It's OK to Forget About This Movie

I expected much more from Tobe Hooper’s 1986 film, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.” It starts out well with the always cool Cannon Films logo of the 1980's. Things pretty much go downhill from there.
Many of the horror film sequels released in the early 1980’s have the reputation of being very bad films, however, my opinion of most that I have seen is quite different. I remember Siskel and Ebert telling me that “Amityville 3-D” is horrible, in fact one of the worst films of 1983. I purchased the wonderful British import dvd of “Amityville 3-D” which features a very good commentary track by British horror film expert, Kim Newman. The film is not bad at all and watching the 3-D effects in 2-D is kind of fun. I also enjoyed “Halloween 2” and especially “Halloween 3: Season of the Witch.”
My dislike of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” lies in the decision to abandon any and all character development after the first 30 minutes of the film. We meet a very likable radio dj named Stretch Brock. Stretch is played by Caroline Williams. Williams’ performance is very good and she gives her character a very cool personality. She also has a very sexy Texas accent.  Her board operator is a fairly likable guy named L.G. (Lou Perryman). He has a crush on Stretch and who can blame him?

The opening scene of the film features two very annoying college guys driving from Austin to Dallas for Texas/OU weekend. As they are driving along, they are apprehended by a vehicle from which Leatherface emerges and proceeds to kill the two annoying college guys. After this mayhem is over, we meet Lieutenant Lefty Enright (Dennis Hopper). Lefty appears to be a no-nonsense lawman who has a keen interest in the chainsaw murders that have continued to occur for the last ten years. The character of Lefty is an interesting one for the first 30 minutes of the film as well. I thought the film would explore the background of the family of chainsaw-wielding killers and we might learn some new things about them and Lefty’s connection to them…………no. After the first 30 minutes, the film makes no effort to continue to be interesting or entertaining, even in a silly 1980’s low-budget horror film kind of way. The largest problem is the introduction of the chainsaw family, characters which, as written in this film, are beyond bad and are completely uninspired by any kind of desire to be entertaining. We first meet the father, Drayton Sawyer (Jim Siedow), the father of the chainsaw family as he is winning a chili cook-off. This is one of the very few gags in the film that work. More silly or sick jokes like that would have been nice. A few scenes later, Stretch is chased around the radio station by Chop Top Sawyer, one of Drayton’s sons, and Leather face. This scene is endless as Caroline Williams’ role is diminished to one of simply screaming and running around. It gets much worse. After this scene, we do not get to see any of her charm as the script just places her in a new location in which to scream endlessly and be chased around by idiot characters. What was Tobe Hooper thinking? Did he care about making an interesting movie? Ok, so none of the early 80’s horror/slasher movies I mentioned earlier are ever going to be confused with works of Henrik Ibsen or Tennessee Williams, however, some of them do have enough interesting elements to make them worth watching. “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” has very few interesting elements, and what interesting elements it does possess, it throws in the garbage after the first two reels. It was a true struggle to finish watching this movie. The last 45 minutes are quite painful and repetitive. Even Dennis Hopper’s character turns into an automaton, not literally—that would have been a welcome addition, quite honestly. The film devolves into people chasing people chasing people in an underground chainsaw family lair of stupidity.
“Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” attempts to add itself to the list of comedy-horror films of the mid-80’s, a genre that includes the far superior films, “Return of the Living Dead (1985) and House (1986). The poster of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” is funny as it mimics the poster for “The Breakfast Club.” This is where any progression of the making of this film should have ended. “It’s a good poster. Let’s just stop there while we are ahead.” So, I guess I did not really care for this film. Let me think about it a bit longer.  (1 second passes)  Yep, it was awful.

Baseball, Barbara Hershey, Apple Pie, and David Carradine

David Carradine’s 1973-1981 film, “Americana” takes it’s time to tell it’s story. What? 1973-1981 film? What does that mean, sir? According to information on the webbernet, David Carradine (“Kung Fu,” “Kill Bill”) worked on this film for eight years, beginning in 1973 and completing it in 1981. The copyright year given at the end of the film is 1981.

