Okay, that's not actually the name of the movie. It's actually called The Raid. Here is the official description:
Deep in the heart of Jakarta’s slums lies an impenetrable safe house for
the world’s most dangerous killers and gangsters. Until now, the
run-down apartment block has been considered untouchable to even the
bravest of police. Cloaked under the cover of pre-dawn darkness and
silence, an elite swat team is tasked with raiding the safe house in
order to take down the notorious drug lord that runs it. But when a
chance encounter with a spotter blows their cover and news of their
assault reaches the drug lord, the building’s lights are cut and all the
exits blocked. Stranded on the sixth floor with no way out, the unit
must fight their way through the city’s worst to survive their mission.
Starring Indonesian martial arts sensation Iko Uwais.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
POETRY: Gods, Pt. II
More of my poems, these being from all different periods in my life...
Beauty
I dreamt of Beauty,
Shining bright,
She would fall and touch me,
And she would bring
Much-needed rest
And comfort when she loved me.
Evanescent
As a kiss,
Given in spite of itself,
Given because that's what they do in the movies.
As a touch remembered,
From a time when touch was still unsure
And charged with significance.
As our conviction --
About what, I don't know.
Untitled
After Langston Hughes
“What happens to a dream deferred?”
It does not die, not quickly at least,
It remains, sagging like rotten meat,
Reminding us of its existence
At every opportunity.
Its weight, its whispers --
Sometimes subtle, so subtle
That we could pretend we didn’t hear them,
That we didn’t feel a thing.
Sometimes not so subtle --
Our faces tense and twist and others see
The grinding at the center of our brains.
And we snap, and sneer, and do anything
But tell them of our dream deferred.
Some days we hate the dream for being born:
We retrace the steps from its conception,
We think terrible things about it.
It cries and screams for attention;
We wish it would mind its own business
Or else dry up and explode.
We couldn’t justify or explain why
Our dream was set aside.
Was it foolish? Inconvenient?
Not a one of us could say.
We don’t know why we gave it up,
We only know we’ll get to it someday
If they’ll just leave us be;
Do they think we enjoy the endless grinding
Of dream against reality?
Poetry
Your voice:
How do you speak to yourself?
How do you tell yourself who you are?
Poetry is your voice.
Speak soon, my friend:
The second song is always best.
My friend --
Speak soon.
Beauty
I dreamt of Beauty,
Shining bright,
She would fall and touch me,
And she would bring
Much-needed rest
And comfort when she loved me.
Evanescent
As a kiss,
Given in spite of itself,
Given because that's what they do in the movies.
As a touch remembered,
From a time when touch was still unsure
And charged with significance.
As our conviction --
About what, I don't know.
Untitled
After Langston Hughes
“What happens to a dream deferred?”
It does not die, not quickly at least,
It remains, sagging like rotten meat,
Reminding us of its existence
At every opportunity.
Its weight, its whispers --
Sometimes subtle, so subtle
That we could pretend we didn’t hear them,
That we didn’t feel a thing.
Sometimes not so subtle --
Our faces tense and twist and others see
The grinding at the center of our brains.
And we snap, and sneer, and do anything
But tell them of our dream deferred.
Some days we hate the dream for being born:
We retrace the steps from its conception,
We think terrible things about it.
It cries and screams for attention;
We wish it would mind its own business
Or else dry up and explode.
We couldn’t justify or explain why
Our dream was set aside.
Was it foolish? Inconvenient?
Not a one of us could say.
We don’t know why we gave it up,
We only know we’ll get to it someday
If they’ll just leave us be;
Do they think we enjoy the endless grinding
Of dream against reality?
Poetry
Your voice:
How do you speak to yourself?
How do you tell yourself who you are?
Poetry is your voice.
Speak soon, my friend:
The second song is always best.
My friend --
Speak soon.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
MOVIE REVIEW: Never Let Me Go
Never Let Me Go is based on the 2005 novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. It tells the story of three young people -- Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy -- who grow up together at a boarding school called Hailsham House in the English countryside. They have no families, nor do they have any exposure to the outside world. They are clones, bred for a single purpose: to provide organs to extend the lives of the natural-born population. As a result, they themselves live haplessly short lives, few of them living past their mid-twenties.
