DJ” is a track that sounds absurd enough to almost hint at being ironic with its half-rapping vocals and “woohoo” harmonies.
The album does seem to grow on me with each listen. However, its quick pace could be the culprit for each track’s lack of instant stand-out status. With so many tracks coming in at under the 3 minute mark there isn’t much there to catch my ear before moving on to the next song. Which isn’t to say that short songs can’t be catchy, but more that short songs need that extra oomph to make their presence known.
Tracks that have started to almost stick out are the slick, pop single “Supernatural Superserious”, the darker title track “Accelerate”, the folk-influenced “Until the Day Is Done”, and the jangly, mellow “Mr. Richards”. For the most part though, if you asked me off the top of my head what each song’s chorus sounded like I probably couldn’t recall it. The only song that has really gotten stuck in my head lately has been the aforementioned oddball, “I’m Gonna DJ” which is not something that I’ve been all that happy with to say the least. With most of the tracks coming off as largely forgettable (with a last track that is regrettably unforgettable) I can’t say that I would’ve listened to this album more than once if I hadn’t taken this assignment. I think I’ll have to stick to my copy of In Time to get my R.E.M. fix. Accelerate is surely a step in the right direction coming off of the failure of their last album, but it certainly isn’t much of a leap forward.
The band’s fourteenth studio album sees an R.E.M. that is decidedly more engaged and fresh than the R.E.M. that released Around the Sun. The album opens with the fast paced “Living Well Is the Best Revenge” which sets the brisk tone of the rest of the CD. The title of the album alone seems to suggest its breezy tempo as Acceleration clocks in just under the thirty-five minute mark. Mostly the album prods along with songs that are empirically good, but seem to lack that extra something to make them stand out in my mind. The only track on the album that I’ve made sure to uncheck on my itunes playlist is the track that stands out for the wrong reasons. “I’m Gonna DJ” is a track that sounds absurd enough to almost hint at being ironic with its half-rapping vocals and “woohoo” harmonies.
The album does seem to grow on me with each listen. However, its quick pace could be the culprit for each track’s lack of instant stand-out status. With so many tracks coming in at under the 3 minute mark there isn’t much there to catch my ear before moving on to the next song. Which isn’t to say that short songs can’t be catchy, but more that short songs need that extra oomph to make their presence known.
Tracks that have started to almost stick out are the slick, pop single “Supernatural Superserious”, the darker title track “Accelerate”, the folk-influenced “Until the Day Is Done”, and the jangly, mellow “Mr. Richards”. For the most part though, if you asked me off the top of my head what each song’s chorus sounded like I probably couldn’t recall it. The only song that has really gotten stuck in my head lately has been the aforementioned oddball, “I’m Gonna DJ” which is not something that I’ve been all that happy with to say the least. With most of the tracks coming off as largely forgettable (with a last track that is regrettably unforgettable) I can’t say that I would’ve listened to this album more than once if I hadn’t taken this assignment. I think I’ll have to stick to my copy of In Time to get my R.E.M. fix. Accelerate is surely a step in the right direction coming off of the failure of their last album, but it certainly isn’t much of a leap forward.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)