Movies: Paul

Score: *** out of *****

Long Story Short: Paul is a fun film, with a positive, bright mood that is refreshing. It will have you laughing or at least chuckling quite a bit, especially with a friend, and there are some nice casting choices and performances. However, I would not recommend solo viewing due to the nature of the humor, and there's simply not very much that stands out. Take it (with a buddy) or leave it.

Ah, now I'm back on track! I'm back to my usual once-per-week blog posting, and I hope that will continue for awhile now. It'll be mostly a mix of music and movie reviews, but I may have a March Madness summary post, and I'll certainly have an NBA Playoffs preview. Anyway, Paul was released in theaters last weekend, and was directed by Greg Mottola (Super Bad). This is another comedy semi-spoof movie starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (their similar films include Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz).

Paul starts off by showing the vacation/road trip of Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost), a pair of British adult dorks who attend Comic-Con and then to travel Southwest USA's UFO landmarks such as Area 51 and Roswell in an RV. The two are obviously long-time friends, and in fact are mistaken as a couple several times. On the road in the middle of nowhere, the friends stumble upon Paul (Rogen), an alien who is being chased by mysterious bad guys. One agent (Bateman) is on the chase immediately, aided (more like hindered) by two local cops (Hader and Truglio).

Graeme, Clive, and Paul attempt to hide out in an RV camp, where they meet Ruth (Wiig), a member of a strict Christian family; Ruth is soon pulled along with the gang. On the way to a spot where Paul hopes to be picked up by his fellow aliens, they stop at the home of a young girl who witnessed Paul land in the first place, as well as get chased through a small town. When they finally reach the rendezvous point, the showdown with the mysterious bad guys commences, and Paul makes use of his special powers.

As you can probably tell, the plot of this film is not too important; the focus is much more on the characters. Pegg and Frost do a great job in the beginning of the film, portraying dorky yet genuinely close friends (which they are in real life, I guess, so it probably wasn't too difficult to do). As Paul and Ruth come in to the picture, they develop some other interesting, decently executed, if somewhat cliched webs of friendship and tension. Rogen (the second movie I've "seen" him in already this year) is a great choice for the voice of Paul, a sarcastic, rather rude, but also good-at-the-core alien. Kristen Wiig, who I've always felt does a great job on SNL, is also a very nice choice for Ruth, a shy, rather awkward conservative woman who gradually learns to loosen up a little (or a lot). I also love fellow-SNL member Hader, in a movie role he is by now quite familiar with; Jane Lynch ("Glee") and David Koechner (Anchorman) have brief but amusing roles, and there are several more cameos as well (big one at the end).

Paul combines elements from a number of different movie types. The general warmth of the film and happy ending is sort of like a family comedy, but the humor (and language) is way too raunchy for that. It spoofs a lot of sci-fi franchises (probably a lot more than I even noticed), but the spoofiness is far from the focus of the film. It is a decently funny movie, with a couple of laugh-out-loud moments, but most of the laughs come from the minor characters and Paul's tricks; Pegg and Frost seem to just be the supporting structure around which, rather than at which, the humor is based.

***

Paul is a fine movie; I saw it with a friend in the theater, and if you go to see it, I suggest you do the same. This is because the best aspects of this movie are the type of humor that it's fun to laugh at with your friends, but by yourself you would probably find less funny. And this also distracts you enough from the fact that there is not much creativity here. Yes, there a few memorable scenes, but there's a bit too much that you could just step out to go the bathroom and instinctively know what you've missed. As I say, there are some nice touches in Paul, but see it with a friend(s), or watch something else.

Music: Steady On (Shawn Colvin)

Album Review: Steady On by Shawn Colvin

Shawn Colvin is another artist that I have grown up with, and listening to her music instantly makes me think back on earlier days. Thus, I'm more partial to her music than most people would be. That said, Shawn Colvin is an incredibly gifted musician by any measure. She has phenomenal vocal abilities, able to convey anything from a tough rocker to a sweet little girl - sometimes all in the same song. Her songwriting is quite strong, and the instrumentals are quite interesting and solid in quality. She is apparently categorized as both rock and contemporary folk. This album, Steady On, was her first, released in 1989. All tracks were written by Shawn Colvin (some with the help of John Leventhal).

