It's time for a review of something that you can't find on Wal-Mart shelves. Departures is a brand new album that is now available from iTunes, Amazon, and Argyle Street's Myspace page. If you have any interest in what some people might call "synthpop," I would recommend giving this one a listen.
Argyle Street is the one-man effort of someone known only as Shawn Z. He did all the songwriting and singing, but he also had some help from a few female vocalists and everyone's favorite producer, Joey Belville.
In terms of style, I would describe Departures as mellow synthpop. For those who don't follow electronic music as closely as I do, synthpop is a loose subgenre of electronic music characterized by a focus on vocals and a structure similar to typical rock music. Now, back to Argyle Street, I use the word mellow loosely. Only a few of the songs are slow and gentle, but just about all of them have a light and airy feel to them. There is also less of a focus on sonic complexity than in a lot of electronic music and more of a focus on mood. I suppose it's one of those albums that you will either love or hate, but I commend it for its originality.
The album opens with its title song, which is by no means the strongest song on the album, but it serves as a good introduction to the album as well as the band's style. It is a great showcase for Shawn's smooth vocals and simple, yet strangely captivating, melodies.
Then comes "ABC," which is one of the faster, brighter songs. It's a bit more on the "normal" side than a lot of the rest of the album, but that's not a bad thing. It's incredibly catchy and it really showcases what this indie band can do.
My personal favorite, and probably the most elaborately produced, is "One." In contrast to "ABC," it's much slower and gentler, but the melody can stand up to anything mainstream and the production is just brilliant. Layered strings underscore the soaring vocals, while a smooth square lead textures the background. Unless you listen to it on headphones, you might not even notice it, but regardless, it works very well and easily creates the best mood on the album.
"I Saw You First" is another standout. It's more mellow than most of the others, but there is a nearly constant harmony with female vocals that can just about put me to sleep.
A number of the other songs, even those that don't stand out as much as the ones I've already discussed, have a remarkable way of keeping you hooked. I can't really explain it, but something about them makes this one of those albums that I can just leave in my car and forget it's there.
As far as the lyrics go, you'll get everything from the relatively deep commentary of "Departures" to the intentionally silly "Antiperspirant." I always care more about the music than the lyrics, but they seem to serve their purpose well.
I feel like I've been praising this album too much. Like all albums, it's not perfect. I understand that complexity was often sacrificed for the sake of mood, but not all of the songs are as moving as "One." Some, like "Cold Cereal" and "ABC," could have benefited from some extra synth work, or at least some more varied effects. To be honest, though, I doubt that most people will even see that as a problem. It is, after all, a stylistic choice. The only other significant issue that comes to mind is the flow. I think it's great that the album never strays too far from its overall style, but sometimes, the song-to-song flow isn't as smooth as it could be and it can be a bit distracting.
Overall, I have to say that this is a very strong start for Argyle Street. If you have yet to hear him, at least look him up on Myspace. If you like what you hear, buy the album. If you like the style at all, you won't be disappointed. Hopefully, we can look forward to more strong work and a constantly maturing sound from Argyle Street.
Caius's Rating: 4 stars
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Vantage Point Review
Vantage Point is a thriller that starts off with the president getting shot. For the rest of the movie, the same event is shown from the perspectives of several different characters. Each of these adds a bit to your knowledge of the situation and adds a few minutes to the story. The whole thing takes place over the course of about 15 minutes.
It should sound interesting; that's what they were going for: something unusual. But in reality, the concept really only serves to limit your knowledge as time goes along. It is very deliberate in what it shows you each time, and a lot of the information you obtain by seeing a new perspective doesn't even come as much of a shock, because you knew just from the way it was shot that SOMETHING was going to be significant about that person or object. So what you end up with is a really drawn out 15 minute story. Luckily, it's not just senseless time stretching as there are some worthwhile moments in the movie, and it all culminates in a final message that makes you think not just about the movie, but about what it would be like if something like that happened in the real world today.
Still, at its core, it's just an average thriller with an average (and long) car chase and an average kidnapping and some average terrorists at work. While it seems to try to present itself as something more, that's really all you're going to get out of the overall experience, plus the more positive points I already described. What gets me the most about it is the predictability. The characters are all shallow, the action is typical (car chase? come on), and the ending is bland and predictable, aside from the final message.
The core film here is what I call 2 stars, but I give it a half star bonus for its fine points, which, of course, stem mostly from the concept of it. Not bad, but nothing exceptional. If you like thrillers, then you'll probably get a kick out of it. Otherwise, you'll probably see it as very average.
