The Devil's Carnival

First things first; I'm going to shake up the format of this particular blog entry. Instead of my trusty "PROS/CONS/VERDICT" standby, I'm just going to lay out what the experience of attending The Devil's Carnival was like as best I can and let you draw your own conclusions. This is partially because my usual model isn't quite suited to conveying what The Devil's Carnival is totally like, and partially for the sake of keeping things fresh.

But first, a brief preface for those of you who don't know what The Devil's Carnival is:

I really can't say it better than creators Darren Lynn Bousman (director of Saw II-IV, Repo! The Genetic Opera, and a few lesser-known miscellaneous horror movies) and Terrance Zdunich (co-creator of Repo! in addition to portraying Lucifer in The Devil's Carnival and The Graverobber in Repo!) did in a previous interview, The Devil's Carnival is "a cross between Tales from the Crypt and the anti-f*cking Glee." Well said, gents! When the two collaborated on one of my personal favorites, the post-apocalyptic goth opera Repo! The Genetic Opera a few years ago, distributing studio Lionsgate didn't feel the piece was up to a wide release and gave it a very limited engagement; something like 6 or 7 screens nationwide. Instead of whining about "the Man," Terrance and Darren took it upon themselves to promote the film with a nationwide road tour; tagging in cast and crew members from the film to sign autographs and chat with fans along the way. The tour was a great success, and spawned two more. When the dynamic duo was unable to get Lionsgate (who now owns Repo!, unfortunately) to greenlight a sequel, they fell back to another project: The Devil's Carnival. Seeking to "create an experience you can't download" and bring back "what makes going to the movies fun," the two scraped and scrounged and put together the budget they needed to fund the project on their own. Bypassing the studio system completely, the two took The Devil's Carnival on the road - much like Repo! before it - with members of the cast and crew along for the ride.

I had the good fortune of grabbing tickets for a last-minute encore presentation in Los Angeles - a stop that coincided with my vacation in the Sunshine State nicely.

I went to The Devil's Carnival with my good buddy Andy, a fellow cinephile. He and I are something of a Mark-and-Jeremy from the British sitcom "Peep Show," with (hopefully) a bit less anti-social tendencies...and with American accents, sometimes.

We arrived early enough to be at basically the front of the line, while the next hour or so saw the gaggle of attendees stretch so far down the street behind us I couldn't exactly see where it ended. We were surrounded by a veritable treasure trove of "alternative lifestyle" folk; from post-ops (I think), pre-ops, (I'm sure), goths, attendees in costume as various Carnival characters, and then basically us: the two white guys in regular clothes at the front of the line. Some might have found the spread a bit too counter-culture, but personally I enjoy the company of those society labels 'freaks' or 'outcasts.' Their presence proves that not every subculture has been bastardized by hipsters and people obsessed with how meta everything is. Standing in line, there was no grand sense of pretense and for me personally, that put everything right on track for a great time.

I noticed Mika Boorem milling around the door, though I didn't remember her name at the time. I saw her for a moment and thought "That face looks like a 10 to 12-years-older version of a face in my memory" and after a couple of minutes sleuthing film credits on my phone pinned down her identity. For those who don't quite remember, she played the elder daughter in Mel Gibson's The Patriot and a young Charlize Theron in Mighty Joe Young - among other things...hence the gap in my memory as to what she looked like. Fairly inconsequential for the rest of the attendees, as I didn't notice anyone else noticing her. But for me it raised the bar a bit - seeing celebrities not directly attached to the project show up.

A little closer to the lifting of the curtain, Darren walked by, looking like the charming homeless version of J.J. Abrams that he does. Even with the anticipation mounting, you could sense that everyone there - from Darren himself to the gorgeous ticket-girl(s) - was on equal footing. We were all there to support an "underground" film, part of a dark little family stitched together for a few hours in North Hollywood; no one more important than the other.

Finally the line started slinking into the theater, and as Andy and I took our seats, I noticed Emilie Autumn immediately in the row in front of us - chatting with her Bloody Crumpet compadre Captain Maggot. Both of them Devil's Carnival cast members, they were just getting ready for the show and all that good stuff right in front of us - within arm's length. It took a few minutes for the rest of the attendees to file in and find seats, during which Andy and I joked back and forth about the implications of going to something called The Devil's Carnival on any given Sunday, and on Mother's Day no less.

The lights dimmed a bit and the focus was directed to the front of the theater, in which a brief "sideshow" was being performed. Namely, a woman was performing "The Human Blockhead" which involved her hammering and powertool-ing a nail and a screw into her head, respectively. Typical sideshow carnival stuff - accompanied by a girl in a creepy clown getup playing a gleeful carnie tune on a piano. The sideshow concluded, and a brief behind-the-scenes featurette of Repo! began, complete with sing-along! Being the pretentious film goer I am, I cursed the words for dancing at the bottom of the screen because I wanted to impress everyone within earshot with how well I knew the lyrics to this song. My gestures were futile, as I knew they would be, as the whole theater was singing along anyway, and I further cursed not having the opportunity to join the Repo! Road Tour back when it was making the rounds.

The Repo! featurette ended, and The Devil's Carnival began. It's technically a short film, clocking in at almost exactly 60 minutes. The movie follows 3 people down to Hell where they re-enact tableaus of Aesop's Fables - with the implication being that the lessons taught in the fable relate to the follies that led them to Hell in the first place. For example, a girl (Briana Evigan) who clearly spent her life in pursuit of jewelry and fineries finds herself playing the role of the dog in "The Dog and Her Reflection." True to the "anti-f*cking Glee" nature of the film, each tale is overlaid with a song or songs that further elucidate the moral of the story.

The music was LOUD. I mean...whew. It became genuinely difficult to enjoy the film (for me) with a deafening soundtrack, and I generally like deafening soundtracks. Carnie music isn't exactly my cup of tea though - a brisk staccato pace carried mostly by brass instruments and drums. Think Danny Elfman's music played twice as fast, twice as menacing, and competing with a jet engine for audibility. The lyrics (when I could catch them) were very well-crafted and poetic, and the music itself isn't entirely unsavory; but played at that level didn't wholly endear me to the genre.