While it has a decidedly sci-fi slant to its premise, Never Let Me Go functions as a character study as much as a dystopian cautionary tale. As adults, Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy are beautifully embodied by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield respectively. Each character is unique in the way in which they deal with their lot in life. And it is a great credit to the actors that each one is relatable.
Kathy, our protagonist, reminds us of ourselves in many ways: she makes the best of her life, even as she can't always make sense of it. We follow her through all stages of her life as she tries to learn herself and unfurl the mysteries of those around her, Ruth and Tommy in particular. Her problems, while they are undeniably fantastic compared to our own, and magnified due to the abbreviated nature of her life, resonate with us because we have felt all of the same feelings.
Ruth makes for a very interesting foil to Kathy. They have many of the same questions, and many of the same hopes and dreams, but they carry out their lives in very different ways. Ruth gives into that urge which we all have that pushes us to forsake others and only look after our own happiness. Much like the society in the story, which cares not for the organ "donors," Ruth decides early on that she must wrap herself in herself if she is to achieve happiness and avoid suffering, which in her case is the suffering that comes with being alone. That all-too-familiar fear of being alone is something that we all live with and must resist, as it tempts us to be ungrateful for the many good things in our lives and leads us down a path to disaster, as the film shows.
In my opinion, Keira Knightley gives the strongest performance in the film. Ruth is a far cry from her usual roles: we are used to rooting for Ms. Knightley, but Ruth is a far more polarizing character. Ms. Knightley brings to Ruth a convincing air of superiority that helps us understand why Kathy is envious of her, and she is equally effective in the scenes where Ruth's facade is dropped. In these moments, Ruth's desperation is truly unnerving. Additionally, Ruth's third "donation" is one of the most haunting scenes of the entire film. The way the doctors handle her and the other donors like livestock makes for some disturbing imagery, and makes us consider how cold we can be if permitted.
Tommy is an awkward but relentlessly cheerful young man who prides himself on being a good donor. But it is through his story that we most clearly perceive the movie's message about the importance of living life to the fullest. The movie deals openly with our ability to ignore injustice, and Tommy's character arc deals with the other side of that coin: our propensity to create hopes and believe hearsay if it will distract us from the meanness of our fate. However, when we distract ourselves from reality we blunt our ability to live the type of life that will truly make us happy. As he sees the end of his life rapidly approaching, Tommy is filled with emotion and screams out in agony. He finally unleashes his rage about his fate, and we can venture a guess that he is also railing against his own role in limiting the amount and quality of his time with those whom he loves.
The message of the movie is neatly embodied in its title. The film implores its audience to hold on to the things and the people they love in the limited time they have. The message is passed on through the performances, and subtly helped along by a sharp score from Academy Award winner Rachel Portman. Additionally, some of the cinematography (especially later in the film) is breathtaking, a fact which -- given that director Mark Romanek cut his teeth in the world of music videos -- is unsurprising but no less pleasant as a result.
All of our lives are precious, and all of our lives must end. To deny the beauty of another's life imperils one's own -- not in the literal sense, but in the more important sense that it removes from our lives so much richness and introduces indelible impurities that render them less worthy of being lived. We all have cowardly urges to try and enhance our lives at the expense of others. But to do so misses the point of life completely, and such attempts are ultimately doomed to fail. As Hailsham's headmistress tells Kathy and Tommy, "There are no deferrals. There never have been." Never Let Me Go is a film that poses the deepest of questions: How are we to spend the limited amount of time that is given to us? It is a film that attempts to show the preciousness, beauty, and ultimately the fragility of this human experience that we all share. And it succeeds. This is what makes it an exceptional film.
I give it a 9 out of 10.
Friday, November 25, 2011
MOVIE REVIEW: Hamlet (1990)
I have been enmeshed in Shakespeare's Hamlet for the better part of a month now, as my teacher and I are working through a unit on the play in our 12th grade English class. This makes about four times I have read the play, and one time I've seen it performed (that one time being when I watched a filmed stage production starring Kevin Kline). When one watches or reads a play that many times, faults that weren't initially apparent inevitably reveal themselves. All one can hope for is that in those multiple experiences with the play, the beauty of the its triumphs will grow exponentially and thereby overshadow its shortcomings. Hamlet is a play that accomplishes this, and so I don't hesitate to call it a magnificent work.