Caius's rating: 2.5 stars
It should sound interesting; that's what they were going for: something unusual. But in reality, the concept really only serves to limit your knowledge as time goes along. It is very deliberate in what it shows you each time, and a lot of the information you obtain by seeing a new perspective doesn't even come as much of a shock, because you knew just from the way it was shot that SOMETHING was going to be significant about that person or object. So what you end up with is a really drawn out 15 minute story. Luckily, it's not just senseless time stretching as there are some worthwhile moments in the movie, and it all culminates in a final message that makes you think not just about the movie, but about what it would be like if something like that happened in the real world today.
Still, at its core, it's just an average thriller with an average (and long) car chase and an average kidnapping and some average terrorists at work. While it seems to try to present itself as something more, that's really all you're going to get out of the overall experience, plus the more positive points I already described. What gets me the most about it is the predictability. The characters are all shallow, the action is typical (car chase? come on), and the ending is bland and predictable, aside from the final message.
The core film here is what I call 2 stars, but I give it a half star bonus for its fine points, which, of course, stem mostly from the concept of it. Not bad, but nothing exceptional. If you like thrillers, then you'll probably get a kick out of it. Otherwise, you'll probably see it as very average.
Caius's rating: 2.5 stars
Friday, January 18, 2008
Cloverfield Review
Cloverfield? What's Cloverfield? Oh, it's a monster movie that's gotten a lot of hype? I see. Ok, let's go see it so I can slam it in a fun review. We go to the theater to get tickets, arrive just after it sells out, and wait around for two hours for a later show. Our tickets are taken and we get in line. Before long, the line has gone all the way to the side exit and looped around back to where it started. "What the hell is the big deal about this movie?" my brain asks. "Fuck if I know," I reply. Finally, we go in, get our seats, and it starts.
No intro, no credits, no title. It begins with a message saying that the footage is owned by the Department of Defense and was recovered from the area formerly known as Central Park. The rest of the less than 90 minute movie is said footage, shot on a normal guy's handheld camera. Most of it is footage of a giant monster attack on New York.
But this is not your ordinary "monster movie." The best part of it is that it was shot in the way it was. It puts you right up next to the main characters, and it just feels entirely real. Cuts occur when the camera would have been paused, and previous footage is shown when the camera would have been fast-forwarded too far. Some people might complain that the camera was too shaky; a few people even said it made them sick. To be honest, though, I don't think it could have been done any other way and still been good. It works incredibly well, and it's just one of those things you have to see to understand, and for your own sake, see this one in a theater.
Largely as a result of this technique, Cloverfield is intense. All night I've been trying to think of a more intense movie that I've seen lately, and I just can't think of any. The best part is, it doesn't rely on cheap thrills like so many other horror/disaster movies. It just puts you in the shoes of the main characters, and it works extremely well. Sure, there are a few "oh shit" moments, but even they fit well; nothing feels like it was tacked on just for shock value. Again, it really makes you feel like you're right there.
Another thing that helped a lot was that there were no big name actors (that I noticed) in the movie at all. Having a recognizable actor in a movie is a big distraction, and this was not the one to do it in. And better still, the acting is fantastic. Every character is wholly believable, and nothing is overdone; even the scenes of desperation have a realistic feel to them. The audience's reactions to this film were some of the most pronounced I've ever heard in a theater.
Ok, now that I've gone on a big rant about the realism of the film, it's time to talk about what isn't real. It's not perfect. The visual design is done in such a way as to make it look like it was done on a handheld camera, and overall it's extremely convincing. In a few scenes, though, there's just a bit too much light, or slightly too perfect contrast, which indicates artificial lighting in some scenes. Luckily, it's not overdone and the vast majority of the scenes look just how they should. The biggest problem is in the sound design. The microphone on a small handheld camera is almost always very small, and in the midst of the enormous sounds and screams going on all over the place, it would often get distorted. What you actually hear is very clear. I understand the design choice as hearing a ton of static every few seconds wouldn't make for such a cinematic experience, but just a touch of it in some places would do a lot for the realism. Also, in one or two scenes, you can hear what the main characters are saying very clearly when in reality, it should all just be a jumbled mess considering what's going on all around. I mean, yes, it's important to the plot and everyone would want to know what they were saying, but a lot of the realism comes in the fact that you really don't know much about what's going on.
