Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 7A
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
FILM REVIEW
Mismatched 'Lulu'
Lou Reed and
Metallica hit a sour
S note together
By ANDREW ECKHOUS
Daily Arts Writer
Lou Reed's (The Velvet Under-
ground) signature growl and
5 candid, poetic lyrics. Metallica's
sinister riffs
and aggressive b
sound. These
characteris Lou Reed and
tics have sent MetalflCa
rock in two
vastly differ- Luu
ent directions.
Reed's hon- Warner Bros.
esty and con-
troversial topics have influenced
generations of avant-garde and
creative musicians, and Metallica
is considered one of the best metal
bands of all time.
Both have influenced countless
musicians to pick up a guitar and
wear a lot of black, but when Lou
Reed and Metallica announced
they were making the album Lulu
together, no one was sure how the
end product would sound. These
legends have captained the ever-
growing, never-changing cruise
ship known as rock'n'roll for
decades, but would their sounds
complement each other like gui-
tar and bass, or would ego prevail?
"Brandenburg Gate," the
opening track, quickly answers
all questions with a resound-
ing groan. Singing stream-of-
consciousness lyrics over naked
chords for a brief moment, Reed's
wistful ruminations are endear-
ing and lighthearted. However,
powerful Metallica guitars quick-
ly break his pensive concentra-
tion, drowning out Reed's words
with a thunderous riff and Metal-
lica lead singer James Hetfield's
dramatic background vocals.
After listening to "Brandenburg
Gate," it becomes clear Lulu is
going to be worth less than the
sum of its parts.
Simply put, Lulu doesn't do
either act justice. Lou Reed and
Metallica recording together
sounds like a misguided Girl Talk
effort, and it's hard to listen to.
Neither seems comfortable with
the other's style, as they often
impose themselves unnaturally
and play over each other. The con-
cept is noble - both seem eager to
expand their musical horizons -
but itcjust doesn't work.
Upon first hearing Lulu, it
seems neither group can divorce
itself from its ego, but in reality,
they just don't know how to make
their styles sync. The album runs
an absurd 90 minutes over only
10 tracks, and combines elements
that should never meet. On "Cheat
On Me," an 11-minute ramble,
Reed spends the first five minutes
pontificating quietly about his
self-destructive tendencies but is
rudely interrupted by Metallica's
out-of-place anger. Not only does
the metal cause Reed's thoughts
to become secondary, but also
Hetfield's over-the-top backup
vocals turn "Cheat On Me" into
a joke. Reed's soft yet powerful
voice cannot match the domi-
WARNER BROS.
nance of thrash metal, a constant
flaw on Lulu.
Though rare, there are
moments when Reed and Metal-
lica's techniques intertwine
smoothly. "Frustration" alter-
nates between harsh, metal gui-
tars and eerie feedback, suiting
Reed's roars of aggravation and
conviction. However, the album
quickly returns to delusions of
grandeur. Hetfield and Metal-
lica are relegated to thrash metal
backup singers, and Lou Reed
seems disoriented to be around so
much noise.
Reed and Metallica have been
called geniuses, visionaries and a
bounty of other compliments they
fully deserve. However, when
someone finally gets around to
building them the shrines they
rightfully merit, make sure to put
some distance between the two.
Lulu is not a complete failure,
and it shouldn't deter either art-
ist from more experimentation.
But for future reference, putting
two titans of music on the same
album doesn't necessarily make
for an instant classic.
"You meowin' at me? You meowin' at me? Then who the hell else are you meowin' at?!"
'Puss' barely lands on feet
By SEAN CZARNECKI
DailyArts Writer
Just as the blockbuster sum-
mer walks out of Hollywood
conscience and Oscar season pre-
pares to swag-
ger around the * *
corner, "Puss
in Boots" is Ptg ji
creeping into B
theaters. After
the fourth film At Quality 16
in the "Shrek" and Rave
series displayed
its impressive Columbia
ability to copy
its own downtrodden formula,
original fans started to wonder if
it would be possible to shoehorn
another entry into this fairy-tale
universe.
Well, no - it's not. That cash
cow was led tothe slaughterhouse
a long time ago. So what'd the
"Shrek" makers do? They made a
prequel spin-off: "Puss in Boots."
Fortunately, this cheap idea
cashes in with lavish, big-budget
animation and charm. But while
"Puss in Boots" is able to evoke
an adequate amount of laughter
from its audience, it never fills the
shoes the first two "Shrek" films
gleefully wore when they stormed
the world 10 years ago.