However, my experience with Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 film was much more limited until recently. I had seen clips of it, and I knew that it starred Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, and Helena Bonham Carter. But it wasn't until my teacher told me she was going to show it to our class that I decided to sit down and watch the entire film. In brief, I was disappointed.
The main source of my disappointment is the casting of Mel Gibson as Hamlet. I feel Mel Gibson is a world-class actor. He is very competent in both comedy and drama: an achievement not many actors can claim. But in my humble opinion he is not the right actor to play Hamlet. His masculinity and Australian gruffness do not work in his favor. Those qualities make it very hard for me to accept him as a pensive, introspective royal with a tragic tendency to delay action. And while I think it's wonderful for actors to try new types of roles, the reality is if they do so, they must really disappear into the role. Mel Gibson does not disappear into Hamlet. In fact, it is one of his lesser performances. Until I saw him in this role, I didn't notice his trademark "heavy breathing occasionally interrupted by exasperated dry swallows" acting technique (but by the end of the movie, it was all I could think about every time he was on screen). Aside from a slight British accent, this is Mel Gibson, doing the movie star thing and playing himself.
Truthfully, he is very good in some scenes, most notably the climatic scene with Gertrude (set in her bedroom). But on the whole, I prefer a somewhat more effeminate actor for my Hamlet. And I prefer a more masculine actor for my Laertes. Nathaniel Parker plays the part in this version of the story, and he comes across as pretty unintimidating. One of the main purposes of the character of Laertes is to serve as a foil for Hamlet, and to demonstrate through his decisive action how pathetic Hamlet really is. When you take a pasty Brit with long hair and a high voice and you put him up against a bearded Mel Gibson, that dynamic is pretty much destroyed.
I was also annoyed by the way some of Hamlet's lines were moved around. Most notably, the "Get thee to a nunnery" lines have been divided into two distinct parts. In the film, Hamlet says part of it to Ophelia when they meet in the castle, and the remainder later on after the play. I can't really see why Zeffirelli does this; it serves only to irritate those who know the play well enough to detect the change. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy was also moved so that Hamlet gives it after the aforementioned meeting with Ophelia, as opposed to before. This change bothered me less than the others because I saw a certain logic to it: in the play the soliloquy comes before he realizes Ophelia has agreed to spy on him, whereas in the film it comes after. Having Hamlet contemplate suicide after he has been betrayed by everyone, including Ophelia, makes a certain amount of sense.
One thing Zeffirelli gets absolutely right is the casting of the supporting roles. It should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen any of her other performances that Helena Bonham Carter is great as Ophelia, particularly in the scenes after she has gone mad. Her performance in those scenes evokes a perfect mixture of creepiness and pity. Glenn Close is also very good in the part of Gertrude. I was especially delighted with the moment when she realizes she's been poisoned. You can see her face change as she goes through a series of shocking realizations: that she's been poisoned, that she wasn't poisoned by just anybody but by her husband, that he was also trying to poison her son, and that he was the one who had poisoned her first husband. It sound silly in writing, but it looks great on film. Alan Bates turns in a very capable performance as Claudius, particularly in the later scenes where Claudius and Laertes plot against Hamlet. He is super slimy and just evil -- the serpentine side of his character is on full display. I also have to single out Paul Scofield, who plays the ghost of King Hamlet, for special praise. He brings so many things to his few scenes: a palpable suffering, a deeply-felt sense of longing, a quiet rage, and a truly otherworldly aura. And thorough it all, he manages to be both frightening and sympathetic.
Additionally, the sets and the costumes are extraordinarily beautiful. The movie just looks fantastic, and for a fan of the play it's a thrill to see the story brought to life like this. I honestly could not tell if they were on set or on location sometimes (Scotland and England stand in for Denmark, and I hope for the sake of the Danish people that their countryside is half as breathtaking).
But on the whole, the movie suffers from the abridgement and reduced running time. Characters don't have enough time to develop, and key subplots are dropped. When one reads the play, Hamlet's inaction is positively agonizing. But when the play is reduced by half its length, it doesn't have quite the same effect. His inaction is less pronounced, and his rashness is more apparent. His killing of Polonius and his appearance at Ophelia's funeral are much more upsetting here than the reading of the play because we don't know Hamlet's mind half as well. Some might welcome the chance to judge Hamlet purely by his actions, but I've always felt that the great strength of the play was the way in which the audience was able to explore the mind of the protagonist -- a mind more fully developed than those of most real persons we meet -- and then struggle with the task of passing judgment on him.
