The Two Modes of Depeche Mode

     Hello, night owls! Taking a quick break from movies, I thought I'd share with you my thoughts on one of the most unique bands from the 80's that has endured into the modern day. With their dark synth pop and a front man with a voice that can make you melt, it's no surprise they garnered the success that they did and that they've still managed to stick around today. The band I'm talking about is Depeche Mode.

     Now, I'm not the biggest fan in the sense that I know lots about them, so I'm not going to talk about their history or their changing line-up (I'm a bigger fan of what their former member Vince Clarke did with the happier sounding Erasure - but that's for another review). I'm also not the biggest fan of theirs in the sense that I've listened to absolutely everything they've ever made, so I won't discuss the evolution of their sound, either. To be perfectly frank, I only like one entire album and a few singles of theirs, so you might think I'm in no position to talk about them at all...which is a fair statement.

     So why am I still here? It's because the aspect of their music I really want to talk about is the lyrical content. That I do know a little more about.

     You see, I was interested not only by their darker, more industrial sounds, but their musical messages sounded different. Dave Gahan's clear yet somber voice in hits like "People Are People" and "Personal Jesus" sang of more things than just love...or at least, the things he sang about sounded more important in a (characteristic) minor key. When I heard the Black Celebration album, I got a much better idea of what their themes were and by the time I was listening to Violator, I'd grown accustomed to their certain lyrical shticks.

     As far as lyrics goes, Depeche Mode has two modes, it seems. Their tone is either thoughtful or sexy.

     I find this incredibly peculiar and I'm not sure why... 

     If you haven't heard or you're not very familiar with their music, I'll show you what I mean. Since Violator is the album I'm most familiar with, we'll look at two singles from that album: "Enjoy The Silence" and "World In My Eyes". I highly suggest you check out these songs if you've never heard Depeche Mode so you can get a better grasp of the material we're dealing with (also because they're both good songs). First, the thoughtful!

     While I haven't listened to all their music, I have browsed through the lyrics of several of their songs and one of their trademarks is their capacity to philosophize. Their are quite a few songs throughout the span of their work that deal with life, sin, emotional peace, the inner turmoils of love, and general brooding about the mysteries of life, all accompanied by cold synths and dark vocals. "Enjoy The Silence" definitely ranks up there as one of those songs, as well as being one of their biggest hits ever. It's a pretty song that deals with a man's musings about happiness. Not all-night-long happiness or happiness in the form of instant gratification: rather, he ponders the fragile state of long-term happiness. In this song, silence signifies happiness/peace within the singer and words represent a threat to that inner bliss. Some might pick up on an "actions speak louder than words" message as well, considering that the singer speaks of words as being "trivial", "meaningless", and "forgettable". 

     However, the silence doesn't just stand for peace within the singer, but the peace in his connections with others, as well. In the first verse, we're meant to understand that he's singing this to a person, probably a lover. Throughout the whole song, he tries explaining to her how words are just shallow nothings that can destroy or remove the meaning and feeling out of strong emotional connections/impacts, the way a relationship can fall apart over one wrong word or one small thing.

     This theme in particular is well shown in the music video inspired by Antoine de Saint-Exupery's story The Little Prince. Dave Gahan is dressed like royalty and throughout the music video, he's shown wandering around the world carrying a chair with him just so he can always sit and watch the sunset. A sunset in and of itself is a beautiful visual experience that needs no words to add to its glory, the way the singer's bliss needs no words to last or be more than it already is. 

     Huh...kind of funny to be writing that when I'm explaining a musical experience that doesn't need to be articulated to be enjoyed...anyway...

     Example of the thoughtful - check!

     Now for the sexy side...

     I really don't need to explain much with the song "World In My Eyes". You can tell by the very opening synths what kind of song this is. It's one of those songs you listen to late at night if you want to feel like the singer is seducing you. The lyrics suggest exactly that. The singer basically takes you down a dark, moody path on a dark, moody ride of dark, moody pleasure (in traditional dark, moody Depeche Mode style). And like the singer says, "that's all there is"! The music video, which cuts between frantic concert footage and Gahan in shades with a woman at a drive-in just further demonstrates this.

     Of course, they do have normal love songs, but the prevalence of songs like "World In My Eyes" is very strong throughout their work (especially after Vince Clarke left in the early 80's). It's impossible to ignore, because there's always at least one (if not more) of these kinds of songs in their albums (""Lie To Me", "Master And Servant", "Here Is The House", "Strangelove", "In Your Room", etc.). Now, I'm not saying there's a problem with them creating songs like that - sexy songs have their place in the musical realm and Depeche Mode can compose whatever they want - but it just strikes me as very strange that you would juxtapose songs like "Enjoy The Silence" with songs like "World In My Eyes". Listening to an album of theirs almost feels like living with two very different roommates: one who's always reading classical literature and Foreign Affairs, wondering what his purpose in life is and one who's always trying to convince you to take a chance on him for the night. Interesting, to say the least.