Really, that's about all I could complain about in this one. It's extremely well-done overall, and it creates one of the most intense and realistic experiences I've ever seen. Such an original and ambitious idea certainly deserves a lot of credit. Judging by the sell-out crowds, I think it's going to do well. What we have to watch out for is overdoing it. If the success of Cloverfield generates a surge of similar films, I will be pissed off. This movie is a statement for originality in a number of ways; let's not ruin the idea.
I keep thinking I'm going to get to review a terrible movie. I realized that I have yet to rate a movie at less than three stars on this blog. Usually, I hesitate to give a movie more than two and a half, unless I really think it deserves it. What can I say? I'm thoroughly convinced that Cloverfield deserves it. Like any movie that exists or ever will, it's far from perfect, but when I look at this one as a whole, I can't help but feel that it went above and beyond what we think of as a film and truly succeeded. Some people would argue with me forever on this, but when I think of how this movie made me feel as I was watching it and even now that I'm only looking back on it, I see no alternative. For these reasons, I proudly bestow upon Cloverfield my very rare five star rating. Go see it.
Caius's Rating: 5 stars
No intro, no credits, no title. It begins with a message saying that the footage is owned by the Department of Defense and was recovered from the area formerly known as Central Park. The rest of the less than 90 minute movie is said footage, shot on a normal guy's handheld camera. Most of it is footage of a giant monster attack on New York.
But this is not your ordinary "monster movie." The best part of it is that it was shot in the way it was. It puts you right up next to the main characters, and it just feels entirely real. Cuts occur when the camera would have been paused, and previous footage is shown when the camera would have been fast-forwarded too far. Some people might complain that the camera was too shaky; a few people even said it made them sick. To be honest, though, I don't think it could have been done any other way and still been good. It works incredibly well, and it's just one of those things you have to see to understand, and for your own sake, see this one in a theater.
Largely as a result of this technique, Cloverfield is intense. All night I've been trying to think of a more intense movie that I've seen lately, and I just can't think of any. The best part is, it doesn't rely on cheap thrills like so many other horror/disaster movies. It just puts you in the shoes of the main characters, and it works extremely well. Sure, there are a few "oh shit" moments, but even they fit well; nothing feels like it was tacked on just for shock value. Again, it really makes you feel like you're right there.
Another thing that helped a lot was that there were no big name actors (that I noticed) in the movie at all. Having a recognizable actor in a movie is a big distraction, and this was not the one to do it in. And better still, the acting is fantastic. Every character is wholly believable, and nothing is overdone; even the scenes of desperation have a realistic feel to them. The audience's reactions to this film were some of the most pronounced I've ever heard in a theater.
Ok, now that I've gone on a big rant about the realism of the film, it's time to talk about what isn't real. It's not perfect. The visual design is done in such a way as to make it look like it was done on a handheld camera, and overall it's extremely convincing. In a few scenes, though, there's just a bit too much light, or slightly too perfect contrast, which indicates artificial lighting in some scenes. Luckily, it's not overdone and the vast majority of the scenes look just how they should. The biggest problem is in the sound design. The microphone on a small handheld camera is almost always very small, and in the midst of the enormous sounds and screams going on all over the place, it would often get distorted. What you actually hear is very clear. I understand the design choice as hearing a ton of static every few seconds wouldn't make for such a cinematic experience, but just a touch of it in some places would do a lot for the realism. Also, in one or two scenes, you can hear what the main characters are saying very clearly when in reality, it should all just be a jumbled mess considering what's going on all around. I mean, yes, it's important to the plot and everyone would want to know what they were saying, but a lot of the realism comes in the fact that you really don't know much about what's going on.
Really, that's about all I could complain about in this one. It's extremely well-done overall, and it creates one of the most intense and realistic experiences I've ever seen. Such an original and ambitious idea certainly deserves a lot of credit. Judging by the sell-out crowds, I think it's going to do well. What we have to watch out for is overdoing it. If the success of Cloverfield generates a surge of similar films, I will be pissed off. This movie is a statement for originality in a number of ways; let's not ruin the idea.
I keep thinking I'm going to get to review a terrible movie. I realized that I have yet to rate a movie at less than three stars on this blog. Usually, I hesitate to give a movie more than two and a half, unless I really think it deserves it. What can I say? I'm thoroughly convinced that Cloverfield deserves it. Like any movie that exists or ever will, it's far from perfect, but when I look at this one as a whole, I can't help but feel that it went above and beyond what we think of as a film and truly succeeded. Some people would argue with me forever on this, but when I think of how this movie made me feel as I was watching it and even now that I'm only looking back on it, I see no alternative. For these reasons, I proudly bestow upon Cloverfield my very rare five star rating. Go see it.