The film concluded, while not on a cliffhanger per se, but definitely with the implication that this is just the beginning. Actually, it was less an implication and more of a mantra. During the Q&A that followed (which was preceded by a brief costume contest) Terrance and Darren explained - among other things - that what they're trying to do with The Devil's Carnival is "build a brand." They've already written Episode 2 and essentially had it on hold pending how well the road tour did. All indications during the show were that the road tour has been successful enough to warrant production on the next installment and to hear the two of them talk about it - like the fanboys that they are - it sounds like that's on the top of their To-Do List.

The Q&A wrapped up and fans swarmed the gathering of cast and crew down at the front of the theater. Tactfully - I thought - I decided to hang back and hit them up on their way out of the theater and into the lobby, which is where I assumed they would take pictures, sign autographs, and generally schmooze. Ultimately, they kind of scattered on their own individually, but I did manage to shake hands with and chat briefly with Terrance. I can confirm for any fangirls reading this that he is absolutely as charming and down-to-earth as you'd expect. And that voice that had you all swooning in your black boots and corsets? It's totally how he talks in real life. I swooned a little bit. As I touched on briefly before, Terrance confirmed what I feared: there will be no Repo! sequel. Since Lionsgate owns Repo!, Terrance said that The Devil's Carnival "is our Repo! sequel." Admittedly, I was a little distraught. But the news is tempered by the fact that Terrance and Darren haven't come close to giving up what they do.

I also briefly managed to snag Alexa Vega before she was whisked away by one of the ticket girls. If you ever get a chance to chat with that young woman, I highly recommend you do so. Yes, she's attractive. But she's also as cool a chick as you're likely to meet - and very down-to-earth. Like "I-walked-up-just-to-say-I-had-a-great-time-and-she-asked-and-remembered-my-name" down-to-earth. And while I'm bragging on the internet, I also got a hug from her in parting; and not some half-ass side hug either.

As a whole, Terrance and Darren and their cohorts have done exactly what they set out to do: create an experience you can't download and more importantly, one you wouldn't want to even if you could. The Devil's Carnival was like a thin 3-hour slice of being at a film festival. The Q&A's, the presence of cast and crew, and just the sheer high of feeling as though you're on the creative cutting edge; it all adds up to a brilliantly unique experience. The film itself was not my favorite, in all honesty. It's not bad, it's just not my particular cup of tea, and had I just seen the film at home on my computer one afternoon I probably wouldn't have been all that jazzed about the project. But take the movie on the road, bring everyone you made it with along for the ride, and make a point to engage the fanbase at a grassroots level - I'm there. It's precisely the kind of "business model" that I think could make a drastic difference in the way films are made and shown. Terrance and Darren aren't sitting somewhere whining about piracy and how it's destroying their craft, and on the flipside they're not eating out of the corporate trough while damning The Man. Instead, they're getting out there and making sacrifices and doing what they love - without trying to make millions of dollars in the rat race of fame. And I was proud to be a part of that tour and supporting them in their efforts.

I'll be at one or more of the stops along the way when episode 2 comes down the pike, and I can't recommend more highly that you do the same. Even if a 60-minute musical about postmodern examples of Aesop's Fables isn't the kind of movie you normally go for, do it anyway. Go for the potential education on independent filmmaking. Go for the costumes. Go for the celebrity appearances. Go for the sheer non-mainstreamness of it all! It's wicked fun.

The Redbox Report - May 7, 2012

It's that time again, ladies and gents. I picked out a few titles from the local Redbox kiosk right outside the H-E-B I frequent and have compiled some brief critiques as follows:

WE BOUGHT A ZOO

I'm not usually one to be sucked in by smarmy stories or pure sentimentality, but when I am it's usually because Cameron Crowe directed. Say Anything, Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous; every one of these movies I went into skeptical and came out a believer. We Bought a Zoo is no exception. The story is practically right there in the title. Based on the true story of widower Benjamin Mee (portrayed by Matt Damon) and his family, the film follows the story of a family that rolled the dice on a new house with one caveat: it's a zoo. Home to several exotic animals and their caretakers - the Mee's find themselves on a challenging adventure as they learn the family lessons that come with spontaneous zoo ownership. The supporting cast is wonderfully arranged, and Scarlett Johansson looks like a real human being in this film; as opposed to the almost unrealistic specimen of feminine beauty the camera normally seems obsessed with creating. Maggie Elizabeth Jones, who plays the 7-year old Rosie Mee, practically steals every scene she's in adding yet another layer to the heartfelt sentimentality this film is all about. If my tone betrays a measure of resentment, that's somewhat by design. I didn't want to like this movie as much as I did, because I could feel my heartstrings being tugged at like a fishing line with Jaws himself on the other end. Heartfelt performances, a story about a wife and mother lost to disease, and cute little furry animals all over the place would have been enough to illicit a few tears. But the icing on the cake is Jonsi's (and a few actual Sigur Ros songs) typically soul-shattering music - "gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh." I was in tears practically from the start of the film to the end, and while I say that with a modicum of bitterness and resentment, at the end of the day the movie is truly uplifting. To say the sentimentality of this film is sticky-sweet would be an understatement, but I did greatly enjoy We Bought a Zoo and its soundtrack. If you're in the mood for the kind of feel-good movie that will make you want to stand up and cheer at the finale - you can't do much better than this one.

THE DESCENDANTS

Dramedies can be a tough sell. It takes a writer with a truly deft creative hand to properly balance poignant drama with comedic material and often, the balance shifts precariously when the drama grows ever darker. The Descendants is a great example of how to maintain that balance. George Clooney plays Matt King, a man whose wife has been in a deep coma for several weeks after a boating accident. It's made clear that his marriage was hardly sterling even before the accident, and that's reflected in the misbehavior of his two daughters. When given the news that his wife will not recover from the coma and that her will stipulates she must be removed from life support, Matt begins the difficult task of informing close friends and family. In so doing, he stumbles upon the unsettling news that his wife was cheating on him. And narrative hijinks ensue. I say that somewhat flippantly, of course, but The Descendants approaches its material with appropriate reverence. The key in balancing a kind of dark humor with such a dark story in this film basically boils down to running two stories parallel to each other. In one, Matt labors to bring harmony back into his family as they prepare to bid his wife farewell. In the other, Matt takes his family on a bit of a getaway to find the man with whom she was being unfaithful. Of course both subjects are very heavy, but there's more room to explore some self-deprecation and biting one-liners in the latter. Consequently the film balances out quite well. Clooney is his usual charming self but mixes in a little self-doubt for effect. Shailene Woodley (of The Secret Life of the American Teenager fame) plays his oldest daughter Alex, and apparently she's been holding out on us. To watch her ABC Family show, you'd hardly know she was capable of a performance as nuanced and moving as a veteran actor like Clooney, but in The Descendants she shines. It's hard to call this film a pure comedy, because it's humor is rather subtle. Moments like watching George Clooney sprinting down the street in loafers aren't particularly funny without context. And with context, they can be a tad morbid. But in the case of The Descendants, there's as much gravity as levity and it serves to give the film a very genuine and "real-life" feel. I can't say I was overly charmed by the youngest sister's portrayal as a total brat, but fortunately she's not the centerpiece of the film. There's a lot of language in this one, but I've never found that to be a deterrent personally. Overall, The Descendants sets a very somber tone without being melodramatic and brilliantly maintains that tone through to the end. It's a bit of a tear-jerker, but it's not depressing - at least it wasn't for me.