     Although I have to say "World In My Eyes" has nothing on some of their other "sexy" songs, which range from typical to downright creepy. "Soothe My Soul" from Delta Machine makes "Every Breath You Take" sound like an innocent love song. And if you think that's nothing, I dare you to listen to "I Want You Now" from Music For The Masses. I never thought that a song could make me feel uncomfortable the way that one did!

     So, yeah...half their music makes you pick your brain and think while the other half practically makes you melt. *shrugs helplessly*

     As I implied above, I am at a loss for words when it comes to explaining these lyrical theme choices. I don't know enough about the songwriters to know what made them decide to tackle meaningful melodies and ear-worms of seduction. And if you want me to throw in random guesses, the only things I can come up with are personal experiences, musings, and fantasies. At some point or other, all of us have pondered the deeper meanings of things like love, life, right, wrong, and sense of self. Some of us try expressing those musings and some of us either choose to ignore them or tuck them away in the back of our minds for another time. As for the gentlemen behind Depeche Mode, I would assume they were simply using the wonderful medium that is music to express their thoughts on the murky and mysterious aspects of life...as well as dreams of the flesh.

     Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to cleanse my ears with some bright, cheesy 80's music.

                                                                                                               ~Maud,

                                                                                                        Official Night Owl

     

Disney vs Dreamworks

     If there's one film genre that has timeless appeal and is loved by all ages, it's animation. As the years have rolled by, animation companies have come and gone, but two have stood the test of time. And their rivalry has been one of the most interesting developments in the film industry. It's Disney and Dreamworks, everyone!

     We're not going to look at these two to determine which one is better, because no one is going to agree on the outcome of that argument. Instead, we're going to look at what makes each of them great and figure out their pros and cons from there.

     Funny thing I should point out first is that Dreamworks was started by an animator from Disney. Jeffrey Katzenberg - who worked on such hits as Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King - had a falling out with the executives at Disney and left, with the intent of creating a new studio. With Steven Spielberg and David Geffen, he created Dreamworks Studios and the rest is animation history.

     Ever since, Dreamworks has been Disney's biggest rival in the animation world. With Dreamworks, you can tell they're very competitive. Their first big animated feature Shrek is loaded with digs at fairy tale tropes that are obviously aimed at Disney with their lineage of fairy tale and princess movies. Heck, even some of their movies seem like knock-offs made out of spite (*ahem* Antz and Shark Tale!).

     Not to mention, Dreamworks has the eyebrow thing going on. 

     Seriously, look at the eyebrows in their movie posters! There's this snarky curve that gives all their characters a very smug, self-assured appearance in contrast to Disney's wide-eyed whimsical characters. Even I've got the Dreamworks eyebrow thing going on in the art above!

     That doesn't mean I care more for Dreamworks, though (more on that later).

     Now going along the line of breaking tropes and conventions, that's one thing that Dreamworks likes to do. They made it their shtick in the Shrek franchise and it's become part of their legacy. On some levels, it's pretty refreshing in a world where you can walk into a movie theatre and pretty much predict what's going to happen or what the characters will be like. Whether this is done by turning a princess in a tower into an ogre in disguise or by making the lemurs of Madagascar literal "party animals", you know you're going to get something different and entertaining. In fact, this very quality has made Disney do the same thing in an attempt to win over new and more analytical audiences (with Tangled and Frozen constantly pointing out fairy tale movie tropes and flaws). 

     But there is a problem with being the king of subversion: you have to keep it fresh every time. And for all they've done, Dreamworks does have a tendency to fall flat. I feel that this is due to their huge reliance on pop culture references and jokes. 

     One way of subverting a stereotypical story is by referencing things outside of the world of the story - like Deadpool. Except the problem with this is you have to use pop culture references carefully and cleverly, otherwise they become annoying and distracting real fast.Unfortunately, Dreamworks has used it to death in the past.When I watched Madagascar, the scene where Marty the zebra is walking through New York to the sound of the Bee Gees "Stayin' Alive" made me groan in annoyance. What did that add to the scene? How was it supposed to make the scene funny?

     Strike one for Dreamworks.

     Now let's take a look at Disney. 

     While Dreamworks might be the king of subversion, Disney is the undeniable master of the fairy tale/musical movie formula. No one else that I'm aware of does quite what they do. They bring fairy tales to life with beautiful visuals, charming characters, and catchy music. Whether through their classic traditional animated films or through their work in 3D animation with Pixar, they've managed to make hit after hit. Even when they don't do fairy tales, they manage to make heartwarming and entertaining films, like with Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., The Incredibles, and Inside Out. Through the decades, they've proved time and again that they're at the top in animated films.

     What could possibly be wrong with Disney? Well...