1. "Steady On"

We start off the album with the title track here; unlike with many of the albums I review, this opening track is not either an obvious single or upbeat number. It does, however, set the tone quite nicely for the rest of the album. Which leaves the task of describing what exactly that is... sadly, I am not a music theorist and this is significantly different from a lot of other music I like (The Beatles, Coldplay, etc.). I suppose I will have to be pretty impressionistic about the music here, since I'm obviously failing at specifics. To me, the feel of this song is like going on a long car drive, especially in the chorus, just driving down one of those endless highways. It prepares your mind and mood for the relaxing yet thoughtful tone of the album.

2. "Diamond in the Rough"

This song is a bit more active than the opening title track, driven by the guitar (keep in mind, I don't mean "drive" in the rock'n'roll sense; just more of a sense of the beat). The verses give a definite sense of buildup, both from the vocal and the instrumental work; when the chorus comes in, the feel turns more to straight folk-rock. This is followed by an interesting part by a flute-like instrument (again, I'm clueless as to exactly what it is). The song contains a unique, unexpected but very neat little middle-eight section as well. Great instrumentals, great melody make this one of my favorite tracks on the album.

3. "Shotgun Down the Avalanche"

This one is also somewhat more uptempo than the opening track, but the feel here is much more mysterious than "Diamond"s. The verses are the strength here, as Shawn puts quite a bit of variety into her vocal (even compared to the other tracks), while the chorus is quite restrained and short. Guitars of several varieties make their strongest appearance yet on this track, and also features the strongest demonstration yet of Colvin's trademark, echo-y guitar sound. This is a very interesting track, and certainly worth playing through at least a few times.

4. "Stranded"

Now we go back to a slower style - this one might be the slowest on the album, in fact. The verses are very pretty, even if it starts to sound a bit too repetitive after awhile. And the chorus indeed does a great job of instilling the feeling of being stranded. It's an alright song, but I think one of the weaker points on the album. It just is slow to the point of almost plodding, and the mood downbeat to the point of almost depressing. This is one where the mood you are in while likely greatly affect how you feel about it.

5. "Another Long One"

Ah, good, we're back to something a little more uptempo, featuring percussion that almost sounds like someone banging on a garbage can (a cool effect, trust me). Shawn enters with an insistent-sounding verse before moving to the chorus, one of her best on the album and making neat use of a double-tracked vocal. The instrumental mix is quite odd, but fits perfectly, just as in the title track (which I forgot to mention there). This song was definitely a good choice to put right after "Stranded," as it quickly snaps the listener's attention back on the music.

6. "Cry Like An Angel"

Although this song is not at all fast, it's got a nice beat to tap your foot to. The verses are quite cool, a little reminiscent of "Diamond..." here. I also like the start of the chorus, which seems to be building to a nice finish - when instead it oddly seems to fizzle out. An accordion and the echo-y guitars are featured here in the instrumentals. I think this one goes on a bit too long, especially since Shawn never gives the outburst of intensity that the song seems to promise. There are some really strong points here, but some disappointment, too.

7. "Something To Believe In"

Here, Shawn does a much better in seeing it through from the beginning of the verse through the end of the chorus. The verses give the impression (and perhaps the lyrics in them as well...) of running through a list of life's questions; not posing them as bad things, but just as challenges. The chorus answers this with, well... the title of the song. Just keep pushing through. The more laid back beat gives the song a nice platform to consider those ideas, too, all while keeping your foot tapping gently. I get a little bit of the feeling from the title track, too, of the ongoing nature of the theme. Good continuity, and a nice song.

8. "The Story"

Yay, a song in 6/8 time! Beyond the song's meter signature (which also helps), this is just a really nice piece of music. Shawn uses one of her most gentle, soothing vocal styles, and it really almost makes the term "pretty song" a tangible thing. The verses are very nice, with the lyrics coming from Colvin's lips at a pretty good clip. The chorus, however, begins with an extended note on which Shawn displays her expressionism impressively. In addition, behind the gentle nature of the song is a theme of determination and strength. One of my favorite tracks on the album.

9. "Ricochet In Time"

Here we get the shortest track on the album, and it seems to me a little like a cross between "Steady On" and "Stranded," with percussion on the upbeat to give it more tempo. It's not a very ambitious track; it neither soars high nor crashes down low. Some funky instrumental work is what stands out the most here. The verses are fine, and the chorus once again gives that feeling of, as The Beatles would have said, "the long and winding road," as first created by the title track. Not bad, but not great, either.