THE RUM DIARY

Johnny Depp is at it again, playing Hunter S. Thompson...but not exactly Hunter S. Thompson. It's little secret that Thompson's works are semi-autobiographical - though he routinely changed names and reworked details for the sake of the story. What Raoul Duke is to Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Paul Kemp is to Hunter S. Thompson in The Rum Diary. Given that Depp has played both roles, and was a close personal friend of Hunter's, I felt there was a measure of spiritual symmetry to it. The story follows alcoholic writer Paul Kemp to Puerto Rico where he takes on a writing job at a doomed local newspaper. The country itself is embroiled in political discontent, and Kemp is struggling to find his own voice as a writer. He unwittingly becomes entangled with a group of rather shady businessmen, led by the charismatic Hal Sanderson (Aaron Eckhert). Simultaneously he falls for Sanderson's bombshell of a girlfriend (played by Amber Heard, who bears an uncanny resemblance to a young Sharon Stone in this film), further deepening his mounting dilemmas. It would be a bit generous to call The Rum Diary a comedy, but unfair to call it a drama as well. It exists somewhere in between, but not nearly enough of either to be called a true dramedy or even black comedy. My expectations for the film weren't particularly high, which may be part of why I found it pretty entertaining. Johnny Depp is always a pleasure to watch, and his supporting cast is more than up to the task of fleshing out the world around him. What I felt this film was missing though was Thompson's lyricism. Terry Gilliam's take on Fear and Loathing really plumbed the depths of drug-induced psychosis; that film is just crazy. But by combining voice-over with an already verbose portrayal courtesy of Depp, Thompson's presence in the film is much more palpable. The Rum Diary makes a few passes at Thompson's presence but they don't seem as sincere. There are one or two voice-overs and a smattering of very Thompson-esque dialogue, but not nearly as much as I was hoping for. Having said that, the film is about Kemp finding his voice as a writer, so it's possible such absence was by design. Either way, The Rum Diary is another delightful turn from Depp, and an entertaining film in its own right. It's a bit overlong and it certainly rambles in its search for the meat of its story. But as a fan of Thompson's work, I enjoyed this film for what it was.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL

It's an iconic American motif; that receding fuse snaking around opening credits and "preview clips" of what's to come while that instantly recognizable tune makes its way in. If you don't have it stuck in your head now you're probably not from around here. But even if you weren't old enough to enjoy the television series, Tom Cruise has been starring in Mission Impossible movies since 1996. And in a rare turn of events, each succeeding film in the series has been more and more positively reviewed. That puts Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in the unlikely but pleasantly surprising place of being the fourth film in a series with the highest critical response (maintaining a 90%+ rating on Rotten Tomatoes since release) and it's quite deserving. After a recent operation in the Kremlin is blown by a rogue nuclear terrorist, the entire IMF is disavowed by the government - there's no support, no extraction, it's just Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and a team of three other agents. The team discovers that the agent who blew their cover is Kurt Hendricks, a man who believes he can usher in the next stage of human evolution by unleashing nuclear war on the planet; classic arch villain material. Tasked with stopping a madman and clearing their own names while being pursued by other government agents convinced they're terrorists, the 4 agents punch, shoot, swing, crash cars, and otherwise *every-action-movie-verb* their way through a movie that's pure energy and pure fun. I'm not a huge fan of Tom Cruise personally, but there's no doubt that he knows how to do action movies. Brad Bird's direction (and Michael Giacchino's score) put me in mind of The Incredibles throughout much of the film but that wasn't a bad thing at all. Ghost Protocol isn't the kind of family fare that The Incredibles is, but both films revel in the sheer bliss of fast-paced action scenes and cool gadgets. The film stands well on its own, but it certainly doesn't hurt to catch up on the previous movies in the series just to be up to speed from the get go. But after seeing this one, I'm greatly looking forward to the next Mission Impossible movie.

TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY

John le Carre wrote Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in 1974. In 1979, it was adapted to a BBC miniseries and was largely well-received. Its most recent treatment is the 2011 film adaptation starring Gary Oldman as George Smiley. Having not read the book and not seen the miniseries, I really knew very little about this film other than the fact that Oldman was nominated for an Oscar and - to hear some tell it - cheated out of it when Jean Dujardin won instead. The film follows a group of British Intelligence officers on the hunt for a mole in their midst. Smiley becomes something of a lead investigator in the mole hunt, carefully weaving his way in and around his colleagues. It's a marvelous performance from Oldman, but I don't know that I've ever been so clueless about what's going on in a film in my life. Having finished it, I'm still largely unclear on certain character's motivations and just what everyone was doing the whole time. Everyone in the ensemble cast plays their role wonderfully, and the dialogue is well-crafted and usually succinct. But the film sacrificed some much-needed exposition for brevity's sake and the film suffers for it. In light of all the positive critical attention the film received I feel a bit dimwitted, admittedly. But the film jumps around chronologically without any indication of how or when; there are no "2 years later" titles, the makeup for the characters isn't really changed to imply their being younger or older, and the editing isn't conducive to remembering who is who. I know characters can't go around with big signs on their foreheads so we remember their names, but I can hardly recall a single character's name; voice overs interrupt conversations, characters are addressed by code names, first names, and last names (but rarely with consistency), and there's a myriad of them to begin with. Apparently Mr. le Carre voiced concerns that the book was too large to be condensed into a single film, and I think I agree with him. Had I read the book or seen the mini-series, I probably wouldn't have been so confused by the film. But it's incredibly hard to follow, and I was bent on focus. It's not a bad film, per se. But because there are too many characters to keep up with, and the chronology of the film is inscrutable, when the big reveal occurs at the climax and we discover who the mole is I was overwhelmed by a sense of ambivalence. Nothing felt like it was at stake, apart from the fact that contextually this is international espionage, and nothing felt profoundly won or defeated. Without sufficient time to develop relationships between the characters, I couldn't shake a feeling of complete disinterest. I wanted to like this film because I don't usually like being in the critical minority. The film is marvelously acted and filmed with expert care; shot composition is textbook perfection. But unless you're familiar with whatever it was in the books and mini-series that made this piece such a triumph, I doubt you'll Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy worth the effort.