     Let's face it - Disney is a monster...a really big monster that keeps on growing. Monsters will do anything to stay big and sometimes, that means doing a lot of the same thing.

     It's like with the Dreamworks subversion problem, except this time, it's with pretty much everything that makes Disney Disney. The songs, the princesses, the emphasis on clean family entertainment, the new trend of empowering princesses...once they've done one thing that worked, they often come back to it again and again. Sure, their movies aren't exact repeats of previous works, but boy, don't they just love using "tried and true" methods. On one hand, it makes sense. At the end of the day, your film needs to make money in order for the whole production to be worth it. So if audiences loved seeing Rapunzel in Tangled be strong and empowered and Merida in Brave be independent, then by all means, do it again in Frozen (with two female leads this time!).

     The only problem is that you might get flack for this. People do grumble about how "another Disney princess" or "another Disney musical" is coming out in theatres. And just like with Dreamworks, Disney has the problem of keeping things fresh. They either have to top previous successes or reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Basically, it's not just a matter of Disney and Dreamworks trying to outdo each other, but it's also a matter of outdoing themselves to stay popular.

     Now you're probably wondering who does it better.

     Well, I'm not going to speak on behalf of the millions of fans of both studios, but personally speaking, I think Disney does a better job. Why? Well, after watching their classic movies on VHS as a youngster and growing up with their Pixar-related films, I've noticed that Disney feels like it has more love in its films. Because Dreamworks was created in a spark of retaliation, you don't really feel like the stories and characters (at least, in earlier works) were made out of love. They feel more like creations of spite. With Disney, you can tell the animators poured themselves into the movies because they loved them. They love these characters, stories, and worlds they're bringing to life and that love translates easily from the screen.

     Also from an animation point of view, Disney looks prettier, as well. When I watched Shrek as a kid, I found the animation style and design uninteresting and very ugly compared to Monsters Inc. (which coincidentally came out in the same year - 2001). In Monsters Inc., you had a wide variety of color in the monsters, different textures, and interesting environments. With Shrek, there's just a lot of bland green forest backdrops that seem to blend into each other. As for the character design and movement, Monsters Inc. is definitely more fleshed out. The characters look more three dimensional than the choppy-looking characters of Shrek. This same choppiness bothered me in Madagascar, too. Ever taken a good look at Alex the lion's mane? It looks more like a box someone shoved around his head.

     So, I probably know what you're thinking: I hate Dreamworks.

     Well, that's not true.

     Dreamworks interests me because they don't have the same reputation that Disney has holding them back from creating absolutely anything. Disney has become the poster child for family friendly entertainment, so they can't always be as daring with stories and characters as they could be. With Dreamworks, they have that option. They can be dark and gritty when they need to be. They also have the courage to break stereotypes in whatever way they want. Their animation style can also be beautiful every once in a while. In my opinion, Dreamworks at its best can be seen in Megamind and Rise of the Guardians (my favorite Dreamworks films). With both movies, each presents a story that the audience can easily connect with, and all the characters are very expressive and well designed. The animation quality in Rise of the Guardians is pure gold - every time I see the opening sequence of Jack Frost breaking through the ice, I get chills because it looks so real. This film also does a great job at creating a villain who not only looks good, but is also menacing and creepy - something I've never really experienced (yet) in a Disney film. Megamind plays around with the stereotypes of heroes and villains in a hilarious way while telling a story (popularly used by Disney) that you can be great no matter what your background is. To top it off, both films have amazing voice casts and soundtracks.

     If you haven't seen either of them, you should...as soon as possible!

     So while my childhood bias and older perspective do put me more in favor of Disney, I do keep my eyes open for Dreamworks, because they can create good movies. And now that NBCUniversal Comcast has bought the studio, perhaps Dreamworks will have more financial freedom to help them explore newer, bolder projects. 

     In any case, I'm interested to see what more will come from this rivalry!

                                                                                                              ~Maud,

                                                                                                      Official Night Owl

Announcement

     Hello, night owls!! Just thought I'd make a small announcement concerning some future posts.

     As some of you have gleaned from last night's post, I will be doing a post about Disney and Dreamworks tomorrow (Friday). Next week, however, I'm going to be preparing fan-art for two special reviews. We're going to look at a silent horror film and a Broadway musical (Wednesday and Friday, respectively). 

     Also, I'm interested in seeing what brings you guys here. While most of you are from the US, a lot of you guys are based in Europe (probably because most of my posts are between midnight and 2:00 AM here in the US). My question to everyone is what do you enjoy seeing on this blog? Is there something you want to see reviewed on here or are you simply enjoying the random selection of subjects?

     In the meantime, have a great day and watch out for Friday's Review!

                                                                                                            ~Maud,

                                                                                                    Official Night Owl

Zombies

     Has anyone noticed how popular zombies have become in just about everything? 

