da_lowdown

"What good will it do to gain the world and lose your soul?" (Mark 8:36)

At some point in our lives, most of us surrender our dreams to responsibilities of life. Family, mortgages, and the careers to sustain them. All these things of life. Some necessary. Some necessary evils. And all those unfulfilled dreams follow us to our graves. Let's face it, for most of us, it takes balls to follow your dreams, because it takes balls to fail big.

"Death", and its lead-man David Hackney, had the balls to follow their dreams. Bound by faith, family, and an unshakable confidence, they followed their dream despite the odds stacked against them. They weren't afraid to fail big. They knew that their music and their vision for the band had risks.

Listening to their music, it's evident that they were way ahead of their time, and yes, unfortunately, not what the mainstream audience expected. But still, they persisted past the rejections, disappointments and heartaches, buoyed by family loyalty and love of music.

The bright light shining through the disappointment and heartache, is the love of family. The the real core and power of this movie, is how your family's love and faith doesn't fail, even when everything else has.

Here's to the dreamers. Your dreams will be realized long after your departure. Your dreams will be your legacy and your loved ones the beneficiaries.

Rock on, all you misfits.

After watching Donnie Darko multiple times, and loving it despite all of it's flaws, I really wanted to like this one. But by the time the credits started to roll, I had a massive headache and a numb butt. Here's the rundown.

THINGS THAT WORKED

• Many of the set pieces work individually. Great energy, great ideas, great cinematography

• Quirky performances from most of the cast keeps thing interesting.

• So many starring roles and cameos from B,C and D list stars, I say there's gotta be a great drinking game in here somewhere

• Some scenes come across as fully improvised (this can be good sometimes)

AND THOSE THAT DIDN'T

• No coherent plot because....

• There are too many characters

• Too many plot lines

• Too many ideas and sub-themes

• Not enough discipline in the storytelling

• Some scenes come across as fully improvised (this can be very bad sometimes)

SUMMARY This movie feels like Richard Kelly jotted an assortment of clever ideas on index cards, and then threw them into a rotating fan, picked them off the floor, and then starting shooting the movie. The maddening thing is that there are moments in the movie where it starts to build coherence before it all falls apart again. I realize that he was probably aiming for an ephemeral 'dreamlike' quality to the storytelling, similar to something David Lynch has done (successfully) in the past, but Kelly is no Lynch.

Not a terrible movie. Just an interesting one that might test your patience. You be the judge.

There are times a movie's style can overcome it's lack of substance. But not this time. When this movie was released back in the early 80s, it was the eagerly anticipated 'gamechanger' from the maestro himself. Coppola's novel approach to directing and editing using cutting edge technology (at the time) would revolutionize the art of film making. Instead, it was a commercial flop. Audiences found a shallow beauty. A gorgeous girl with clever quips and opening lines, but no real depth or heart.

The biggest problem for me was that the story feels so disjointed. It's a series of beautiful looking vignettes held together by a paper thin plot and flat two dimensional characters. A lot of the scenes feel stilted and over-rehearsed. There's no spontaneity or life.

It's not a complete waste of time, however. It is a beautiful looking movie. Terri Garr and Natasia Kinski look exquisite. There are a lot of interesting and eye catching touches. The set designs are works of art. You might like this if you are in the right mood, and want to see something different. But if you are looking for a coherent narrative, and engaging character development, you might want to pass.