Caius's Rating: 5 stars
The Great Debaters Review
The Great Debaters is a movie that honestly surprised me. I went into it with every expectation of seeing a run-0f-the mill drama, but it turned out to be far superior to the average. That said, it's far from perfect, but still a solid film that any fan of the genre should see. People who are not so into dramas will likely see all the same genre trends in this movie, except they're done much, much better than normal, making for a good experience overall.
On that note, this movie does tend to stick to genre conventions. Like so many others, it tackles race and gender issues very deliberately, contains scenes of violence, sex, and alcoholism, and throws tears into the eyes of nearly every major character at some inspirational moment. My biggest gripe along these lines comes in the last three or four scenes of the movie, which scream the ending of just about every underdog story ever put on film.
It's the rest of the movie, i.e. what comes before the ending, that makes it good. Although it goes about the issues very deliberately, it creates an unusually strong feeling of tension around those issues. In some scenes, the cinematic effects really do a good job of putting you in the shoes of the characters. I honestly feared for their lives in a few scenes, and I am not the type of person who gets emotionally invested in characters in movies. So, if you're the type who does, then you'll probably gasp and cry a few times (several of the people I went with did).
The debate scenes serve their purpose well, but they're a bit too movie-like. Allow me to explain. In real debates, the stance that each team is supposed to take is randomly assigned; then they take turns making logical arguments and the winner is determined by judges. In the movie, most of the debates, and all of the ones that had a major plot significance, involved a topic that had something to do with race, and the main characters were always assigned to argue on the side that they would support on their own. For example, in one debate they were assigned to argue in favor of the integration of schools. On its own, that scene is fine, but it's very unlikely that they would have gotten their own side every time. Also, the characters on both sides of each debate had a noticeable tendency to focus more on the emotional side rather than the logical side of the issue. While this can be effective in moderation, it wouldn't leave you with a very strong argument in a real-life debate. The short version of this paragraph is: this movie sacrifices realism in favor of cinematic effect in the debate scenes. I wouldn't normally complain about this issue so much, but this is one of those movies that really tries to portray something real and believable.
The acting is pretty solid. Forest Whitaker is kickass.
I wouldn't recommend The Great Debaters to everyone, but most people will probably be moved by it in one way or another. It's not perfect by any means, and it still needs to stray farther from the all-too-common conventions of similar movies, but overall, I give it my kudos.
Caius's Rating: 3 stars
On that note, this movie does tend to stick to genre conventions. Like so many others, it tackles race and gender issues very deliberately, contains scenes of violence, sex, and alcoholism, and throws tears into the eyes of nearly every major character at some inspirational moment. My biggest gripe along these lines comes in the last three or four scenes of the movie, which scream the ending of just about every underdog story ever put on film.
It's the rest of the movie, i.e. what comes before the ending, that makes it good. Although it goes about the issues very deliberately, it creates an unusually strong feeling of tension around those issues. In some scenes, the cinematic effects really do a good job of putting you in the shoes of the characters. I honestly feared for their lives in a few scenes, and I am not the type of person who gets emotionally invested in characters in movies. So, if you're the type who does, then you'll probably gasp and cry a few times (several of the people I went with did).
The debate scenes serve their purpose well, but they're a bit too movie-like. Allow me to explain. In real debates, the stance that each team is supposed to take is randomly assigned; then they take turns making logical arguments and the winner is determined by judges. In the movie, most of the debates, and all of the ones that had a major plot significance, involved a topic that had something to do with race, and the main characters were always assigned to argue on the side that they would support on their own. For example, in one debate they were assigned to argue in favor of the integration of schools. On its own, that scene is fine, but it's very unlikely that they would have gotten their own side every time. Also, the characters on both sides of each debate had a noticeable tendency to focus more on the emotional side rather than the logical side of the issue. While this can be effective in moderation, it wouldn't leave you with a very strong argument in a real-life debate. The short version of this paragraph is: this movie sacrifices realism in favor of cinematic effect in the debate scenes. I wouldn't normally complain about this issue so much, but this is one of those movies that really tries to portray something real and believable.
The acting is pretty solid. Forest Whitaker is kickass.
I wouldn't recommend The Great Debaters to everyone, but most people will probably be moved by it in one way or another. It's not perfect by any means, and it still needs to stray farther from the all-too-common conventions of similar movies, but overall, I give it my kudos.
Caius's Rating: 3 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)