     It seems that within the past three decades, there's been a sudden zombie craze in movies, video games, and TV shows. Yes, we had George A. Romero's zombie movies that started in the late 60's, but I've always felt the prevalence of the character type throughout most of my life (which, having begun in the 90's, isn't much). I remember in the early 2000's being scared by zombie arcade games in bowling allies - those glowing eyes and the unsettling, swaying walk they had were burned into my poor little eyes and haunted me at night. And later, as an early teen, I was terrified of the swift,  relentless zombies in the Left 4 Dead game trailers.

     Now, of course, zombies don't scare me. But I am intrigued by their rise in popularity over the years, because for a monster, they don't have a lot to offer. They're just "brain dead" people who either want to kill you for your brains or kill you for no apparent reason. Most of the time, they're portrayed as slow and they really only seem to pose a threat when they're a crowd.

     So what makes them so popular?

     Well, perhaps it has something to do with the way we see society. In a world of booming technology and consumerism, you tend to see a lot of dead-eyed faces staring into computer screens. This appearance is very similar to the stereotypical image of a zombie's face - the lackluster eyes and the slack jaw coming dangerously close to resembling us. Plus, our constant desire for stuff resembles a zombie's mindless ramble for brains. Perhaps we see zombies as an image of what we could become or (to some) what we slowly are becoming, and portraying that nightmarish image in movies and games is an interesting way of reminding us who we shouldn't be. 

     This metaphor seems especially effective when you look at zombies as being the result of a virus. In the Left 4 Dead games and The Walking Dead series, a disease is the origin of the zombie outbreak. Recent technology has infiltrated our lives like a virus to the point where it's changed the very nature of society in a short amount of time. And while I'm not pointing this out to say technology is bad, I'm saying there is a resemblance with both scenarios. Even in a world where zombies exist, society is forever changed by the disease that started it all in the first place.

     But what about the zombies themselves? You can apply as much symbolism as you want, whether it has to do with society or ideas of life and death, but what about the actual characters makes them interesting? 

     Well....not much, really.

     The only instance where I've seen the zombie character reinvented somewhat is in the Left 4 Dead games by Valve. Not only are they fast, but there are also several special types of zombies who have different attack methods. The Hunter is a smarter, stealthier type that hides in the shadows and leaps onto you. The Witch is the type you want to avoid at all costs, because if you venture too close, there's virtually no escaping her, as she is relentless. The Smoker is one who hides just out of sight, but not too far that his long tongue can't reach you. And these are only three out of eight special zombie types in the two games.

     Here's a storyboard featuring a Smoker and the survivors from the Left 4 Dead 2 game. (Sorry about the image quality! You can find awesome L4D fan-art at artzdeeva.blogspot.com!)

     Definitely not a zombie to mess around with!

     Getting back to the original subject, though, I feel that with the zombie genre, the zombies themselves aren't what's so appealing to many people these days. I believe it's the normal characters who are thrown into zombie-infested worlds that draw people in.

     Going back to the whole society metaphor, some of us - I dare say, all of us at one point or other - have noticed the changes in our society produced from the technology boom. And when we look around and see all the faces staring into screens, it does stir up a desire for awareness and outreach, because the further away we are drawn from each other, the stranger we become to ourselves. 

     You can see this same desire within survivor characters in zombie movies/games/shows. They are brought together because they see what is happening and the urgency to stick together and search for higher ground is important for their overall survival. Even if these individuals look like they'd never associate with each other in real life, they choose to stay together because how - on a survival level and an emotional level - can you face a horde of zombies all by yourself?

     I don't know if anything I said answers the original question for you guys. Perhaps you have a different response as to why zombies are so popular these days. But that, at least, is my take on the matter.

                                                                                                             ~Maud,

                                                                                                    Official Night Owl

P.S. Love animated movies like Frozen and Shrek? Then you're going to love this Friday's post about animation's biggest rivalry!

     

     

     

Art Showcase

     Hello, night owls!! I had little time to figure out my next post over the weekend and today I kept drawing a blank as to what to share with you all. So unfortunately, I have no post of the usual kind prepared for tonight.

     However, since Mondays are part of my posting pattern, I decided instead to showcase some of my drawings. As you have seen in The Linguini Incident review and with the barn owl logo of this blog, drawing is one of my several skills. I'm not a full-out artist like my sister is (check out her incredible work at artzdeeva.blogspot.com!), but it's something I've done all my life and I tend more towards cartoonish, manga-ish, and semi-realistic styles. The first six are the most current ones I've done and give a better image of what my skill level is at now.

                            

                                                                            

                            

               

                             

               

     

     That's a pretty good idea of what I do. You'll definitely be seeing more drawings related to The Night Owl Review, since I'll keep creating fan art for my movie reviews. 

     Anyway, I hope your Monday went well and I will have something more definite for you on Wednesday!