The Avengers

The movie needs little introduction. You don't have to be a comic book fanboy/girl to know that the hype around the latest in Marvel's movie adaptations has a great deal to live up to. But given the fact that The Avengers went on to break the box office record for biggest opening weekend (dethroning Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2) in all likelihood if you're reading this you've already seen the film and know that every moment spent waiting for it has been completely worth it. At the risk of being completely redundant, though, I'll go ahead and give it the Other R2D2 Blog treatment.

THE PROS:

First off: Joss Whedon. I barely even need to elaborate here. Yes, he's developed something of a cult of personality but he's every bit deserving of it. C'mon, Firefly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog...any one of those titles serves to prove Whedon's creative prowess, not to mention the myriad of other writing, creating, directing, and producing credits behind him. His signature style is clearly visible on The Avengers, and it's just what the doctor ordered. Whedon knows how to balance character development and action to pitch perfection and it's no more obvious than in this film. If Marvel knows what's good for them, Whedon will hopefully helm everything Marvel makes from now on forever and ever.

Hyperbole aside, The Avengers may be the best Marvel film to date and that's largely due to Whedon's skill as writer and director. I was admittedly skeptical about the film leading up to its release. Marvel had done a wonderful job of giving each of their characters a movie that fit them perfectly; Iron Man and Iron Man 2 sported a high-octane, rock-n-roll vibe that reflected Tony Stark's playboy persona. Thor practiced a vaguely Shakespearean motif courtesy of director Kenneth Branagh that allowed the "elevated" English the Asgardians spoke seem less out-of-place. Captain America wisely pulled off a very meta-plot that incorporated the character's rather cheesy origin as a propaganda poster boy. And we don't talk about The Incredible Hulk because, ya know, Edward Norton. So naturally I wondered if The Avengers would have enough room for all its characters without becoming too bulky and awkward. And in the end I was blown away by how deftly the film handled it's rather tall order; each character's stories and journeys were given space to develop without getting in each other's way.

The cinematography even reflected this in places, specifically during combat scenes. There's a brilliant shot in the climactic battle scene where each of the heroes is fighting the oncoming Chitauri hordes in their own way: Hawkeye and Black Widow use precision marksmanship and martial arts, Thor calls down lightning with his hammer, Captain America's shield acts as both defensive and offensive weapon, Iron Man zips in and out of aerial combat, and Hulk of course just smashes the crap out of everything. It's a single shot that lasts for (what felt like) a few minutes, swooping in and around the heroes like a friggin' roller coaster. But it wasn't annoyingly jarring or out of focus; no Bourne-like shaky-cam in sight. It was high energy without being disorienting and distracting. It was just thrilling. And as much can be said for the rest of the film.

True to Whedon form, the film is also loaded with laughs. Not only is Tony Stark's (more like Tony Snark!) rapier wit in perfect form, there's a veritable treasure trove of one-liners and sight gags. In as much as this film is an action movie, it's a comedy. And from where I was sitting, that was a very good thing.

And what of the visual effects? We hardly hear anything about visual effects any more because we've all become so used to photorealistic CGI; I'll be the first to admit a measure of jadedness when it comes to visual effects these days. Despite that, The Avengers manages to be chock full of grade-A VFX and yet not burdened by them. I found myself truly impressed with the CGI in this film in a way I don't remember being impressed since first seeing Gollum on screen.

THE CONS:

Thankfully, there really isn't much I found to take issue with. Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark is my favorite character - and growing up Iron Man was one of my favorite superheroes. So there's a part of me that wanted more of him in the film. But the film is already pretty long at almost two and a half hours and giving Stark more screen time would have cut into the screen time of the other heroes, destroying the balance The Avengers maintained so well. So that one hardly counts as a con, really. Just a personal gripe. And a minor one at that.

THE VERDICT:

The Avengers is every bit deserving of the critical and financial praise its receiving. Cramming 6 superheroes (4 of whom have already carved out narrative territory for themselves in their own films) into one film and giving them enough room to be themselves without tripping over each other was a monumental task. But if there was one director who knew and loved these characters enough to do them justice individually and together it was Joss Whedon; and he's accomplished another monumental creative feat.

True, this movie is pure comic book fare. But that's exactly what it's supposed to be and it's a prime example of the fact that visual effects don't have to snuff out character development - cinematic spectacle and quality writing can still operate in harmony. And when they do, the result is a movie going experience as satisfying as The Avengers.

The Redbox Report - April 2, 2012

This past weekend I decided to make my relationship with Redbox official. We'd been playing it cool for awhile, making eye contact across the room and nodding amicably. But a few days ago I decided that I was done with the casual and confident, I was ready to take things up a notch, and it was well worth it.

I'm planning to make these "Redbox Reports" a bit more of a staple of my blog. Every few weeks, I'll binge on the latest DVD and Blu-Ray releases and then write up a comparatively (for this blog) brief review of each title. So here it is, Redbox Report Number One!

A DANGEROUS METHOD

David Cronenberg continues his professional fling with Viggo Mortensen (whom before he cast in Eastern Promises and A History of Violence, respectively) in his latest drama, A Dangerous Method. The film chronicles the relationships that laid the foundation for much of modern psychology. Those relationships, namely between Carl Jung (played by Michael Fassbender), Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and an initially disturbed young woman named Sebina Speilrein (Keira Knightley), form the foundation of a very tortuous narrative. Students of psychology and the psychoanalytic method will no doubt recognize all of the names mentioned above, and have their own opinions of whose discoveries and theories were the most valid. Cronenberg doesn't really bother with expressing an opinion about the work of his principle characters, but instead focuses on the relationships and the characters themselves. Compared to his previous work, it's a rather tame affair. He approaches familiar themes, but not exactly familiar imagery; it's certainly a departure from the work he's most known for like The Fly, Scanners, and Naked Lunch. The performances here leave little to be desired, though personally I had a hard time connecting with Keira Knightley's initial approach to her character's ailments. A Dangerous Method is a ponderous piece, but it's enjoyable nonetheless - if for no other reason than Viggo Mortensen's usual stunning performance.