Carradine stars in this film which he directed. He plays a character with no name, known simply as “The American Soldier” in the closing credits. He arrives in a small town in Kansas dressed in his military uniform. The year in which the action takes place is 1973. We assume he was in the Air Force, serving in Vietnam, as his uniform has a patch on it that says “Airborne.” We do not know anything else about this character. Here lies the wonderful simplicity of the film. The soldier asks the residents of the town if they have any odd jobs for him so he can earn some money. He is given a job cutting weeds in a field in which an old, dilapidated merry-go-round sits. The soldier decides to fix the merry-go-round. Why does he want to fix the old merry-go-round? In a film like this, such reasons are never stated. It is up to the audience to try to figure out the motivations of such a character. Perhaps he wants a challenge or perhaps he wants something to occupy his mind so he does not think about the horrible war from which he has returned. Whatever the case may be, and it may indeed be more profound than I am implying, the film tells it’s story very well and avoids all the tropes of a “long-haired guy returning home and trying to find work in a small town” story. Every time you think an older character is going to start hassling the soldier, he or she does not. The people in the town are helpful, though, the performances do portray an amount of suspicion and underlying distrust of the soldier. Their distrust is not evident in the forefront of their minds,however. A scene involving a policeman and the soldier seems to be moving towards an uncomfortable confrontation in which the policeman becomes a complete asshole, however, this scene successfully avoids such conventions as well. A scene in which a young Barbara Hershey seems to be a likely target for two young attackers does not proceed the way one might think. Hershey plays a character known as “Jess’s daughter.” Her character is a young woman who watches with interest as the soldier fixes up the merry-go-round. She brings him lunch and tools. The American soldier is given a job at the local station. The station is run by Mike (Michael Greene). The soldier and Mike get along very well until the soldier learns something about the town that disturbs him greatly. The soldier’s outward disdain for this fact angers Mike and turns the soldier into a target for the local hooligans and this precipitates the dramatic tension of the film, which occurs at about the 60 minute mark. I am being purposefully nebulous in my description so that, should anyone seek out this film, they will not be the victim of a spoiler attack.

“Americana” is about the soldier’s determination to complete a project he started. He wants to fix something that is broken regardless of the ugliness he sees around him. Every moment of this film is fantastic. I wish it was a more famous film and that it would be mentioned amongst other great films of the 1970’s, especially those films which reflect young filmmakers’ disdain for war and the effects of war on the psyche of society. “Americana” is a profound film in a simple film’s body.

Molto Bene!

How can a movie starring Alec Baldwin, Jesse Eisenberg, Ellen Page, Woody Allen, and Roberto Benigni, written and directed by Woody Allen, a film that features a lively soundtrack and set in and filmed in Rome be so horrible? That is an easy question to answer. It does not come anywhere close to being horrible. Nowhere close. Allen’s new film, “To Rome, With Love,” is fantastic and it is a lot of fun.