                                                                                                            ~Maud,

                                                                                                      Official Night Owl

             

     

     

Movie Review: The Linguini Incident

Movie Review: The Linguini Incident

     Hello, night owls!! Tonight is the night we discuss one of the most obscure movies I've ever seen in my life featuring the one and only David Bowie called The Linguini Incident.

      If you've never heard of it, I don't blame you. Even I didn't know it existed until I was watching a video about David Bowie's movie performances, and when I read up on this flick, I read that it was released straight to VHS in 1992, a year after it was finished. Anything released straight to VHS can't be that good, even if it's got David Bowie, right?

     Well, the only way to find out is to dive in and take a look at it.

     If any of you by chance have seen this movie before, I should let you know the version I saw was the UK version. I'm aware that there's a US cut, but that version wasn't available to me. However according to some who have seen both versions, the UK has more footage, so I feel I got the better end of the deal...

     Not that more footage made this movie any better...

     Anyway - here's the basic plot!

     Our main character is Lucy (Rosanna Arquette), a woman working at a thriving New York restaurant sometimes referred to as the Dali (because of it's design). She dreams of being the next Houdini, but she can't succeed at escaping handcuffs and locked mail bags. At the restaurant, she meets the new bartender Monte (David Bowie), who has been going around asking the other waitresses to marry him so he can get his green card to stay in the country. Both are disgruntled by the restaurants seedy owners, Cecil and Dante (Buck Henry and Andre Gregory), and eventually - through several strange mishaps - they make a deal to rob the place together. They also have help from Lucy's friend Vivian (Ezter Balint) who's trying to design a self-defense bra.

     That's right.

     And that's just the basic plot...or rather, the plot of the first half of the movie.

     If at this point, any of you are actually interested in seeing the film and want to keep the rest of the movie a surprise for yourselves, I'll leave a spoiler alert for you, but before I continue with the plot, I should make a note about other aspects of this movie.

     The writing is one of the biggest if not the biggest downsides this movie has. While some scenes and dialogue work well and there's the occasional good one-liner, the writing isn't good. I hesitate to say terrible, because there are far worse written movies out there (*ahem*...The Room!), but let's not beat around the bush. It's a poorly written film. 

     The soundtrack is also a big fault of this movie. I don't know if the US cut has more music, but with the UK cut, it seemed like only 3 themes were used throughout the entire movie. That got old very fast, especially when they were reused in scenes that either could have stayed quiet or could have used a different theme. It makes me sad because I like what music can add to a film, and with this, it didn't do much.

     The acting is a mixed bag of nuts. Henry and Gregory as the restaurant owners play their roles with all the ham and cheese the actors could bring and man, it makes me cringe! I understand I'm not supposed to like these characters, but by golly, do these actors put too much into it. Arquette's performance as Lucy was good and fun to watch and Balint's performance as Vivian was good, too. Bowie, however, seems to steal every single scene he's in. With the character of Monte, you see him play into many different aspects and throughout the whole movie, he carries his role with a certain gravity and grace. He seems virtually unflappable and at ease, no matter what scene he's in and who he's acting with. There are one or two moments where the clumsy writing makes him seem a little out of place, but otherwise, he did a good job, all things considered. His chemistry with Arquette was convincing and interesting, which helped me keep watching the movie in spite of all the craziness that happened.

     Probably my last nitpick is the cinematography/editing. I'm going to warn everyone who wants to watch this movie that there are no transitions between scenes. I think I can only remember one fade in/fade out in the entire film. This made it confusing to watch the first time. One instant Lucy is in the alley talking with Monte and then it suddenly cuts to her in full 1920's garb practicing an escape. This cutting from scene to scene with nothing in between drove me nuts. Also, there are some scenes that could have been shot differently and more effectively. I felt really bad because the scenes that were written/acted well weren't always shot in the best way. A scene where Lucy is auditioning and Monte has to ad-lib while she struggles to break free is done in a single long-shot. While Monte's dialogue is funny and the situation is pretty funny, too, it felt awkward during my first viewing because I didn't get any other views of the predicament. It could have been hilarious if we maybe had a couple closer shots on Monte and Lucy interchanged with the distance of the long shot. Unfortunately, we only get half the funny scene we could get.

SPOILER ALERT!!!!

     You're still here? Good!

     When I first learned about this movie, it was pitched to me as a heist movie and from that basic plot I gave above, you might be thinking the same thing, too. You might be imagining sequences and montages of planning and scheming and perhaps a wild chase scene following the heist. Perhaps something like How To Steal A Million. At least, that's what I imagined it would be like.

     But this movie isn't a heist movie. Like I said above, the heist only takes up about half the film. 

     So let's see how exactly this movie plays out.

     As mentioned above, Lucy meets Monte, the new bartender at the restaurant after learning that he's already proposed to several other waitresses (way to be subtle). Our introduction to him is this: he hits on her in a heartbeat, he throws a shot glass on the floor, and when she walks away, he walks on top of the bar and over a bar stool in pursuit.