YOUNG ADULT

Jason Reitman's career as a director is interesting to me because he doesn't choose flashy stories. His films always have a relatively uninspiring story on the surface - but from the moment they start there's something irresistible about his approach to these seemingly small stories. Such is the case with Young Adult, a film starring an impressively unlikeable Charlize Theron as Mavis Gary - an author who returns to her hometown with the intent to reclaim her old flame, Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson). The main hang up is that Buddy is married and has a kid, but that's not going to stop Mavis. Once she arrives in town, she reunites with one of the less-than-popular kids from her old high school, Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt). What sounds like the foundation for a screwball comedy replete with "wacky hijinks" turns out to be a really poignant dramedy about how easy it is to get lost in the pursuit of one's notion of "happiness." Charlize's performance is really profound because her character is so clearly distasteful. Her intentions are never ambiguous; she sets out to be a homewrecker. But despite that she manages to elicit a measure of sympathy from the audience that allows the story to be both entertaining and profound. It's a classic Jason Reitman piece, and Diablo Cody's script is also above her usual self-indulgent tendencies.

DRIVE

C'mon, it's Ryan Gosling. There's pretty much as good a reason as you'd need to pick this one up. But if that doesn't sell you, allow me to confirm that Drive is every bit deserving of the critical acclaim it's received. The film follows Gosling's unnamed character, a stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver. He's a somber character who rarely speaks and smiles even less, but it's Ryan Gosling - so there's an undeniable charm about his portrayal. The film itself weaves its narrative brilliantly, slowly escalating a sense of mounting tension and danger as it becomes clear that the driver may have gotten in over his head. But what sets this film apart from other crime dramas like it is how well the Driver handles himself. He's always cool, calm, and collected. You see that face he's making in the poster? That's about as worried as he ever looks. It's a real treat to watch a thriller where the lead is both so in control and so accessible - he's not your typical action film hero. But then again, Drive isn't your typical crime drama either. The narrative tension nurtured by some really precise camerawork and lighting is punctuated a few times by one or two scenes of incredibly graphic violence. But the violence, like everything else in the film, fits together with the other pieces and serves a specific purpose other than simply jarring the audience. Toss in a Brian Eno-inspired retro soundtrack and a wonderfully reserved performance from the lovely Carey Mulligan and you've got yourself an unparalleled exercise in breaking most of the rules for American action movies. Drive was an absolutely joy from start to finish.

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN

Picking up this title coincided with a recent interest I've developed in the enigmatic Marilyn Monroe. In the weeks prior to seeing this one I read a little bit about her life and watched a few interviews, in addition to seeing some of her filmography. I say that to say that doing so allowed me to truly appreciate Michelle Williams' performance not only as Marilyn Monroe, but as Marilyn Monroe acting as someone else. The film itself is based on the true story of Colin Clark's (Eddie Redmayne), well, "week with Marilyn," during the production of Laurence Olivier's (Kenneth Branagh) The Prince and the Showgirl. It's a wonderful window into old Hollywood and the landscape of the film industry shortly after vertical integration. It's also a factual and profound glimpse at the rather tumultuous life of the titular starlet, from what I gather in my reading. For me personally, the film was a great opportunity to vicariously experience the thrill of getting a job like third assistant director on set with figures as legendary as Monroe and Olivier; it's a fifties-fanboy-fantasy-flick. But it's also a marvelously written, superbly cast, and brilliantly acted film. To say nothing of the score, which is accented by sugar-sweet sentiment and hints of big band music. This is one of those movies that leaves you to dabble in your own bittersweet memories, but it does so with such tenderness. I wouldn't call My Week With Marilyn a tear-jerker per se, but it's definitely a lush emotional piece; I loved this film.

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

Seeing this film was a bit of a momentous occasion for me, because it marked the moment at which I had seen every film David Fincher has made up to this point in time. You can infer from that statement that I'm a fan of Fincher's work, so my expectations for this piece were very high and I'm glad to say the film exceeded them. I've not read the books, but I have seen the original film adaptations of Stieg Larsson's wildly popular Millienium trilogy and personally, I prefer Fincher's version. The story follows Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), an investigative journalist who's currently in hot water for an expose he wrote shortly before the film begins. He retreats temporarily to the countryside and becomes involved in an investigation of a missing girl from several decades ago. As he dives further into the sordid history of the family he's checking out, he eventually teams up with Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), the eponymous and enigmatic character. Slowly their two stories become interwoven as it becomes clear that there are ever darker secrets lurking behind the next discovery. In short, it's the perfect material for Fincher to adapt in his signature bleach-bypass manner. This version has two strengths over the original adaptations. First, Fincher manages to more clearly lay out the pieces of the narrative puzzle. Watching the initial adaptations, I always felt a few steps behind the characters and never fully caught up. Who's-who and what's-where and why just made more sense this go 'round. Secondly, I found Mara's performance as Salander much more accessible. Noomi Rapace's version of Salander was too standoffish and cold for my taste. Mara still plays the character appropriately - a brilliant combination of icy rage and muted fury - but she's ever so slightly more vulnerable. While many critics deride this as being unfaithful to the source material, I found it to be an incredible boost to the story overall. Everything about this version felt better to me; from the performances by every member of the cast, to Trent Reznor's and Atticus Ross's tortured score, to the opening credits sequence; it's somehow both organic and mechanical, feral yet calculating - just like Salander herself.

MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE

If you've heard anything about this movie, you've probably heard that it's Elizabeth Olsen's debut and that she's phenomenal and that's absolutely the case. Whatever talent was gifted to those siblings apparently went exclusively to Elizabeth, missing Mary-Kate and Ashley by a mile. *Insert joke about how it was probably due to their malnourished frames* The story itself revolves around a young woman named Martha (who is also called Marcy May and...well, I think you get the picture) who runs away from an abusive cult called the New Family. She takes refuge with her estranged sister and brother-in-law, but it becomes clear that her time with the cult, secluded in the Catskill Mountains, has left her emotionally and psychologically damaged. As Martha begins to succumb to paranoia, it becomes unclear just where the lines between reality and nightmare really are. Um, and then the movie ends. While Olsen's performance is truly electrifying, I found myself struck by just how ambiguous the whole film is. We never really find out why Martha joined the cult in the first place, though we get a clear message of just how damaging the whole experience was. And without giving anything away, the ending doesn't exactly resolve the many loose ends it introduced. It has a very episodic feel to it, as flashbacks slowly reveal just why Martha's behavior is so disturbing. As far as psychological thrillers go, it's not high on energy at all. It's a fairly slow piece with little to no action - though are a few moments of violence. It's well-crafted; the writing and acting are really superb. But this one is more of a head-scratcher than a nail-biter. But if that's what you're in the mood for, Martha Marcy May Marlene is an ominous thriller, sure to unnerve.

LIKE CRAZY

Young love has been the subject of more films than we could probably count, and rightfully so. It's a magical experience that's truly unlike anything else in life and Like Crazy does a magnificent job of capturing that magic on screen. The movies starts out with an old cliche as boy (Anton Yelchin) meets girl (Felicity Jones). Predictably, they fall in love. Not so predictably, there are some pretty difficult complications. She's from London and is only in Los Angeles - where the film opens - on a student visa. What follows is a tale that is, at times, kinda difficult to watch - as our principle characters wrestle with the struggles that come from maintaining a long-distance relationship. The entire movie is infused with a truly bittersweet tone, and if you've ever been in a long-distance relationship for any stretch of time you'll find a lot to relate to in this motion picture. A few things set this title apart from other comparable movies though. First, the film plays out *almost* like a music video. There are more montages than I initially thought healthy, but taken as a whole they actually strengthen the film rather than weigh it down. Secondly, the entire script was improvised. Now, in the hands of less than competent actors such a decision could yield less-than-savory results. The final product is anything but, and the conversations in the film feel natural and authentic. And finally, the film takes a hard look at life and doesn't flinch in outlining the difference between what it takes to fall in love and what it takes to make a relationship work. The film is supposedly based on the failed relationship of its writer/creator Drake Doremus and his ex-wife. So it's easy to draw a negative conclusion from the piece. Personally, I found it vaguely hopeful, but at times it's not easy to watch - and it's certainly not your typical romantic drama. The soundtrack is magnificent though, often sad and occasionally inspirational, and only adds one more reason to bring a box of tissues along for this one. And to its continuing credit, the film was shot on a budget of under $250,000 with a Canon EOS 7D DSLR camera. So it's safe to say that I really enjoyed this film...ya know, like crazy.

HUGO

Martin Scorsese isn't known for making heartfelt, feel-good movies. A master craftsman he is without a doubt, but when I heard he was directing a film more akin to Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium than, say, Goodfellas, I was admittedly skeptical. But true to the word of every major critic and friend of mine that recommended this film to me, Hugo is pure cinematic gold. Based on the book The Invention of Hugo Cabret, the film follows a young boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who lives in and maintains the clocks of a French train station in the 1920s. Orphaned after his father (Jude Law) perished in a disastrous museum fire, Hugo spends his days dodging the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) and his nights pilfering spare cogs and gears to repair a gift his father gave him: an automaton - a windup mechanical man. With the help of a new friend Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), Hugo embarks on the adventure that is the majority of the film. Forgive me such narrative shorthand, but I don't want to spoil anything about this movie other than it's a must-see. Hugo is a movie-lover's movie. Not only is it chock full of the kinds of memorable moments and characters that make a movie just plain ol' fun to watch, but the story also interweaves with the beginnings of cinema. Moments from Voyage to the Moon, The Great Train Robbery, the Lumiere brothers actualités and many other early cinematic works populate the film. I won't explain exactly why, because that's part of the mystery and adventure the film explores. But trust me, Hugo is feel-good cinema at its absolute finest. There's a reason this movie was so well critically and commercially received: it's pure magic.

Well, that does it for this first edition of The Redbox Report. Stay tuned for more updates!

Meshuggah - "Koloss"

I review a lot of metal albums on this blog, and as an attempt to further educate those few readers who manage to discover it I like to provide a little context on bands and genres as is necessary. If you've read any of the previous album reviews you'll likely have picked up on a recurring theme: metalheads are finicky. Arguably one of the most vitriolic fan bases, metalheads go after one another and one another's favorite bands like it actually matters. I can't tell you how many times I've heard or read someone say "Fill-in-the-blank is amazing, fill-in-this-other-blank is pathetic." The language used is often much more colorful, but the message is always the same: "Because of the bands I listen to, I'm better/more metal/more hardcore/more legit than you because of the bands you listen to." Don't get me wrong, plenty of bands out there claim "metal" as their genre label and are just objectively piss-poor examples. As often as not, these claims are based purely on the tastes of the listener. But if there's one subgenre debate that will stop just short of starting a war, it's djent.

Did you hear that? That was the sound of blood in the water...ok bad analogy. But go to literally any YouTube video from TesseracT, Animals as Leaders, Vildhjartha, Periphery, or any other band that might be called "djent" and you'll find yourself stepping into a war zone. Djent is a word that emerged to describe the metal subgenre almost exclusively pioneered by Meshuggah. "Djent" itself is onomatopoeia, meant to articulate the particular sound of rhythmic palm-muting on an electric guitar that defines a good portion of the music to come out of that tradition. But because everything that is "djent" started with Meshuggah back as early as the 90s, metal kids get all butt-hurt if a band who took cues from Meshuggah is hailed by fans and critics alike.

But independent of all that, Meshuggah is still alive and well - continuing to nuance and explore the genre they defined. And whether you're admittedly a "djentleman" or cringe every time someone uses "djent" for portmanteau and pun - there's no denying that Meshuggah is still at the top of the heap. Their latest, "Koloss", is a perfect example of why.

THE PROS:

Much like the title implies, "Koloss" has an incredibly massive feel to it musically. Every song seems to emanate sonic size and gargantuan imagery. The album explodes onto the listener's ears with the force of a giant's angry fist on the opening track "I Am Colossus." Yes. Yes, you are track #1. Immediately following the opening, "The Demon's Name Is Surveillance" cuts to the quick with a riff that's frenetic and determined, reminiscent of "Bleed" from 2008's ObZen.