“To Rome, With Love” is not deep and profound, nor does it try to be so. I believe that Allen’s intention with this film was to make a light, breezy comedy set in another wonderful European city that he likes. So, what is wrong with all that? It is very well-written and well-constructed as one might expect from a Woody Allen film. I don’t think Allen is capable of making a complete train wreck of a film. In “To Rome, With Love,” we meet four different sets of people who all find themselves in Rome at the same time. The film moves from story to story quite deftly. As it goes with films such as this, one or two stories usually are more interesting than the others. In the case of this film, I preferred the stories involving Roberto Benigni as a man who becomes instantly famous and the story of Giancarlo (Fabio Armiliato—the actor is a professional opera star) who sings opera at a professional level, but only with some assistance. I am leaving out details of these stories intentionally so I will not be the giver away of spoilers. I do not believe that details of the plot that give things away need to be in a review of a film. Why ruin the movie for someone who has not seen it yet but plans to do so? Pardon my vagueness. Another story in the film involves Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig, Alec Baldwin, and Ellen Page, in a tale of romance involving an actress and a student and his girlfriend. The fourth story in the film involves a married couple, each of whom becomes involved with another person through a series of misunderstandings. Hold on. Yes, I know. None of the stories in “To Rome, With Love,” are original, however, it is the telling of these stories, and especially the expert writing of these stories that make this film special. I laughed out loud several times while watching this film. The best performances in the film belong to Roberto Begnini as the man who finds sudden fame, Woody Allen, who always gives himself great lines, Fabio Armiliato as the singer, and the quartet of actors in the Eisenberg/Gerwig/Page/Baldwin story. There are not any bad performances in this film. The ones I highlighted were simply the ones that I fancied the most. The only statement that Woody Allen seems to make in the film is a commentary about fame in today’s world of popular culture. You will know what I mean after you see the film. Other than that, I did not find that Woody Allen, with this film, is making any social commentary or is trying to make us think. Allen's script made me laugh often throughout the film. Some of the humor in this film stems from the absurdity of the situations in which the characters find themselves. The Benigni and Armiliato stories, in particular, reminded me of situations you may find in a Luis Bunuel film. I am thinking especially of Bunuel's 1972 film, "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" and his 1974 film, "The Phantom of Liberty." Check out these movies, as well. They contain alot of humor that is created from absurd situations. I enjoyed the song that is used throughout the first thirty minutes of "To Rome, With Love." It is called, “Amada Mia, Amore Mio,” by The Starlite Orchestra. As I suspected while watching the film and hearing the song, it was recorded in the 1970’s, 1977 to be exact. It is a very lively song and sets a perfect mood for the stories we are about to watch. Because of my interest in strange European exploitation films of the 70’s and early 80’s, this song was even more appealing to me as it has the sound of a song one might hear in one of those films. That may sound strange, however, many of those crazy European exploitation films would feature at least one song in them that was out of place and not fitting with the tone of the film, thus, part of the appeal for me of some of those films. The funky song, “Bargain With the Devil,” from the 1974 Italian horror film, “Beyond the Door,” is just one example of this.

“Amada Mia, Amore Mio” fits very well with the setting of the film. I felt as if I was there in Rome. My mind was taken back to the fun times I spent in Italy twenty years ago as a student of the University of Dallas where one may take a class in epistemology should one be so inclined to do so. Perhaps you may say that I was seduced by this film because I had spent such a wonderful time of my life in Italy. This did not hurt, however, as I outlined earlier, there are several reasons why I enjoyed “To Rome, With Love.” If the film would have been set in Tokyo or Stockholm, I would have enjoyed it just as much. While it is still in theaters, I encourage you to see this film, however, it would make a very nice dvd selection as well should you decide to Netflix it at some point. “To Rome, With Love” is like a pleasant walk through the city of Rome. Having seen it once, I want to go back.

The New Spider Man Has No Bite

“The Amazing Spider Man” is as fresh as a week-old donut. I admit to not knowing the difference between the different Spider Man comic book series, however, though it has been 10 years since I saw Sam Raimi’s “Spider Man,” this new film did not feel much different. The new “Amazing Spider Man” feels, most of the time, lifeless , as if it is following a scriptwriting template. My understanding is that the Spider Man stories in these two films are different which is why it is against the law to say that this new film is a remake of Raimi’s film and it’s two sequels. It did not seem that much different. I do remember that in Raimi’s film, Peter Parker is bitten or stung by a spider which is the catalyst for giving him his powers. The same thing happens in this new film. Parker is bitten, he discovers that he has become much stronger and that he can now climb walls and has cat-like, or I guess, spider-like reflexes.