     This isn't the craziest thing he does - trust me.

     Anyway, we cut to her practicing an escape in her apartment later that night, but when it goes horribly wrong she finds herself trapped in her cuffs and noose. When Monte calls early in the morning to ask her out to breakfast, she asks him to come and help her out (one of the funniest moments of the movie). After getting him to unlock her ankle cuffs and remove the noose, she asks him to give the key to the hand cuffs, saying she can take care of herself. But he says that he'll only do so if she agrees to marry him. Obviously she refuses. So what does Monte do?

     He handcuffs the both of them to her bed.......real smooth.

     Nothing bad happens, though. Later in the morning, Lucy's friend Vivian comes by and frees Lucy. They both discuss Monte as they roast marshmallows over the gas burner for breakfast (such sad lives) and while Lucy claims he's a psychopath, they both debate who should go for him.

     Later in the day, Lucy and Vivian stop into a questionable lady's antique shop and find Mrs. Houdini's wedding ring. Lucy, believing it will provide her good luck as an escape artist, wants it but learns that it costs $5,000. 

     When she comes in to work and faces another tirade from the cheesy restaurant owners, Lucy finally decides to rob the place. But almost as soon as she decides that, she learns (via eavesdropping) that Monte wants to rob the place, too.

      Gee, I wonder how this will turn out.

     Anyway, Lucy learns that Vivian has to meet with a lingerie designer the same time she has an audition, so she asks Monte for help. Before the audition, they debate over who should rob the restaurant, but they don't come to a resolution. Yet.

     After failing the audition, they go out for drinks and talk about who should rob the place. They can't work together, because they both need all the money. So they arrange a deal: he'll help her with the robbery and she'll marry him afterwards.

     What could possibly go wrong?

     After a moment of romantic tension, they stop by at Vivian's in order to convince her to help them hold up the restaurant, since Lucy and Monte are too recognizable. At first, Vivian refuses, but when they tell her of recognition and a share of the money, she agrees. After going over the timing and the instructions of the robbery, Monte peels off a gun taped to his chest and gives it to Vivian.

     First of all, who would tape a gun to the chest?

     And second of all, that's just plain tacky.

     The night of the robbery comes and Monte and Lucy count down the time from opposite ends of the restaurant. At midnight, they throw down their trays (the cue for the robbery). But Vivian doesn't show up. Monte storms into the meat freezer where he proceeds to bash a raw chicken and then make out with Lucy.

     Bowie, how could you look at this script and think, "Yes, I'll do this" when you have to peel a taped gun off your chest and there's a scene where you character - in a fit of rage - bashes a chicken and makes out with a girl all within a minute?                                                                                                                                          

     Anyway, Vivian does show up, but the customers don't take her seriously. So after discussing the matter with Lucy, she finally shoots a blank or two and holds up the place.

     And this, my fellow night owls, is where Vivian becomes - and I'm not joking when I say this - the Lethal Cleavage Bandit.

     Yes, you heard that right.

     By the time the robbery comes around, she's developed her self-defense bra and she demonstrates it at the robbery. And it actually wows everyone enough that the robbery is as easy as pie and the next morning, the papers are flooded with articles about "lethal cleavage."

     I don't know what to make of that.

     After celebrating, Lucy goes to the antique shop the next day to buy the ring. Unfortunately, the questionable lady has already sold it, making the robbery pointless for Lucy. On top of that, she remembers at the last minute that she has to marry Monte, but when she arrives at the Register Office she doesn't have her ID. Monte leaves and Lucy commiserates with Vivian.

     Now here's where the second half of the movie kicks in.

     Monte is back at the restaurant, where we learn that his marrying for a green card sch-peel was a bet with Cecil and Dante. I had to pause the movie to double check what I was watching, because this little twist took me by surprise...and confused me a bit. They talk a little about how his family has been in debt to the two schmucks and how Monte's been trying to play at cards to win money against this bet, but it's done in a very quick and glossed over way. Point is, since Monte couldn't marry Lucy, he owes Cecil and Dante $2,ooo,ooo. Desperate, he makes a new bet, saying that Lucy can't escape out of a a closed mail bag in the restaurant's decorative tank. Interested, the owners agree to this, with the price being that if Monte loses, he'll have to have plastic surgery to look like one of the owners (eugh!).

     So Monte finds Lucy and Vivian and tells them that Cecil and Dante know about the robbery. He says that the only way he got them to not tell the police and send them all to twenty years of prison was by making the bet about Lucy's escape. Lucy agrees and they begin training, since the escape will have to happen the very next night.

     With a woman who's failed at escaping this entire movie, I wouldn't have much hope.

     Anyway, they have their long training session and after Vivian leaves, Lucy and Monte make love.

     Then crap hits the fan.