I would still recommend this movie to fans of the play, if only because of the costume and set design (both Oscar-nominated). But it is not a great adaptation of the play. I give it a 7 out of 10.
However, my experience with Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 film was much more limited until recently. I had seen clips of it, and I knew that it starred Mel Gibson, Glenn Close, and Helena Bonham Carter. But it wasn't until my teacher told me she was going to show it to our class that I decided to sit down and watch the entire film. In brief, I was disappointed.
 |
| Mel Gibson as the title character in Franco Zeffirelli's Hamlet |
The main source of my disappointment is the casting of Mel Gibson as Hamlet. I feel Mel Gibson is a world-class actor. He is very competent in both comedy and drama: an achievement not many actors can claim. But in my humble opinion he is not the right actor to play Hamlet. His masculinity and Australian gruffness do not work in his favor. Those qualities make it very hard for me to accept him as a pensive, introspective royal with a tragic tendency to delay action. And while I think it's wonderful for actors to try new types of roles, the reality is if they do so, they must really disappear into the role. Mel Gibson does not disappear into Hamlet. In fact, it is one of his lesser performances. Until I saw him in this role, I didn't notice his trademark "heavy breathing occasionally interrupted by exasperated dry swallows" acting technique (but by the end of the movie, it was all I could think about every time he was on screen). Aside from a slight British accent, this is Mel Gibson, doing the movie star thing and playing himself.
Truthfully, he is very good in some scenes, most notably the climatic scene with Gertrude (set in her bedroom). But on the whole, I prefer a somewhat more effeminate actor for my Hamlet. And I prefer a more masculine actor for my Laertes. Nathaniel Parker plays the part in this version of the story, and he comes across as pretty unintimidating. One of the main purposes of the character of Laertes is to serve as a foil for Hamlet, and to demonstrate through his decisive action how pathetic Hamlet really is. When you take a pasty Brit with long hair and a high voice and you put him up against a bearded Mel Gibson, that dynamic is pretty much destroyed.
I was also annoyed by the way some of Hamlet's lines were moved around. Most notably, the "Get thee to a nunnery" lines have been divided into two distinct parts. In the film, Hamlet says part of it to Ophelia when they meet in the castle, and the remainder later on after the play. I can't really see why Zeffirelli does this; it serves only to irritate those who know the play well enough to detect the change. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy was also moved so that Hamlet gives it after the aforementioned meeting with Ophelia, as opposed to before. This change bothered me less than the others because I saw a certain logic to it: in the play the soliloquy comes before he realizes Ophelia has agreed to spy on him, whereas in the film it comes after. Having Hamlet contemplate suicide after he has been betrayed by everyone, including Ophelia, makes a certain amount of sense.
One thing Zeffirelli gets absolutely right is the casting of the supporting roles. It should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen any of her other performances that Helena Bonham Carter is great as Ophelia, particularly in the scenes after she has gone mad. Her performance in those scenes evokes a perfect mixture of creepiness and pity. Glenn Close is also very good in the part of Gertrude. I was especially delighted with the moment when she realizes she's been poisoned. You can see her face change as she goes through a series of shocking realizations: that she's been poisoned, that she wasn't poisoned by just anybody but by her husband, that he was also trying to poison her son, and that he was the one who had poisoned her first husband. It sound silly in writing, but it looks great on film. Alan Bates turns in a very capable performance as Claudius, particularly in the later scenes where Claudius and Laertes plot against Hamlet. He is super slimy and just evil -- the serpentine side of his character is on full display. I also have to single out Paul Scofield, who plays the ghost of King Hamlet, for special praise. He brings so many things to his few scenes: a palpable suffering, a deeply-felt sense of longing, a quiet rage, and a truly otherworldly aura. And thorough it all, he manages to be both frightening and sympathetic.
 |
| Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia |
Additionally, the sets and the costumes are extraordinarily beautiful. The movie just looks fantastic, and for a fan of the play it's a thrill to see the story brought to life like this. I honestly could not tell if they were on set or on location sometimes (Scotland and England stand in for Denmark, and I hope for the sake of the Danish people that their countryside is half as breathtaking).