All of this would be much cooler if I had not seen it done better before. The actor who plays Parker/Spider Man, Andrew Garfield, does not have a very interesting screen presence. His Peter Parker is annoyingly meek and frail. I did not believe for a second that his rendition of Peter Parker would have the stomach for or the guts to become Spider Man. He seems meek and without confidence. Remember how we knew Clark Kent, as played by Christopher Reeve, did not lack confidence? Even though Kent had to act wimpish to conceal his identity, the audience still knew that he was confident and that he knew he was a badass. There are brief hints of this in Garfield’s performance, however, the Spider Man that he becomes seems to be a completely different character, completely removed from Peter Parker. Peter Parker has an internal strife that is boiling within him as his Uncle Ben was killed by a petty thief as said thief was running away from a convenience store he had just robbed. In this film, internal strife does not appear to be realized in Garfield’s portrayal of Peter Parker. I understand that he is a young actor, and he was ok in “The Social Network” as Mark Zuckerberg’s friend and Facebook founding partner, Eduardo, however, even in that film, he did not knock me out. For sure, “The Social Network” was Jesse Eisenburg’s film.
“The Amazing Spider Man” is presumably supposed to be Andrew Garfield’s film, however, his performance is dull. As such, coupled with a tiresome narrative, this new version of the Spider Man story is only as entertaining as the Spidey story, which is still enough to save this new film from being completely uninteresting. Sally Field and Martin Sheen are good as Mae and Ben Parker, Peter’s aunt and uncle with whom he lives. Denis Leary is good as the father of Peter’s love interest, Gwen (Emma Stone). It is always nice to see Denis Leary as he usually instills some bite into any film in which he appears. This is true in this film, in fact, this film could have used more of him as he does not overdo his role as Gwen’s protective father who also happens to be the chief of police of New York City. Big shock! Emma Stone is ok and is more interesting than Andrew Garfield, but not much more interesting.
The fact is that not much about “The Amazing Spider Man” is interesting or fresh. Like the previously mentioned ten-day old donut, I may eat it even though it would be hard and chewy, however, I would not eat two of them. I am in no hurry to see this film again. Do not spend the extra money to see this in 3-D. I counted 3 times in which the 3-D effects were used to any interesting effect. I may write quite a rant about the new 3-D trend at some point and the main point of this rant will be that I want crap thrown at me in a 3-D movie! I don’t just want depth. That is cool, but I want characters to throw mice, knives, footballs, donuts, boobs, turnips, and heads of lettuce at me for the price of seeing a movie in 3-D! None of these or anything similar is thrown at the audience in “The Amazing Spider Man.” The 3-D usage philosophy in this film seems as hesitant as Garfield’s performance. Just throw stuff! It’s flippin’ 3-D!!
Bye the way, how does Dr. Curt Connors, aka The Lizard (Rhys Ifans), get all that lab equipment down into his secret lab in the sewer? What happened to the guy that killed Uncle Ben? I liked the appearance of one of those old 4-in-1 pens in the film. Remember those thick blue pens that had four different colored inks in them? You would snap down the little doohicky for the color you wanted, blue, black, red or green. The green ink was never any good for some reason, but the whole idea was way cool.
The dialogue in “The Amazing Spider Man” is not very fresh or interesting either, which, in this day and age of Joss Whedon and the discovery of his talents by the masses, is quite a detriment. Some may ask how I can expect every action/sci-fi/superhero movie now to be as witty and sharp as a Whedon film. Why not expect this? “Thor” did a fine job of infusing humor into that film, especially into the main character of that film.

I am hoping for three things to happen as a result of the release of this new “Amazing Spider Man” film. I hope that we see the return of the outstanding strawberry flavored Spider Man cereal to grocery stores and I am hoping that we finally see the release of the 1977-79 CBS Spider Man tv series on dvd, or at least, maybe some obscure cable network will broadcast the 13 or so episodes that were made. The likelihood of seeing the 1977-79 series released seems slim, so I would also take an American release of the Japanese Spider Man series from 1978, the intro of which is featured at the beginning of this review. If at least one of these things happen, then I will ultimately consider “The Amazing Spider Man” a success.

