Katz5

Director Penelope Spheeris is back with her second of three rock documentaries (or, if you will, rockumentaries). The Metal Years, as the title proclaims, trades in the skid row excesses of the late '70s/early '80s LA punk scene with the over the top excesses of the late '80s LA "metal" scene.

The title is a bit misleading. Most of these bands are not "metal." Kiss and Alice Cooper are not "metal." Aerosmith is not "metal." To quote Ozzy Osbourne, "what is heavy metal? Lead? There's no such thing, really." The focus of the documentary is hopeful bands who all claim they will be "the next great thing, bigger than Led Zeppelin, bigger than the Stones!" And none of these bands have any backup plans because "we're all gonna make it! We are all gonna be superstars." So here are the names of the bands who declared, in early 1988, that "everyone will know who they are in a year": Faster Pussycat. Seduce. Odin. Wow, real household names there.

Their through the roof arrogance and delusions are only mirrored by their banality...all they care about, seemingly, is sex. Sex and rock and roll. Not drugs, as these hopefuls saw what drugs did to some of their idols (also interviewed in this documentary). But they are hard drinkers and most of them smoke cigarettes...but whatever.

One fan (or one of those up and coming band members...I can't remember) talks about how "metal" is a "response to glam." They are not glam! Oh really? All that lipstick and big hair say otherwise.

Of those banal bands, the only band in that "hair band" subgenre that made it was Poison....their interviews in this documentary are rather insipid too. Girls, sex, boobs, booze, more girls, butts, boobs. Poison's album titles like "Open Up and Say Ahh!" press that obsession. Where's Smell the Glove when we need it? Poison managed to eek out a Number One hit later in 1988 with Every Rose Has Its Thorn, which invokes cowboys and western motifs to the point of absolute thievery (of Bon Jovi). Unfortunately, Bon Jovi was not interviewed in the film.

Also missing from the film was Guns n Roses, who in early 1988 was just becoming a juggernaut. They were extremely famous in LA at the time but didn't break out into the mainstream until the single Sweet Child O Mine was released in the summer of '88. Guns n Roses was the last hurrah of "hair metal" (a better term than heavy metal). And it was a phenomenal last hurrah, as their Appetite for Destruction album stayed on the charts for nearly 3 years.

As for W. A. S. P's Chris Holmes: he appears with his mom in the film (he's in a pool chair literally drowning himself in vodka while mom watches and her facial expressions sum up how she felt about her son without uttering a word). Apparently he got clean and sober and continued to rock on.

Steven Tyler and Joe Perry provide the most interesting insights, which is to be expected. The Toxic Twins lived the sex, drugs, and rock n roll lifestyle arguably more than any other band in the '70s. By the time of the interview in this film, they had been sober for only 11 months. It's now 2025 and they continue to rock on.

Ozzy is famously interviewed while cooking breakfast, also talking about his addictions. Two guys who never got addicted, Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley, show up occasionally to provide their perspectives about the industry - which mostly have to do with getting laid. Although their devotion to their fans comes off as genuine.

Perhaps there was a method to Spheeris's madness with this documentary. She closes the film with footage of Megadeth and interviews with Dave Mustaine, the antithesis of the one-note stupidity (for lack of a better term) displayed by the aforementioned "who were they" bands.

Apparently this documentary was partially responsible for the end of hair metal and the dawn of grunge music. Perhaps. But the success of Guns n Roses into the early 1990s tells another story. Guns n Roses was sort of a bridge between the Aerosmith/Van Halen era of the '70s to early '80s and the grunge era of the early to mid '90s.

Another interesting snapshot of the LA music scene that has its moments.

This film was made in 1979-80, when the LA punk scene was in its adolescence. This gives it a sense of authenticity with its performances and interviews. Several of these bands were considered trailblazers at the time and have left their mark on the genre all these years later (mainly X, the Circle Jerks, and Fear). The others were big names at the time but now mostly forgotten. Others are absolutely forgotten...but the footage is still interesting.

Director Penelope Spheeris interviews several of the bands, but alas not all of them. Interviews with members of Fear, Circle Jerks, and even the Alice Bag Band would probably have been enjoyable (especially Fear). Instead, she spends way too much time on Darby Crash, one of punk's casualties, who didn't have anything particularly interesting to say in the interviews except how he loves to get high before performances and demands beer from the crowd to "come down." Subtitles definitely needed for the gibberish he blathers onstage.

Members of Black Flag explain their $16-a-month rental and their beds stuffed in closets in their apartment, converted from an old church. Members of X are interviewed in their home as well. X was (is) probably the only band featured in the documentary that has something constructive to say about sex, marriage, violence, and society.

Then there are the interviews with punk fans. There is something very off-putting about these young fans. British punk bands like the Sex Pistols and The Clash were not just anti-establishment - they were anti- Oligarchy, anti-authoritarianism, and anti- consumerism. These kids being interviewed in the documentary have a decidedly pro-authoritarianism tilt, and are racist to the core. They also seem to revel in violence for the sake of violence. Edward Norton may have watched these interviews to prepare for his role in American History X.

The concert footage goes on for too long as well. Instead of hearing three songs from mostly forgotten punk bands like Catholic Discipline, more interviews would have been preferred. And also a bit of history about the evolution of punk music in the U. S. for those who are not familiar with the genre. And Spheeris's method of interviewing is commendable - just letting the subjects talk. Unfortunately for many of the subjects, they really don't have anything enlightening to say.

Worth a watch for historical value.

Anything with Bob Odenkirk is going to be offbeat and entertaining and his attempt at a scrappier, more efficient version of a John Wick movie is no exception. Despite being a professionally trained killer, his domestic scenes smack of Jimmy McGill/Saul Goodman.

And as the case with John Wick (the first movie, at least) the villains are a never-ending supply of entitled Russian gangsters - first the younger ones he deals with on a public bus (in order to protect a young woman from a likely gang rape by said Russian thugs), and then the head gangster and his soldiers.

Odenkirk's Hutch and his family (including his wife who may or may not be as skilled as he is - the movie leaves that prospect open and perhaps the sequel will expand on that) live a normal humdrum life of a "nobody," as Hutch constantly reminds those around him. A scene with Hutch working at a Cinnabon would have been a nifty inside joke for Better Call Saul fans. But the encounter on the bus thrusts the family into high level danger. An assault on their "ordinary" home is inevitable.

The John Wick films have become overwrought, tedious affairs, at least in my humble opinion, not to mention long (the most recent Wick movie was over 3 hours!) Nobody runs for a lean 93 minutes, and includes arguably more (and better) action than the John Wick sequels. Nobody is definitely a leave-your-brains-at-the-door entertainment, merging elements of not only Wick, but also Liam Neeson's Taken (the idea of such an ordinary type of guy being a highly skilled killer).

There are some surprises in the cast as well. It's nice to see Michael Ironside, a psychotic villain of so many '80s and '90s movies, in a sympathetic role. And Christopher Lloyd, as Hutch's dad--what a treat to see him again. Those who appreciate Odenkirks' rather skewed characterizations will definitely enjoy this one.