But on the whole, the movie suffers from the abridgement and reduced running time. Characters don't have enough time to develop, and key subplots are dropped. When one reads the play, Hamlet's inaction is positively agonizing. But when the play is reduced by half its length, it doesn't have quite the same effect. His inaction is less pronounced, and his rashness is more apparent. His killing of Polonius and his appearance at Ophelia's funeral are much more upsetting here than the reading of the play because we don't know Hamlet's mind half as well. Some might welcome the chance to judge Hamlet purely by his actions, but I've always felt that the great strength of the play was the way in which the audience was able to explore the mind of the protagonist -- a mind more fully developed than those of most real persons we meet -- and then struggle with the task of passing judgment on him.
I would still recommend this movie to fans of the play, if only because of the costume and set design (both Oscar-nominated). But it is not a great adaptation of the play. I give it a 7 out of 10.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
POETRY: Sonnet Showcase
The sonnet is one of the most popular forms of poetry, historically speaking. While it has fallen out of favor to a certain extent among contemporary poets, we still read the sonnets of the Italian and English Renaissances in schools and for pleasure. Oftentimes sonnets are grouped together in sequences, which may present the journey of a certain character or group of characters, or expound upon a given theme. The most famous sonnet sequence is Shakespeare's, which was published in 1609. However the popularity of the form means that we have sonnets from a very wide range of English poets, a few of which I have reproduced below.
There are two different types of sonnets represented here, but they all have a few things in common. First, sonnets are pretty much always written in iambic pentameter (five "feet," or pairs of syllables that take the form unstressed-stressed), and they almost always have fourteen lines.
But that's all pretty boring. The most interesting feature of the sonnet in my opinion is what is known as the turn. In sonnets that feature a turn, the opening lines introduce the topic or situation, and the speaker elaborates on it for several lines. However, about two-thirds of the way through (usually at line 9), there is a "turn," and the speaker breaks from the previous line of thought and introduces new ideas and/or a new point of view on the subject of the poem. At this point, a good sonneteer can often provide great insight into the topic at hand, and leave you with that feeling of wonder that good poetry instills in us.
So please enjoy these poems; three of my favorite sonnets.
"Bright Star" by John Keats (Shakespearian)*
Bright star, would I were steadfast as thou art --
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like Nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,*
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution* round Earth's human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors --
No -- yet still steadfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel forever its soft swell and fall,
Awake forever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still, to hear her tender-taken breath
And so live ever -- or else swoon to death.
* The Shakespearian sonnet uses the rhyme scheme abab cdcd efef gg.
* Eremite - a hermit
* ablution - ritualistic washing
"Since there's no help..." by Michael Drayton (from Idea; Shakespearian)
Since there's no help, come let us kiss and part;
Nay I have done, you get no more of me,
And I am glad, yea glad with all my heart
That thus so cleanly I myself can free;
Shake hands forever, cancel all our vows,
And when we meet at any time again,
Be it not seen in either of our brows
That we one jot of former love retain.
Now, at the last gasp of love's latest breath,
When, his pulse failing, Passion speechless lies,
When Faith is kneeling at his bed of death,
And Innocence is closing up his eyes,
Now, if thou wouldst, when all have given him over,
From death to life thou mightst him yet recover.
"Death be not proud..." by John Donne (from Holy Sonnets; pseudo-Petrarchan)*
Death be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so,
For those whom thou thinkst thou dost overthrow
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure, then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy* or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than they stroke, why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more. Death, thou shalt die.
* Donne did not always confine himself to a strict form; I am calling this "pseudo-Petrarchan" because he uses the rhyme scheme abba for the first octave, which is consistent with the Petrarchan form. I have never heard another name for it.
* poppy - opium
There are two different types of sonnets represented here, but they all have a few things in common. First, sonnets are pretty much always written in iambic pentameter (five "feet," or pairs of syllables that take the form unstressed-stressed), and they almost always have fourteen lines.