"Nukie" is Not a Glowing Example of Filmmaking

“Nukie” contains a talking monkey, a nun, and people in rubber alien suits. These elements would normally gel quite nicely into a fantastic film, however, in the case of this 1988 film, they do not. Perhaps an elephant that shoots lasers from it’s eyes or a boxing kangaroo is all “Nukie” needed to rise above the mediocrity into which it falls. I usually champion crazy, low-budget, bad movies from the 1970’s and 1980’s. “Nukie,” unfortunately, is bad in the most common sense of the word.

An alien named Nukie and his brother, Miko, crash land on Earth. Nukie lands in Africa and Miko ends up at the facilities of what is known in the film as “Space Foundation” in Florida. Miko becomes the subject of study by scientists at the Space Foundation while Nukie is befriended by two brothers, Tiko and Toki (Siphiwe and Sipho Mlangeni), who are apparently members of an African warrior tribe. When it is discovered that something strange involving aliens is occurring, Dr. Eric Harvey (Steve Railsback) is sent to Africa to investigate. What Dr. Harvey discovers is that “Nukie” does not have any of the bad movie charm as do classic fun bad movies like “Samurai Cop,” “R.O.T.O.R,” “The Room,” “Birdemic,“ “Mac and Me,” or “Blood Freak.” Dr. Harvey is amazed at the lack of anything terribly interesting or amusing in the film. The acting in “Nukie” is not very good, but it is not horrifically fun as some of the performances found in “The Room” or “Samurai Cop.” Steve Railsback is uncharacteristically restrained in “Nukie.” In the 1978 film, “The Stunt Man,” he played every scene with an unflinching intensity which was a bit distracting. He played his role in Brian Trenchard-Smith’s 1982 film, “Turkey Shoot” in much the same way. Whenever I watch a Steve Railsback film, I plan on sitting a few extra feet away from the screen because I know there is a very strong possibility that his intensity may cause him to fall out of the screen into my living room. Railsback does not have as much screen time in “Nukie” as does the titular alien or his brother. This is a case in which I would have preferred to see more Railsback and less Nukie. Nukie is a rather boring alien creation and Miko is no better. They do not look goofy enough, just rubbery and dull, like bad pizza crust. I was talked into buying a vhs copy of this movie from a trailer I saw online somewhere, probably on You Tube. It was not expensive, thankfully. It was worth the 95 minutes I spent watching it to learn of it’s lack of delivering on a promisingly bad trailer, that is, the trailer made it look like the film would be marvelously horrible. Alas, “Nukie” is just bad, not fun bad. Not even Joel, Mike, or the bots could find much to laugh at with this one. The vhs sales marketing flier pictured below is more interesting than the film. Wait a minute!! "Nukie" does have "broad audience appeal" and it features Ronald France from "Sanna." Maybe I should reconsider what I have written thusfar.

The talking monkey did have some promise, or at least, the idea of a talking monkey held promise, however, as written, the talking monkey does not deliver much in the way of entertaining badness. “Nukie” is as flat as a pancake and does not even have any blueberries in it or any syrup on it and it’s not even fluffy. “Nukie” is not quite a bomb, but it does fizzle out.

I Was Bound to Write About "Prometheus"