Still, "Puss" is able to provide
an interesting mythology behind
its titular character (Antonio
Banderas, "Spy Kids"). As it turns
out, Puss was not always a phi-
landering feline. A long time ago,
isolated in a small town, he was
just another orphan with dreams
and only one friend to share them
with - Humpty Dumpty (Zach
Galifianakis, "The Hangover Part
2"). After being alienated from
each other for many years, they
reunite with the seductive thief
extraordinaire, Kitty Softpaws
(Salma Hayek, "Frida") on a quest
to find the "golden goose."
It's a familiar fairy tale, but
like its predecessors, "Puss" puts
a twist on the storytelling. While
director Chris Miller ("Shrek the
Third") is at the animation helm,
executive producer Guillermo del
Toro ("Pan's Labyrinth") lends
the film some of that essential
Spanish heritage. And of course
the sexual innuendos and refer-
ences remain, tactfully placed and
wittily written.
But it just isn't the same as the
original. The cat puns wear out
their welcome the instant they
strut into the picture. They bra-
zenly make an appearance and
simply refuse to leave. In "Shrek
2," the "catnip" reference was
hilarious, but here in "Puss" that
sharp wit is a dull glow of its
original splendor. The lovable,
cuddly hero trope also loses its
appeal quickly, which is unfortu-
nate since a good deal of the film's
comedic success floats on this
boat.
By all counts, this film should
have indeed sunk. The story is
convoluted, the supporting char-
acters are steeped in the usual
adventure film cliches, no voice
work truly stands out and the cli-
max is unremarkable - leaving
the viewer with a shrug. Alas, the
bignamesbehindthe heroes rare-
ly light up the screen. Banderas's
charm can only carry the film so
far before Galifianakis's passion-
less work weighs him down.
Not quite
purrrr-fect.
That said, the film still delivers
its laughs with vibrant animation.
Though its wit is not as inspired
as one might hope, it definitely
exceeds the expectations its fans
were left with after the last two
"Shrek"films.
So how will the world speak
about "Puss" 10 years from now?
Simple: It won't. In the meantime,
children will laugh at the charac-
ters' colorful antics - while their
parents smile knowingly and
hope the youngones won't asktoo
many questions - and it'll be a fun
night for the family.
FILM NOTEBOOK
My super Bollywood experience
ABC
"Wait, it's no-shave November!"
amily starting to tire
By SAM CENZHANG
DailyArts Writer
Since its premiere, "Modern
Family" has been one of the
most lauded shows on television.
This speaks
to the value ***
of sharp writ-
ing and execu- Modem
tion in sitcoms. .i
There have F y
been plenty of Season Three
comedies about Midseason
big, pleasantly
dysfunctional Wednesdays
families before. at 9 p.m.
But with a ABC
few "modern"
tweaks to the formula (a gay
couple, a May-December mar-
riage) and fresh, well-written
material, "Modern Family" has
always managed to say stuff
that's funny and meaningful,
despite the fact that it's really
just a big-family sitcom with
jokes about texting and Justin
Bieber. Unfortunately, season
three of the show has brought its
flaws into focus, while stepping
back from a lot of the things that
made it great.
"Modern Family" has always
hung its hat on structural cohe-
sion. The writers are good enough
that almost every episode will
feature funny storylines for the
three families. The very best epi-
sodes of the show, though, bring "Modern Family" has never
plotlines together seamlessly for exactly been subtle, but this sea-
big payoffs (season one's "Fizbo" son has featured a lot more come-
and "Family Portrait"; season dir broadness than the first two.
two's "Manny Get Your Gun"). The Phil and Luke storylines
There hasn't been any of that this have long been among the best
season. The best episode, "Door the show has to offer, but when
to Door," comes the closest, with the payoff is literally just Luke
a little door-closing montage that throwing a ball at Phil's head,
ties together Manny's, Gloria's it's hard to help thinking the
and Claire's storylines.But even in writers could have stretched a
that episode, the characters were little more. Gloria's portrayal has
all just doing their own thing. turned troublingly stereotypical,
and she rarely has much to do
other than be difficult to under-
stand and drop lines about how
m aybe they violent Colombia was.
should go Season three of "Modern
g to a Family" hasn't been bad. The
dude ranch. show has never been about being
groundbreaking, and some of the
old joys are still there. Phil, afore-
mentioned "America's Funniest
The biggest problem with Home Videos" turn aside, is still
"Modern Family," and one that's one of the funniest characters on
been significant since at least the television, and Luke is right there
second half of season two, is the with him. But one klutz dad and
gay couple, Cam and Mitchell. crazy kid can't carry a show -
For a show aiming for human and increasingly, they've had to.
depth rather than high-concept When a third of the show is
innovation, "Modern Family" dead weight, the big set pieces
dips into the trope well a great that defined its first two sea-
deal for these two. Cam is shrill, sons become impossible to pull
over the top and touchy. Mitchell off, and it's telling that the writ-
is anal, controlling, and ... touchy. ers haven't even tried. "Modern
Take stereotypical bitchy girl- Family" is still enjoyable, but in
friend character, split personality the oversaturated sitcom land-
in two, and voila, you have your scape that is fall 2011, it's not spe-
own modern gay couple. cial anymore.