The album's first major single, "Break These Bones Whose Sinews Gave it Motion" exists somewhere between a flashback to "Spasm" from 2002's Nothing and something completely new. The guitars lumber along like massive beasts, chugging with a controlled ferocity in the key of (what sounds like) drop Z - all the while a wailing high note underscoring the crushing echo.

There's so much here that's just...classic Meshuggah. And I mean that in the best way imaginable. Elements of their entire discography appear in "Koloss," but each time more refined and matured. It's hard to imagine that a band that has been around as long as Meshuggah could still find room to mature musically, but "Koloss" is testament to the fact that with the right instrumentalists it's not only possible but preferable.


If you're a fan of Meshuggah then you've got to enjoy polyrhythms, because the band barely writes anything but polymetric/polyrhythmic music. Another delight I found in "Koloss" was that the intricacy of the time signatures was still very present, but somehow more accessible. Maybe I've just listened to so much of their stuff my brain is getting used to layering multiple time signatures at once. I doubt it though, because the majority of 2005's "Catch Thirty-Three" still throws me for a loop. But with "Koloss" somehow they've managed to refine and streamline their musical process and the result is both stimulating and profound.

And, to top it all off, the album is almost an hour long! You've heard me bemoan short album lengths ad nauseum, and it thrills me to not revisit that complaint for this review.

THE CONS:

One or two of the songs feel a little lost to me. The closing track, "The Last Vigil" is ominous and soundscape-y but not particularly compelling. Similarly "Behind the Sun" feels like a bit of a filler track. I don't know if Meshuggah is even capable of knowingly writing a "filler" song in the first place, so I'm not accusing them of padding their material. I just didn't find those two tracks to be nearly as great a pleasure as the rest of the album. And fortunately, it's a small complaint such as it is.

THE VERDICT:

Meshuggah isn't a band that has to overdo things. 4 years passed between their previous release and this one, and before that the gap was only slightly smaller. They're a band that takes their work seriously, and have every reason to. "Koloss" is proof that dedication to one's craft can still yield new fruits, even when confined to a limited medium. Meshuggah's definition of djent and progressive metal hasn't changed a great deal in recent memory; albums released over 10 years ago still bear a great deal of similarity to "Koloss." That's part of what makes Meshuggah such an incredible band; they've carved out their musical territory a long time ago, and they've spent most of their life perfecting it and making it their own in a way that few other artists can ever claim to.

It's hard to say this album is heavier or darker than previous releases, but it does pack quite a significant punch. And whether you hate Periphery for being lumped in with a band as seminal as Meshuggah, it's hard to say that any band's existence diminishes Meshuggah's accomplishments.

The band is simply in a league of their own, and "Koloss" is an album in a league of its own as well. Progressive metal, djent, avant-garde metal, polyrhythms; if any of those are things you enjoy, pick up "Koloss" as soon as you can.

It's pure Meshuggah.

The Hunger Games

It's finally here, ladies and gentlemen. All the tweeting and status updates indicating Biblical proportions of excitement and anticipation can finally be replaced by tweets and status updates indicating Biblical proportions of satisfaction and eagerness for the other two films in the trilogy. It's only Friday, but in all likelihood The Hunger Games will top box office records for a brief period - or maybe longer. Its Rotten Tomatoes score is holding steady in the high 80's, and the overwhelming critical reaction has been largely positive - with good reason.

Set in a dystopian world, The Hunger Games follows 16 year old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to take her sister's place in an annual competition. Well, *competition* might be putting it lightly. Each year, the 12 districts of Panem (the post-apocalyptic North American nation in which the film is set) each send one male and one female between the ages of 12 - 18 to compete in a nationally televised battle to the death. It's like a dystopian Superbowl...except everyone has to watch it and there are no viral commercials. Katniss goes to The Capitol - the technologically advanced seat of power in Panem - and is put through 2 weeks of training and advertisement in an attempt to gain sponsors to help her odds in the Games. Meanwhile, the other 23 contestants are all doing the same thing; including Peeta, (Josh Hutcherson) the other contestant chosen from Katniss' district. What follows is a game of wits, survivalism, shaky camera work, and social commentary.

Here's my two-bits worth on the whole affair.

THE PROS:

The first major point this film scores for me is on some of the casting. There are a myriad of familiar faces from Woody Harrelson (who plays the two protagonists' mentor, Haymitch) to Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, and Lenny Kravitz. I'm personally a huge fan of Harrelson and Tucci, but even they are outshined by the stellar performance at the core of this film, courtesy of Jennifer Lawrence. She's proven she's got the chops for confident performances in Winter's Bone and The Beaver, and here she adds another notch in her belt. She exudes the kind of steely reserve that forms the foundation of her character, but she also manages to work in moments of vulnerability that I found truly moving. This movie could have completely faltered had her performance been even a little hesitant, but she jumps right in with everything she's got and the film is all the stronger for it.

As much can be said of Hutcherson, her co-star, who proves he's got what it takes to make it in the Hollywood big leagues...ya know, once he's outgrown the teen heartthrob phase. He and Lawrence both have some pretty solid onscreen chemistry and as much it broke my heart to admit it, I found myself enjoying their screen time more than the Oscar-winning/nominated performers around them.

The art direction of the film is also magnificent, particularly the costume design. The Panem districts largely wallow in a kind of pre-1900s limbo when it comes to housing and clothing design - almost like something out of a western film. The Capitol on the other hand is filled to the brim with a very retro-futurism; people wearing bright colors with extravagant hair, head-dress, and makeup.

Having not read the books, I can't really comment on how well the film stacks up. What I've been told by those who've read the book is that while invariably "the book is better," The Hunger Games does a good job of staying largely true to the source material. And speaking as someone who hadn't read the books, I can attest to the fact that the film does a great job of "filling in" those unknowing members of the audience. And it does so without dragging in exposition, as well.