The straight-forwardness with which “Prometheus” tells it’s story is the film’s most impressive feature. If you liked Ridley Scott’s 1979 film, “Alien,” there is a very good chance you will enjoy his new film. I am not going to pretend to understand everything that happens in the film. You will likely have several questions after watching it. I did. Normally, this bothers me, however, in the case of “Prometheus,” I was so overwhelmed by the scope and superiority of the filmmaking that these unanswered questions became only minor nuisances that soon left my brain. I would not be surprised to hear that “Prometheus” is the first of two or three films that will serve as a prequel to the 1979 film. I do not know if “Prometheus” is supposed to be a prequel to “Alien” or not. Arguments could be successfully debated on both sides. It does not really matter to me. As a stand-alone film, “Prometheus” succeeds in being very entertaining as a result of a focused narrative and very good performances aided by some very good science fiction writing. What I mean by “very good science fiction writing” is that the script never gets sidetracked by silly subplots or a need to explore a character’s past love affair with another character, for example. References are made to relationships in the film and it is made clear at the beginning of the film that the characters Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) are a couple, however, that is all we need to know. No backstory about this subject is necessary in this film, and fortunately, none is given to bog down the proceedings. Characters are introduced smoothly in the film. It is as if the viewer walks into the room and encounters somebody for the first time. There is no fanfare and the trope of showing someone from the back and having them turn around slowly is not used. One of the most egregious uses of this kind of trope was used in “Star Trek 2” to introduce Captain Kirk. Yes, it’s Shatner. Yes, it’s Kirk and he is an iconic character. It was still pretty corny, though. In that scene, Kirk was first shown in shadows, then the lighting is adjusted as he walks closer into the frame to reveal that it is the massively cool Captain Kirk. Make no mistake, he is massively cool…but that was corny. Charlize Theron’s performance as Meredith Vickers, the leader of the mission of which the ship, Prometheus, undertakes, is fantastic. She could have played her character as a soulless bitch. Fortunately, Theron is an excellent actress and she stands out playing her character as a no-nonsense woman who understands her role on the ship and with the company for which she works. The script allows her to be more than a two-dimensional cardboard cutout. Such is the case with most of the characters in the film. Noomi Rapace also stands out as Elizabeth Shaw, one of the scientists aboard Prometheus, a vessel assigned to locate the source of a mysterious image which was found in seven different locations on Earth. The planet the crew of Prometheus is on course for is discovered to be full of many surprises, none of which I will divulge. As I inferred, I was left with some questions after watching the film. I have discussed the film with friends, as this film will surely inspire conversation. Said conversations have helped explain some, but not all, of my questions, as it does not appear that answers to some of our questions were in the film, which leads to my estimation that one or two more films will follow. “Prometheus” is very good science-fiction/horror entertainment and is among Ridley Scott’s best films, but not quite as good as “Alien” or “Blade Runner.” Those two films are science-fiction classics. “Prometheus” falls just a bit short of the level of greatness of those two films. It is no slight to “Prometheus” to make such a statement. Though I do not want you to feel bound to see “Prometheus,” I do hope that my words will direct you to some interest in it.