But that's all pretty boring. The most interesting feature of the sonnet in my opinion is what is known as the turn. In sonnets that feature a turn, the opening lines introduce the topic or situation, and the speaker elaborates on it for several lines. However, about two-thirds of the way through (usually at line 9), there is a "turn," and the speaker breaks from the previous line of thought and introduces new ideas and/or a new point of view on the subject of the poem. At this point, a good sonneteer can often provide great insight into the topic at hand, and leave you with that feeling of wonder that good poetry instills in us.
So please enjoy these poems; three of my favorite sonnets.
"Bright Star" by John Keats (Shakespearian)*
Bright star, would I were steadfast as thou art --
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like Nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,*
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution* round Earth's human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors --
No -- yet still steadfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel forever its soft swell and fall,
Awake forever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still, to hear her tender-taken breath
And so live ever -- or else swoon to death.
* The Shakespearian sonnet uses the rhyme scheme abab cdcd efef gg.
* Eremite - a hermit
* ablution - ritualistic washing
"Since there's no help..." by Michael Drayton (from Idea; Shakespearian)
Since there's no help, come let us kiss and part;
Nay I have done, you get no more of me,
And I am glad, yea glad with all my heart
That thus so cleanly I myself can free;
Shake hands forever, cancel all our vows,
And when we meet at any time again,
Be it not seen in either of our brows
That we one jot of former love retain.
Now, at the last gasp of love's latest breath,
When, his pulse failing, Passion speechless lies,
When Faith is kneeling at his bed of death,
And Innocence is closing up his eyes,
Now, if thou wouldst, when all have given him over,
From death to life thou mightst him yet recover.
"Death be not proud..." by John Donne (from Holy Sonnets; pseudo-Petrarchan)*
Death be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so,
For those whom thou thinkst thou dost overthrow
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure, then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy* or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than they stroke, why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more. Death, thou shalt die.
* Donne did not always confine himself to a strict form; I am calling this "pseudo-Petrarchan" because he uses the rhyme scheme abba for the first octave, which is consistent with the Petrarchan form. I have never heard another name for it.
* poppy - opium
Saturday, October 29, 2011
MUSIC REVIEW: Neighborhoods (Deluxe Edition) by Blink-182
You'd be hard-pressed to find someone in their 20s who hasn't heard of Blink-182. They had a string of hits in the 2000s that made them one of the most successful bands of the decade, right up until the announcement of their "indefinite hiatus." That is the point at which, for most people, they fell off the face of the Earth. However there remained a large contingent of fans who kept their fingers crossed hoping for the return of Blink and a new album. And there was a new generation of Blink fans reaching adolescence who had torn through Blink's back catalog and were ready for new material. So in early 2009 when the members of the band announced they were getting back together, there were a lot of excited fans, but even more questions. Could they recapture the popularity they had before their break-up? Could they create something that would satisfy new fans as well as old? What would the new album sound like? Now we have the album -- a brisk 36-minute disc called Neighborhoods -- and we have our answers. For all those distinct groups of fans who have been waiting eagerly and those former fans who may not even be aware of the album's existence, the answer is the same: Neighborhoods is a mediocre album. It is unlikely to win over many new Blink fans, and only a little more likely to satisfy their preexisting fanbase.
The album begins on a promising note with "Ghost On the Dance Floor" -- an uptempo track that leads off with a very short drum intro before we get to the guitars, which are classic Blink: cheerful but strangely wistful, transporting you back to your adolescence in suburban California (even though you didn't grow up there). New elements like synthesizers and a genuinely unexpected drum interlude let you know that you're listening to a Blink song in 2011, and not 1999.
After "Ghost On the Dance Floor," we get "Natives," a track which tries too hard and ends up feeling overly angst-y, before the album gets to "Up All Night" (the first single). As one listens to the chorus, it seems as if Blink are trying to touch on some more mature themes, such as the difficulties of maintaining a long-term relationship and the weight of the responsibilities of adulthood. And while there is a good song somewhere inside of "Up All Night," it is buried beneath verses of incomprehensible gibberish. (Sample line: "Everyone's cross to bears the crown they wear on endless holiday.")
Then we get one of the best two tracks on the album (the other being "Ghost On the Dance Floor"). "After Midnight" seems to be made from the same blueprint as the Blink hits of yore: a toe-tapping drum beat beneath singsong-y guitars, and lyrics that offer a promise of long-lasting love, even as they describe all the hallmarks of adolescent infatuation. It plays like a slightly more chilled-out "All the Small Things," and the band was very smart to make it their second single.