     Lucy learns the next day that Cecil and Dante really don't know about who did the robbery and discovers Monte's gambling problem. Understandably angry, she disappears.

     The restaurant is buzzing with anticipation as Cecil and Dante's friends gather to see the stunt (Bowie's wife Iman is among them!). When Lucy fails to turn up, however, Monte begins to get anxious and he tells Cecil and Dante to stall. So the two go up before everyone and begin to tell a story.

     Guess what it's called?

     The "linguini incident"!

     But you know what? We don't get the full story.

     The title of the movie has it's own little origin and we don't get to hear the full thing.

     What!?

     All we get is the end, where they talk about finding a "fossilized linguini noodle" next to an ancient mummy.

     That just sucks! But I digress.

     Lucy does show up, however, in 1920's glamour and announces to everyone that she's going to attempt to escape the tank. She's brought up to the catwalks and then -

     Just before she's put into the bag and lowered into the tank, Monte requests a kiss.

     Now you're probably thinking - what the heck is this for? And after her finding out the truth?

     Well, earlier in the movie, when Lucy and Monte are at the bar, she talks about how Houdini's wife would use clever tricks to slip Houdini keys and pick locks to help him out of his chains.

     When Monte comes to kiss her, she sees what appears to be Mrs. Houdini's wedding ring in his teeth.

     After taking his kiss (and the ring), she's dropped into the tank and the audience watches her struggle. It seems like such an impossible thing, and then - 

     Out of nowhere, a gunshot is heard and when everyone turns around, they see the Lethal Cleavage Bandit has returned. She holds everyone up and everyone all too willingly give her their money. This provides enough of a distraction that when everyone looks back at the tank, they see the sack sitting on the bottom, motionless.

     Monte tells Cecil and Dante that she'll drown no one saves her. However, they insist that if Monte saves her, he loses the bet.

     You want to know what happens?

     Monte cries out, "F**k the bet!" and dives right in after her. Oh, it's a good moment for such a strange/shady character.

     When he rises to the surface, however, he tells them all the sack is empty. Everyone looks around, wondering where Lucy is. 

     And then, from the catwalks, comes a dripping of water.

     Our little Miss Houdini is a pro!! And this success has provided her start into stardom.

     Afterwards, Monte approaches her and it seems that all wrongs have been righted on both sides. She shakes his hand and says that maybe they'll meet again in the future. But after a moment of hesitation, he asks her out for breakfast the next morning. And then he delivers my favorite line from the entire movie.

     He says, "I'm going to kiss you goodnight...and I don't want you to panic."

     Oh, that makes me laugh every time!

     To wrap things up, they kiss and Lucy and Vivian ride off into the night on their bicycles.

     And that's basically it.

     It's not a good film, that's for sure. It isn't one of those films like The Mask where it might not be the best, but a decent job was put into it, because there's so much wrong. But it's one of those bad movies that has elements of promise and that is consequently addictive to watch. I definitely include it in my list of "Bad Films I Like To Watch". This could have been an absolutely hilarious movie and it could have been great. It isn't, though, and that makes me sad. But that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable every now and then. I could definitely see this as a stage play - the sets, costumes, and character types would definitely fit in the theatre. And if you love Bowie, you'll want to see this, if for no other reason than to see him do crazy things and be his typical self. Or if you just want to hear him continuously propose. Whatever floats your boat.

     If you want to see something crazy yet oddly delightful, check this out!

                                                                                                     ~Maud,

                                                                                              Official Night Owl

P.S. I apologize if any of my drawings of David Bowie don't do him justice - I had so much trouble with his hair alone!!

      

     

     

Update!!

     Hello, night owls!! I have a little news as to what's ahead for The Night Owl Review that you might be interested in. I said in my last post that I'd be doing a review of a movie featuring David Bowie: well, it's coming up Saturday night! I just have to complete a couple more fan-art drawings for the post (don't want to infringe on image copyrights!) and then everything will be ready. There's going to be a lot to cover in the upcoming review and I absolutely can't wait!
     Also, I've figured out a posting pattern for myself. You can expect new posts of the Review every other night of the week (Mondays, Wednesdays, & Fridays, though there may be more within the week depending on my schedule). Next week, I'll do one or two of my posts on music to shake things up a bit.
     So keep your eyes peeled for the first movie review on The Night Owl Review - it's going to be fun!

                                                                                                           ~Maud,
                                                                                                     Official Night Owl

Celebrities in Musical Movies??

     I don't know about you guys, but I love musicals. Music and theatre are two of the greatest loves of my life. And when you combine the two into movie format, I love them even more. I grew up watching The Sound of Music, My Fair Lady, and Hello, Dolly! among others, and I enjoy musical movies...when they're done and cast right.

     Yeah...we're going to talk about some of the more questionable casting choices in musical movie history.