"Rock of Ages" is Not Like Bad Medicine

I was a bit trepidatious going in to see “Rock of Ages,” the new film about a guy, a girl, and a band set in 1987. The story in the film is quite a simple one, however, “Rock of Ages” is not about the story, so the more comfortable you are knowing that going into the film, the better off you will be as far as your enjoyment of the film is concerned. Julianne Hough, who I admit, I knew nothing about, which is probably best, plays Sherrie Christian, a girl from Oklahoma who travels to Hollywood to find fame and fortune. Diego Boneta, who I know equally as little about as Julianne Hough, plays Drew Boley, a young man who works at a music club owned and operated by Dennis Dupress (Alec Baldwin). Here is a big surprise---Drew has his own band and also wants to become famous. “Rock of Ages” takes place in a two day time frame, which is a very good idea as far as structuring goes. The film is not interested in character development. Usually, this is not wise, however, “Rock of Ages” is not about character development or profound storytelling. It is about the music and the fun of seeing people like Alec Baldwin, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Tom Cruise, Russell Brand, Bryan Cranston, and even Paul Giamatti sing 80’s songs. The film, as mentioned, takes place in 1987. It is based on a musical by Adam Shankman. Shankman also directs this film version of his show. What works best in the film is the placement of the 1980’s songs. None of the musical numbers, which are all popular songs from the 80’s, are forced or seem shoehorned into the action. This, I believe, would be a very difficult thing to achieve, that is, directing a movie musical and being able to place the musical numbers at just the right time in the film. The same perfect placement of songs into a musical can be seen in the film versions of “Grease,” “Hair,” “Chicago,” and the fantastic 1972 film, “1776.” In these films, the songs and music flow seamlessly into the action of the film. “Rock of Ages” is not of the caliber of these other four films, however, it is one of the better musicals I have seen. The musical numbers are full of positive energy and they move the plot along, as songs in a musical are supposed to do. It appears that the entire cast enjoys their chance to sing onscreen. We have seen some of the cast members sing in films before. Catherine Zeta-Jones was very good in “Chicago.” Tom Cruise sang in “Magnolia.” Remember that great scene in “Magnolia,” in which the entire cast is shown, one at a time, singing the Aimee Mann song, “Wise Up?” That was a great scene in a wonderful film. Another great thing about “Rock of Ages” is it’s flawless attention to detail. I almost always notice any imperfection in a period film, especially when a film made in 2012 is set in 1975 or 1985, etc. Usually, there will be a line of dialogue which will not match the time period. For instance, a character in a film set in 1975 will say he or she waited “online” for tickets to a movie. Regardless of time period, this is a horrible misuse of that word, but the idea of anything being “online” has become prevalent only in the last twenty years. Anyway, enough of my rattling on about the English language, a once proud system of communication, which is dying a horrible death as we speak. Every set, outdoor scene, costume, looked authentic, true to the year in which the film was based. Only one thing bugged me, however, my attention to music began to wane around the late 1980’s so this thing that bothered me may be correct after all. The character of Drew (Diego Boneta), near the end of the film, joins a boy band, a new and alarming phenomenon that, we all rememeber, began at that time. In one of the closing numbers in the film, Drew is wearing one of those ridiculous over the ear microphones that always make singers look like they are taking phone orders from somebody. Since my music awareness waned in the late 80’s, due to the quality of popular music badly dwindling around that time, I may have not noticed that these silly over the ear microphones may have begun being used around this time. Madonna was the first artist I remember using these. That was in the early 90’s, I think. Anyway, that is not a big issue. I did enjoy the film’s attitude towards the intrusion of the boy band into the popular music scene. The film basically gives this entire notion the finger, a feeling for which I am in complete agreement. I think the film understands and, I know I understand, that music does evolve, however, in that evolution must come quality, not the lazy sameness that has plagued the music industry for the last twenty years. Obviously, there are some exceptions, however, there are not that many exceptions. Anyway, back to “Rock of Ages.” The entire cast seems to be having a great time. The two leads, Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta, are very good in their roles. Neither seem to be suffering from a lack of talent, which is refreshing. One minor concern is the continued underuse of Bryan Cranston. I am 100 percent certain that anyone who watches the first few episodes of his tv series, “Breaking Bad,” will have know doubt that he is one of the most talented actors working in the film/tv industry today. As shows like “Breaking Bad,” “Dexter,” “Game of Thrones,” and “Six Feet Under,” have shown us, there is some wonderful writing and acting going on on television these days, some which is as good as anything you would discover in a movie. Cranston’s talent is on display on every episode of “Breaking Bad,” and it astonishes me that his talent is not used more often in films. He was underused in the 2011 film, “Drive,” as well. Despite this, “Rock of Ages” is a good film. All of the performances are great and not forced. There is no overreaching for some extra bit of goofiness by any of the performers in the film. I believe it is understood that the humor in the film is in the premise of the film. It is a musical set in 1987 with all 1980’s songs used. That is why it is fun. It is not profound and thought-provoking. It does not try to be so and that’s ok. It’s just fun watching Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, and Paul Giamatti sing. The best musical number is one performed by Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand. You will know why. Malin Ackerman's hair is perfect in this film. She and Tom Cruise share another memorable scene which worked quite well for it's intention. See “Rock of Ages.” It is not overbearing and it does not overstay it's welcome. It's just a lot of fun.