By MATT EASTON
Daily Arts Writer
Three martial artists, called
"the daughters of Bruce Lee,"
spin across the screen toward the
hero, Shah Rukh Khan, wailing
with blades drawn. A few sword
slashes later, Khan defeats them
all. Around me the theater hoots
atthescreen.Wide-eyed, Iglance
over at my guide, Daily TV/New
Media Editor Proma Khosla.
"Their names are Iski Lee,
Uski Lee and Sabki Lee," she
whispers as the audience laughs
loudly at a new character's arriv-
al. "They mean, 'for him,''for her'
and 'for everyone' in Hindi."
I don't get the joke, but I real-
ize I probably wasn't the audi-
ence the film's writers had in
mind, so I nod anyway.
"Who is this guy?" I motion
toward the man on screen whose
entrance caused such a stir.
"He a big, tough-guy actor in
India," Proma responds (I would
later find out he's the "T.I" of
the Indian film industry, in that
he was big, was arrested for gun
possession, went to jail and then
came back bigger and better). I
nod again, laughing more at the
situation than at the jokes.
Proma leans in one last time,
"You have to understand - they
know this is cheesy, they are jok-
ing right now."
So why was I here, watch-
ing a Bollywood blockbuster?
My experience with Indian film
extends just about to "Slumdog
Millionaire," a movie as Western
as McDonald's. My knowledge of
Indiat
dhartl
by a
fit in a
writer
So wh
The
to see
about,
ture
anyth
hindsi
small
lef
W
lov
"A
genre,
car ri
action
merci
romar
PSA a
misse
"Tran
Shia
Optim
into tI
audier
It M
times
ated a
night
film,
the s
actres
n culture comes from "Sid- responds to jokes with sarcastic
ha," but that was written "oh"s and jokes of their own.
German. In this theater I The fourth wall doesn't exist
ibout as well as a Pitchfork in the Bollywood world. Shah
at a Justin Bieber concert. Rukh, the hero of the film and an
y? actor of God-like status in India,
answer is that I wanted is a notorious chain smoker in
what Bollywood was all real life. So what do they do?
to learn about a film cul- They have scenes where he liter-
completely different from ally pulls outa cigarette, glances
ing I've seen before. In at the audience and says, "Terri-
ight, "different" was too ble for you, no nutritional value."
a word. The world comes to a standstill
for a shot of the lead actress. She
stands smiling at the audience,
Or howvI wind fluttering her hair, light-
ing perfect. Suddenly, she has a
arned to stop guitar and they are singing about
love. People in the audience
rorrying and know the words, and sing along.
The actress isn't singing to some-
re Bollywood. one onscreen - she's singing to
us, the people in the dark. It's a
moment with more cheese than
a plate of nachos, but somehow,
Bollywood movie is every in the peculiar way movies work,
Proma explained on the it's genius.
ide home. "Ra.One" was The film ends two-and-a-half
, comedy, drama, car com- hours later. It seemed like 60
al, music video, slapstick, minutes. Somehow, I'm smil-
ntic comedy, anti-smoking ing - a little bewildered, a little
nd martial arts. I probably shocked, but really, honestly
d more than a few. It was happy.
sformers," but instead of "Ra.One" was bad, or good-
LaBeouf staring grimly at bad, or maybe just good. It was
ius Prime, he looks straight an almost three-hour declara-
he camera and winks at the tion that movies don't have to be
nce. so serious. They don't need the
was "The Matrix" with five writing, the acting and the spe-
as many front flips. It cre- cial effects. They just need the
in aura similar to the mid- fun. That's something that can be
showing of a bad horror lacking in Hollywood films now-
where the audience yells at adays, the sense of fun. Maybe
creen, swoons at the sexy Terrence Malick should watch
ses and actors, dances and some Bollywood.
TWITTER'S STILL COOL. FOLLOW @MICHDAILYARTS FOR UPDATES.