10. "Dead Of The Night"

The instrumentals, with deep drums and high strings, give it a more dramatic feel to start, then seems to come back to a regular level of intensity during the verse, before rising again just before the chorus where Shawn lets loose without getting loud, either. I suppose this track makes a good bookend for the album with "Steady On"; again, that sense of the "long road" is present, particularly in the chorus. This track has more dramatic flair than the title track, but it definitely also has more of a sense of finality to it. Another one that I can feel quite differently about depending on my mood: it can seem either too slow and plodding, or it can seem quite powerful and beautiful.

Score: 4 out of 5. I'm afraid this is probably one of my weakest reviews I've done so far. Shawn Colvin's music is simply considerably different from what I'm used to writing about. This is certainly quite a strong album, but it is sort of like Coldplay's first album: concentrates on the strength of the artist - which isn't a bad thing exactly, but neither album really tried to move out of its comfort zone. Still, this album is definitely worth at least a listen or two.

Essentials: "Steady On", "Diamond In The Rough", "Something To Believe In", "The Story"

Weak(er) Songs: "Stranded", "Ricochet In Time"

Movies: Battle: LA

Score: **1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: Battle: LA has an enticing action premise, with gritty street fighting, cool visuals, and a high level of suspense. It delivers these, but is dragged down, first and foremost, by a simply horrendous script (even for an action film). The nail in the coffin is a wretched final act that just gets worse until its abrupt ending.

For the first time in a long time, I finally got to see a movie on opening night! I have been looking forward to Battle: LA since I saw the trailer last summer. The film is about an alien invasion of a certain city in California (sadly, no mention was made of whether or not the Lakers survived); it was directed by Jonathan Liebesman (who hasn't really done anything else of note). Unfortunately, my expectations were not quite met...

Here's a synopsis of the "story" of Battle: LA. Marine Staff Sgt. Nantz (Eckhart) is a veteran soldier on the cusp of retirement; he won some medals in combat, but is currently training new troops back at home. We also meet some of his trainees, including a young guy set to take command of the unit. TV reports of a meteor shower prompt a mobilization of the military which, as Eckhart and co. arrive, knows that in reality it's a landing of extraterrestrial beings. Missions are divvied out, and Eckhart's unit has to try to retrieve some civilians stuck in an area designated for imminent carpet bombing by our own forces.

The Marines make their way through the ruins of an LA suburb, and eventually find the civilians in a busted police HQ. The next large chunk of the film shows the Marines taking them to "safety"; but they arrive to find the forward operating airbase in ruins. Somehow, they manage to call for evac, but the Marines take a detour (while the civilians get ferried to safety) that ends up saving the day.

Yes, it's a mindless action film, but I'll still talk about the acting here anyway. I'll preface individual roles by saying, whoever wrote this film (looking... Christopher Bertolini) should never ever be allowed to write dialogue ever again. It isn't too terrible for the first half, but after that, it is painfully bad. With that said, the lead actor, Aaron Eckhart, manages a pretty good job portraying a grizzled Marine veteran with genuine courage. It doesn't hurt that he both looks and sounds the part, too. Everyone else has such a small role (at least in terms of dialogue) that they're barely worth mentioning, and unfortunately Bertolini ruins most of their parts. Michelle Rodriguez is the most recognizable of the supporting cast, and she gives a pretty average performance (basically the same role she had in Avatar).

I have to give Battle: LA at least a little credit: I was on the edge of my seat with tension for just about all of the first half to two-thirds of the film. The action (at least until the last act) seems as realistic as you could make battle against aliens. The Marines (again, at least until the last act) aren't super heroes by any means, and the looming sense of danger and death is ever-present. The shaky-cam style is used, which I don't typically like; however, it's a good fit for the film, and it's done significantly better than some other films. There are a few attempts made at humor in this film, most of which fail; unfortunately, there is also a healthy dose of unintentional humor, especially toward the end.

***

The strength of the suspense and direction of the action (throughout most of the film) might have been enough to get Battle: LA three stars. However, I am frustrated because, with just a little more effort and thought behind this, it could have been a really good action film. The first thing I would have done is drop the haphazard "Hollywood" feel in the non-shooting parts, as it clashes horribly with the gritty action sequences (and worsened by the terrible writing itself). Second, the ending is completely lazy, although it really starts going downhill fast right after the Marines make it to the ruined airport. One of my pet peeves in movies is lazily or just generally badly done endings, and this is a prime offender. Thus, it only gets two and a half stars, a poor opening big-budget action flick for 2011.