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.