THE CONS:

Remember the Bourne movies? Well, more specifically, remember how dizzy you felt coming out of those movies? All the shaky camerawork made for some frenetic action scenes and high-adrenaline cinematography, but it definitely took its toll. The first thing you'll likely notice about The Hunger Games is that apparently no one on set believed in dollies, cranes, jibs or steadicams. Almost every minute of the movie is shot with a handheld camera - or made to look so. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. But couple that with a LOT of extreme closeups and it makes for a difficult viewing experience. To top it off, there are times when it looks as though the camera is *deliberately* being shaken to "emphasize" the action. But instead of drawing the audience in further, the effect alienates because it's damn near impossible to even see what's going on amidst the motion blurs. I felt as though I only saw about half of the actual movie because so much of it was made so deliberately shaky. Perhaps that was intentional - to convey the chaos to the audience in a palpable way. If that was the aim, the film *still* misses the mark because it's too disheveled to even experience the violence and chaos viscerally; it's just annoying.

I've got nothing against Lenny Kravitz as a musician - but he's not cut out for acting, not yet anyway. His role is fortunately rather small, but the guy needs some pretty serious acting lessons. Similarly Woody Harrelson - whom I normally find to be almost always on the money - turns in one of the lesser performances of his career. It's not abysmal, but to watch him you'd never know the man had been nominated for multiple Oscars.

THE VERDICT:

Maybe this is a sign that I'm beginning to reach an age where there's a distinct gap between me and the next generation, but I'm a little puzzled as to what all the fuss is about here - ignoring the fact that the first book/movie in this trilogy is essentially Battle Royale. It's not a bad movie, by any stretch of the imagination, but the entire time watching it I was struck by a general lack of gripping enjoyment. I did enjoy myself, and maybe I just allowed myself to get caught up in all the hype because - let's face it - if you know what the internet is, you've probably seen more references to The Hunger Games than food, sleep, or even friend-drama.

Maybe I just heard "It's so good." too many times and as a result nothing could have possibly met the expectations that were arbitrarily set for this film by those around me. I can see its merits, I can see why the young adult crowd really ate up the books and are eating up this film. But I think that's part of why I'm unable to really connect with the material: because it's geared to teens and pre-teens there's a lot of "sanitation" the story has to undergo. The almost unbearable sexual tension between the two leads never really gets resolved, the violence has to be cleaned up and made less "in-your-face," and they'll be damned if the film doesn't unnecessarily cut back to Gale (the third point of an emerging love triangle amongst Katniss, Peeta, and the aforementioned) every few minutes to remind the high school girls in the audience that we're barreling towards another "Team Jacob/Team Edward" clash for the sake of merchandising.

Maybe if I had read the books when they came out, or if I were a few years younger (or both), I might have had a higher opinion of The Hunger Games. The movie is undeniably entertaining for the most part, and I think Jennifer Lawrence is definitely well on her way to becoming a familiar face in the nominee pool during awards season. That aside, I can't say I'm in any rush to see the next two movies - though I'm sure I will when they come out. If you loved the books, are looking forward to the movie, or what have you - don't let this review sour your expectations because you're probably among the majority who are making this movie the blockbuster it apparently is. And more power to you; this one just wasn't my cup of tea.

Apparently, the odds were never in my favor.

Impending Doom - "Baptized in Filth"

First came hardcore. Then came metalcore. Then came deathcore.

Whether you like it or not, a good deal of American metal traces its roots to the hardcore punk movement and the music that evolved from that scene. So as a new subgenre tends to emerge every decade or so, they're usually some derivative of hardcore meets fill-in-the-blank meets fill-in-the-blank ad infinitum. The result is that most purely American subgenres of heavy metal have that "-core" tagged on somewhere. Plenty of metalheads feel it necessary to eschew anything-core, but I've never personally had much issue with it or what it entails. I like a good breakdown. Sue me.

Impending Doom is a band with a unique journey. They're one of the few outspokenly Christian deathcore bands, and one of the few that makes deathcore still worth listening to. Their 4th full length release: "Baptized in Filth" is no exception.

THE PROS:

Longtime fans of Impending Doom know that they didn't exactly start out as a strictly deathcore band. Their debut "Nailed. Dead. Risen." was definitely a lot more "gore" than "core." That album featured a good deal of grind elements and just straight-laced death metal, but the beginnings of their "core" tendencies were still vaguely discernible. As they've progressed, they've become a more "core" type of band; more breakdowns, more lyrical enunciation, more machismo. Plenty of listeners resent this trend but I'm personally a big fan of how deftly the band has handled the transition. What was a bit more amorphous on previous releases "There Will Be Violence" and "The Serpent Servant" is now matured and confident.

The opening track "Murderer" is a prime example. There's some marvelous interplay between low-end growls and high-pitched screaming, and the band nuances tremolo picking and a little groove metal to masterful effect. "Chaos: Reborn" thunders along with a relentless aggression, more dependent on the combination of double-bass and downtuned chugging guitars than blast beats and intricate leads. "Absolute Horror" follows the same logic...opening with some ominous soundscapes before a controlled but heavy handed musical assault. It's nothing groundbreaking, but it's the-bread-and-butter of deathcore in the best way possible.

THE CONS:

I've said it before, I'll say it again - this one is too short. At just over 34 minutes this album barely exceeds the space of your average sitcom, and consequently just feels too short. Is it just me or is the average CD-length getting shorter???

Demon Hunter vocalist and frontman Ryan Clark hops in for a guest spot on "My Light Unseen," providing the most clean vocals on any Impending Doom song to date...that I can think of. It's not a terrible track, but it feels very much like a Demon Hunter track (and one of *their* comparatively laid back tracks to boot) stuck in the midst of an Impending Doom album. In my estimation, "Baptized in Filth" feels all the shorter for it. I don't mind clean vocals and singing at all...but on this track specifically it feels like the band is the "guest" and Ryan Clark is the lead, which I wasn't thrilled about. No offense, Ryan.

THE VERDICT:

It may be too short to just go nuts over, but "Baptized in Filth" is still a solid score for Impending Doom. Their evolutionary process has been largely rewarding for me as a listener, slowly but surely going "less gore, more core" over the course of their 4-title discography.

Not every song on this album is a home run, but there's more than enough to keep the average headbanger happily occupied for half an hour. I greatly enjoyed "The Serpent Servant" and "There Will Be Violence," but of Impending Doom's releases, this album is definitely my favorite.

If you like deathcore, but maybe aren't in love with the more anti-social imagery of bands like Suicide Silence or Whitechapel, then "Baptized in Filth" is right up your alley.