Next up is "Snake Charmer," a song whose rock-out guitars and sinister lyrics recall Tom Delonge's side project Box Car Racer. If it weren't for the depressingly Korn-ish outro, it would be a song worth recommending. (Mark Hoppus fans should check out "Fighting the Gravity," which sounds like a +44 track that was rightly left off their album.) After that is "Heart's All Gone," another uptempo song that doesn't fuck up too badly, nor does it impress in any way. Even as they wail away on their instruments and Mark Hoppus sings his heart out, Blink couldn't get much more than a "meh" out of me with this one.
"Wishing Well" is a sonically cheerful song that represents a welcome break from all the forced moroseness of the first half of the album, although it does have its fair share of emo gibberish ("I went to a wishing well / It sank to the ocean floor / Cut up by sharpened rocks / And washed up along the shore"). My advice is just to soak up the music and ignore the songwriting, especially since "Wishing Well" is the last enjoyable song on the album.
From here, the album changes gears and descends into paralyzing mediocrity. Tracks like "This Is Home" and "MH 4.18.2011" (which I'm guessing refers to the April 2011 issue of Men's Health magazine) are completely forgettable and will probably leave you wondering if Blink even knew what they were trying to accomplish when they made them. At some points in its second half, the album veers dangerously close to self-parody: "Love Is Dangerous" is literally just Tom DeLonge singing "Love is dangerous, love is so dangerous" over and over ad nauseam.
So what's the final verdict? Well, as one of those Blink fans who was devastated when the band originally broke up, this was an album I had wanted to hear for a long time. But by the time it came out, my excitement had somewhat lessened. And it lessened still more when I actually listened to the album. I guess in some ways I had moved on. And while Blink has learned a few new tricks since their last disc, ultimately Neighborhoods is dragged down by their teenage tendency to try to rip their hearts out of their chests on every song. It has the schizophrenia of a transitional album, which is fine if they can actually complete the transition on the next album. But the new Blink seems proud of their contradictory sound: the title Neighborhoods is meant to represent how each member of the band is a different neighborhood, though they all exist in the same city. Hopefully they can move into the same zip code on for their next album, and not just be happy with having a nice metaphor to explain their shortcomings.
Score: 2.5 out of 5
Saturday, October 8, 2011
HOCKEY: NHL Predictions 2011-2012
The 2011-2012 NHL Season is upon us, and here are my predictions for the final standings. For teams that did not make the playoffs last year, I have included a short explanation of why I think they will make the cut this year. Likewise, for teams that were in the playoffs last year but that I have predicted will miss the cut this year, I have included an explanation of why I think that will be.
Eastern Conference
1. Capitals
2. Penguins
3. Sabres
4. Bruins
5. Rangers
6. Flyers
7. Lightning
8. Maple Leafs: They have a strong defense and I think James Reimer will be the answer in net. They went out and got some offense in the form of Matthew Lombardi, Tim Connolly, and John-Michael Liles. I expect Grabovski and Kulemin will repeat last year's success (both were right up against the 60-point mark).
9. Canadiens: The East is on the rise and somebody's going to be left behind. Admittedly the 7-10 spots in the East are very difficult to predict -- this pick is more of a reflection of my belief in the eight teams above than a disparagement of the Habs.
10. Islanders
11. Hurricanes
12. Devils
13. Jets
14. Panthers
15. Senators
Western Conference
1. Blackhawks
2. Kings
3. Canucks
4. Sharks
5. Red Wings
6. Ducks
7. Predators
8. Blue Jackets: They have shown flashes of brilliance the past two years, and I am betting that this is the year they will develop some consistency. Scott Arniel is finally going to be able to play the type of uptempo, offensive hockey he wants to. I think the new additions will excel, and I think Steve Mason will return to the form of his rookie year.
9. Blues
10. Flames
11. Avalanche
12. Wild
13. Oilers
14. Coyotes: They lost Bryzgalov, and their division includes two of the most improved teams in San Jose and Los Angeles. You know things are bad when they are expecting a breakout year from Kyle Turris.
15. Stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)