     Regardless of whether or not you like musical movies, I think everyone agrees that the actors should at least sing well and sound nice enough for us to sit through 120+ minutes of screen time. In the golden age of musical film, you definitely got that. Actors like Gene Kelly, Barbra Streisand, and Julie Andrews gave you great voices along with great performances, and it was through those performances that they became famous. Nowadays, however, you get famous actors in musical movie roles, but you're not always guaranteed good or decent singing voices. And while you may love a certain actor for all the cool movies he's been in the past, you might leave the theatre wishing you'd never heard him sing in your life.

     Examples?

     Well, to show that even the golden age of musical film wasn't perfect, let's look at one of my favorites, the 1955 film adaptation of Guys and Dolls. This comedic musical film is filled with fun and romantic songs, and it also came with a pretty good cast. You had Frank Sinatra as the charismatic Nathan Detroit, Marlon Brando as the smooth Sky Masterson, Jean Simmons as Sargent Sarah Brown, and Vivian Blaine as Miss Adelaide. Of course, Sinatra sounds wonderful (he even got a song written just for him for the movie), Blaine does just fine, and Simmons sounds lovely. But Brando...sigh!

     I feel a little bad having to say this about a famous actor, especially one whose origins are based in my home city, but I have to say this: I can't stop laughing every time I hear him sing!! He sounds like he's got a cold and it makes it so hard to concentrate on the scene (especially with songs like "I'll Know" and "(Your Eyes Are the Eyes of) A Woman in Love"). 

     I mean, Sinatra was already in the cast - did you really need another celebrity to boost your movie?

     Moving on to more modern examples, I'll pick on Gerard Butler next. Oh yes, for those who didn't know, Mr. Leonidas from 300 was chosen to be the Phantom in Joel Schumacher's 2004 film adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera. As if one of my favorite musicals being remade by the "Bat Credit Card" guy isn't bad enough, Butler's voice just made things worse. He doesn't sound like the Phantom - he sounds like he's trying to sing rock...I think...I'm still not sure to this day. His voice is in no way operatic or even the slightest bit trained. With a role like the Phantom, you absolutely need someone who sounds good. He's supposed to be the Angel of Music!

     If you think Gerard Butler is bad, however, you do not know the true meaning of bad until you've heard Pierce Brosnan in the awful film adaptation of Mamma Mia! I wish I'd never known the torture that is his voice. I feel really bad saying this, because throughout the movie, I felt like Brosnan was trying to pull things together. With the flaky story there is and the little character he's got, I can understand how hopeless it must have been. But to have him sing on top of all this just seems like punishment for something. His voice is as raw and ragged as you can get, topped off by a weak range and no breath control.

     Not that his singing partner Meryl Streep was much better in that movie, either. At least, she had a chance to redeem herself in Into the Woods, where her voice had improved some.

     Over the past several years, more musical movies or music-related movies have become popular. And as more musical adaptations come along, one of the biggest questions to ask is this.

     Do we need celebrities in musical movies?

     Obviously, there are some people who would say yes. Not everyone likes musical movies, and sometimes the only thing that will make them interested in seeing it is if a celebrity is set to star. At the same time, audiences who love celebrities may also be curious to know if their favorite actors are talented enough to sing well enough for such a movie. 

     Do all celebrities do well with this?

     Well, from the examples I've given, some of you might be thinking "No". But even that's not entirely true. Hugh Jackman - the actor everyone knows and loves as Wolverine - has sung successfully in adaptations of Oklahoma! and Les Miserables. Anna Kendrick has sung in the Pitch Perfect films and sounded beautiful as Cinderella in Into the Woods. And if you do a little research and look up some movie clips, you will find there's actually an amazing amount of famous actors out there who can sing (Ewan McGregor, James Corden, John Barrowman - Robert Downey Jr. sounds almost exactly like Sting!). So, obviously there is a pool of celebrities out there who do have the talent for musical movie roles, and if a film really must have one or two stars, directors will know who to turn to. 

     On top of all this, there's no rule saying you have to have celebrities in a muscial movie. In fact, pulling in unknown actors with talent is a wonderful choice. The world is teeming with multi-talented actors/actresses who sound amazing and deserve a chance to shine on the big screen. The more new vocal talent is put up on screen, the more new acting talent we have, as well. And that's always a plus.

     I guess I'm just saying cast with talent in mind. Remember, this is a 120+ minute movie we're talking about...and you're going to have to sit through all those minutes listening to the same voices. 

     Unless you want to make an infamously bad musical movie...like Mamma Mia!

     Cast wisely, people!

                                            

                                                                                                                   ~Maud

                                                                                                          Official Night Owl

P.S. What are your thoughts on the whole musical movie business? Which casting choices did you love or hate? Who would you cast in your dream adaptation? Also, within the next three days, I'll be posting my first movie review - I'm keeping the title a surprise, but I'll give you hint: it features the legendary David Bowie.